I apologize in advance for the wall of text, but I just stumbled upon this site and I want to make the most of such a powerful resource, so I have a ton of questions to ask.
I am an amateur writer, and my current project is fantasy-inspired, but only loosely. Definitely not Middle-earth, with the elves and the trolls and the wizards – think Arthurian England and you're closer to the mark. It’s not historical fiction, since it takes place in a totally original world, but I would still like to draw on historical precedent in order to lend it an air of credibility. I hate reading a novel in which the stone-jawed, taciturn hero rescues the buxom damsel by fighting off hordes of minions singlehandedly, chopping clean through their plate armor with his sword – my suspension of disbelief reaches a breaking point.
Since I have no legitimate experience in Western martial arts myself, I defer to this community, which appears to be the most knowledgeable I have found. I have a list of questions – and the list is huge, because they're questions that I've scribbled down over a long period, compiled here so I can ask them all at once. I certainly don't expect anyone to answer all of them, but if you the reader have sufficient knowledge to offer even a speculative opinion on one or two, you would be immensely helpful.
Again, my project is a mix of fantasy and reality – I don't claim to be writing a historical novel, but rather a sort of pseudo-fantasy that relies on real-world precedent in arms, armor, and fighting technique to make it more authentic.
You’ll see that the questions are organized into rough categories. If any of the questions need to be clarified, feel free to say so.
Well, I don't have as much practical experience as some folks here, but I do know quite a bit about the history of these kinds of things, even if I can't necessarily do them very well as of yet. I'll do my best to answer your questions
Weapons
1. Is it important important for a weapon to be custom built for an individual? Would arms be forged to account for the prospective bearer's preference in weight, length, balance, etc? (To use an analogy: professional baseball players all use the same kind of bat, but the length, weight, shape, and even species of wood will vary from player to player according to preference.)
This isn't exactly yes nor is it exactly no - if you are having a sword made for you in the first place, chances are you would be ordering a piece fitted to your person (swords, historically, were out of the price range of 90% of the population, and only maybe 5%, the nobles [the other 5% being the clergy], would want to buy them anyway); chances are if you had the money for the sword, you'd have the money for a custom fitted one. That being said, we're perfectly able to get on with swords that are not custom made for us from modern manufacturers, so while a custom fit would be NICE, it's hardly necessary.
Another thing to keep in mind is after a few battles, swords tended to be "used up" unless the smith that forged them knew how to make significantly harder steel than the other smiths of his time - they'd develop sawtoothed edges from hitting all manner of armor and weapons improperly in the heat of battle and eventually have to be "thrown out", whether that means reforging them or simply melting them to scrap and starting over.
2. I realize that there is no clear historical precedent for two-weapon fighting with anything bigger than a sword and dagger, but, based on modern research and experimentation, is that style at all feasible under any circumstances? How effective can it be?
As mentioned, there is a precedent for using two rapiers, but that being said, it's generally held that using two full sized weapons like that is not very effective, even if you're ambidextrous to begin with. Far better to use two hands on one weapon, or put a shield/dagger/cloth in your off hand (or if not that, use it defensively or keep it well clear depending on if you're facing a thrusting or cutting weapon).
3. How did a given style fare against other styles? That is to say, would a man fighting with an arming sword and heater have been at an inherent disadvantage against a man with a longsword? or a man with a polearm?
It'd be about as big a disadvantage as you'd think it is to use a shorter weapon against a polearm. Very hard to close, but if you do manage it you pretty much win. The sword and shield tends to be better than the two handed sword assuming both parties are unarmored (which would NOT be the case - the reason you use a two handed weapon any shorter than a spear is specifically because you can rely on your armor to protect you without a shield!)
4. What weapons would a knight typically carry? Would he carry a sword but also a mace, for example, so that he is more versatile when he faces differently armored opponents? Would he always carry a dagger, either for general utility or to finish a downed opponent? (Obviously “knight” can mean any of a hundred diverse warriors from different eras and locations – but is there a general answer, however vague?)
Knights tended against carrying the "peasant weapons". The flail, mace, morning star, axe.... very few knights would carry these as they were "below their station". We do occasionally read of a knight with a mace (many warrior monks come to mind, for instance), but by far their three primary weapons were the same weapons they ended up using in the tournament - the spear (eventually in the form of the lance), the sword, and the dagger.
Armor
5. If plate armor is technologically available and, for a given person, financially affordable, would the person have any reason to not use it?
Requiring to be light for cross country marches or in hazardous terrain, perhaps, and foregoing some pieces for specific mobility (many knights are depicted without gauntlets of any kind, probably for handling their weapons better). If you were just expecting to be riding into battle on a warhorse, or to be marching into battle in a big, grassy open field during the daytime in a temperate region, there would be very little reason to forego the majority of plate armor. Things like agincourt (knee deep mud), the crusades (blistering heat), or things like that could deter use of plate armor, but generally speaking you are MUCH better off in it than not.
6. If a man has access to full plate armor, is a shield obsolete? If so, what is the heaviest armor a man could wear that would still allow a shield to be viable and useful?
The general concept behind plate armor is wearing the shield on your body so it frees your other hand to put on your weapon, as I mentioned earlier. This lets a man fight on foot effectively protected while using a spear, or to use the two handed sword such as the longsword or greatsword while not having to worry so much about being an arrow pincushion without his trusty shield.
Shields tended to be phased out after the age of maille (around the time people began to wear half-plate, like a breastplate and a helmet with a mail hauberk and half-greaves), so with a little plate here and there shields may still be common. Before plate became popular outside of helmets shields were still VERY common (like around the battle of Hastings, the saxons with their shield wall).
7. Would it make sense for someone to prefer lighter armor and a shield rather than heavier armor and a two-handed weapon, or is the latter option so clearly superior it would be senseless to choose otherwise?
It wouldn't be senseless to do so, but it'd be considered a bit odd historically, assuming this person is bound for war and not a street brawl.
8. Would a man in plate armor be able to use his armor as a shield? That is, would he feel comfortable missing a parry, intentionally or otherwise, because he is confident that the opponent's weapon cannot damage his armor?
Depends on the weapon. Warhammers could often puncture plate with a good blow, and so missing a parry could be fatal, while most swords could not even under the most ideal conditions puncture a helmet or breastplate and so there would be little worry about simply dropping one's weapon and running in to grapple the person if they wanted.
It's a joke I often make that in a fight between a 15th century samurai and a 15th century knight in plate armor that the knight could simply fisticuff the samurai to death, assuming both were initially only armed with their iconic period swords because of how ineffective a cutting blade would be against plate armor.
9. Is plate armor comfortable to wear over a long period of time, assuming that the wearer is not exerting himself? Or would he don his armor only immediately before he expects combat and then undress immediately after it's ended? What about mail and other lighter armor?
Firstly, maille is actually often about as heavy as plate armor is (the density of the rings is pretty extreme in order to be effective - a maille shirt is often about 25 pounds, near to the weight of a fairly thick breastplate and backplate). That being said, there are accounts of it being both ways. People would often wear the armor for eight hour stretches or more, and having trained in it for their whole lives I'm sure they wouldn't mind that badly having to wear it outside of battle. In fact, in the Roman era, chainmail was often kept clean by marching in it (it would self scrub clean of rust from the movement). I'm not exactly sure what the trend was, but I'm sure you could do it either way and it'd be fairly realistic.
10. What role does fitness play? How long can a man in plate or mail armor fight before he becomes winded, assuming he is well trained and well conditioned?
Running may be a bit awkward depending on how well fitted the plate is, but a good rule of thumb is that you can do in plate armor what you can do with a 50 pound backpack, properly supported by straps, and possibly even more than that given how well distributed the weight of the plate harness is. People can do cartwheels and pushups in plate armor no problem, I've even heard of people swimming in it (though I wouldn't trust myself quite that far, no matter how much I enjoy swimming, nor would I enjoy cleaning the armor after I was done!)
Basically, you can go for a long, long time in plate armor. Look at Army rucksack marches - 9 miles of fun with a 50+ pound rucksack. They manage just fine, I'm sure the professional warriors of the old days could manage the same run with the same weight even if it is a little bit awkward.
11. Could a man armor himself without assistance, even if it would take much longer than doing so with an aide?
Generally it is possible, though getting some pieces on (such as the backplate) might be a bit difficult. Assistance makes it a LOT faster and a LOT easier, hence why knights liked having squires around. While we're on the subject, people who wear plate armor also don't suffer from "Help! I've fallen and I cannot get up!" like popular myth would have us believe.
12. What is the best offense against plate armor: a polearm or some other weapon with reach; a blunt impact weapon; a pointed sword to thrust at armor gaps; or any weapon that allows you to knock your opponent down so that he can be grappled and killed? (Or some other option entirely?)
Many people would argue about what is "best". With that in mind, any weapon that can pierce the armor (warhammer/maybe spear/poleaxe of some kind), bludgeon the user into submission, or exploit vulnerable positions in the armor (dagger/swordpoint/spearpoint et c.) will be effective. If you have a man pinned, just about any weapon will do regardless of armor.
13. How easy is it to grapple or knock a man in plate armor to the ground so as to finish him off more easily (e.g., with a dagger)?
In fact we have a video of that!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnqOMbFD ... playnext=3
Looks... pretty difficult! :p
14. Would it ever be wise to go without a helmet so as to afford better breathing, heat dispersal, and sensory faculties at the expense of exposing your head?
This was down to individual preference. Men often fought without a visor, though without the helmet entirely would probably have been unwise (would have presented too large and juicy a target for the other guy to just swing at like a maniac and hope to get lucky if nothing else).
Shields
15. First, is there an Internet source for a good overview of sword-and-shield combat? It seems most articles I’ve found deal with sword and buckler, while I’m more interested in arming swords and round, kite, or heater shields.
I've unfortunately no knowledge of larger shield, such as heater shield, being properly documented. Most work into the area revolves around reinterpretation of duelling shield (as big as a person) and buckler (as big as a fist or slightly larger as you know) to more appropriately fit the traditional middle sized shield of the maille era.
Maybe others do, not sure.
16. Did all shields feature a guige? How was the guige used? I understand that it allowed a person to carry his shield outside of combat, but how was it used during combat? It seems unwieldy and awkward for a leather strap to be hanging unsecured during the heat of battle.
No idea.
17. If a man has access to any shield style – heater, kite, round, buckler, etc. – would one style offer a clear and definite advantage over all others, or would his choice be largely a matter of preference?
Likely preference, much as was whether you rimmed your shield or not. (A metal rim prevents decay of the shield, but no metal rim means that enemy weapons will bite into your shield, allowing you to rip them away or delay their actions as they remove their weapon giving you an opening to strike).
General Combat
18. Is there a method of combat that is non-lethal? For example, I imagine that the melee at a medieval tournament would be non-lethal (though probably very brutal and ugly). If so, how is the winner of a match determined – is it as simple as knocking the other guy out cold? How frequent were accidental deaths?
I'm honestly not sure about this, either. The wrestling was generally nonlethal, obviously (much harder to kill with hands than with weapons, hence the invention of weapons), and I suppose that tournaments would often end after a set number of blows (much like arranged combats of other types) or once one man was pinned to ground (obviously he would have lost, being able to be dispatched easily with a dagger).
19. What would group combat look like? Not in the sense of two massive armies clashing, but rather a group of maybe five to ten elite fighters facing a force of similar size and skill. What tactics would each sides use? What sort of arms and armor would the participants bear? I’ve read all about combat between armies of grunts, and all about single combat between two knights, but I don’t know if there is a historical model for combat between two small groups like this, so I guess the answer would be mostly speculative.
Probably not unlike your typical street brawl today, except with more skilled combatants, but otherwise I'm at a loss for this one.
20. How long might a typical single or small-group combat (as in #19) last? Does one guy smack the other guy with a sword and it’s all over, or is it a more drawn-out affair?
Depends on skill, armor, and luck. Completely unarmored fights could often last several minutes as each side was apprehensive about their own safety and tentative to engage while others could just be as short as both drawing swords, instantly cutting, and one guy winning. Really depends.
21. For a knight/warrior/whatever, what is the relative value of strength, size, and other brute power compared to skill, agility, battle savvy, vision of the field, etc?
As much as it is today in any fight. Strength is, frankly, important. It lets you do things that other people cannot do, and some techniques even explicitly call for you to be stronger than your opponent (I believe there is one in Ringeck that mentions if you are stronger at the sword than your opponent appreciably then you can simply just blow through your opponent's guard and kill him).
22. Could an individual’s fighting style be so distinctive that he could be identified even in the absence of other signals? Imagine that his armor completely disguises his features and build, and that he doesn’t bear a coat of arms.
Generally I'd say no, unless he has built a large reputation for himself, and that would probably be "wow this guy is really damn good! He must be X!" rather than "wow, it's the dragon twister strike (or other "distinct move" of the author's choosing :p), it must be X!"
23. What is the incidence of ambidexterity? With enough practice, could it be self-taught? Would a fighter meeting an opponent who is ambidextrous or left-handed be at a disadvantage, since he is more familiar with attacks by a right-handed opponent?
Speaking as somebody whose primary training partner is left handed, I can say that both parties will be a lot less safe (the left handed one probably more so because he's trained against right handed people, but not many people have trained against left handed people). That being said, back then, left handedness was even less incident than it is today, and ambidexterity was probably just as nearly unheard of as it is today (though the fighting man may be close to this, having trained both of his hands to war, as it were).
24. Imagine a very talented, well trained knight clad in plate armor and wielding a longsword or other effective weapon: how many "lesser" opponents - poorly trained, poorly armored, etc - might he be able to handle at once? What method might he use to improve his chances? At some point, does it just become a matter of mobbing him and wrestling him to the ground, no matter how well-armored he is?
You've pretty much got that right. Without some kind of mobility or terrain advantage (they're fighting in a grassy field, for instance) the armored man would basically have to keep giving ground in an attempt to keep his opponents in front of him, and keep killing them in an attempt to cow them off of attacking him, otherwise he will tire quicker than the group (being more than 1 person they can always rotate out who is fighting) and eventually be overwhelmed. This matter, as you've so clearly demonstrated, can probably be left down to common judgment.
