On the battlefield different than one on one?

[RayMcCullough]

Something I have been thinking about lately and had discussions with folks about.

1. Will what you do on the battlefield be different than the things you allready have learned from the masters?
2. Mutiple opponents fighitng different than what you have learned?
3.Why dont' we see group tactics?

My answers;

1. No. You will be limited by the press of the group and by staying together, but what you will do will not be anything different. Just less of the techniques that you already know from the masters.

2. No, You have to be prepared to move around more and you have to make sure that only one of the attackers can get to you at a time, but what you do will not be different than what you already know.(On a side note this would still be true of combat today with firearms.)

3. Look to answers 1 and 2. Group tactics would not change what the masters have taught you(personal combat). The masters of defense didn't usually deal with Group tactics for some reason.

Does this make sense? Comments, questions, your answers....

[Frederico Martins]

I don't know much about battle formations, but I have to disagree with you on fencing multiple opponents in general. I think there are significant differences, that if you don't practice them, when you are in that situations you will not be ready for it.

When you are surrounded for example, even striking should be slightly different. You have to sweep the opponents weapons and not get stuck for example.
But the most important is awareness of the surrounding and reacting in all directions, one on one fighting is unidirectional, it is a big step from that to being surrounded.

Figueiredo and Godinho deal alot with fighting multiple opponents in variouse situations if it was the same thing they wouldn't lose time wrighting dozens of rules about it.

One thing i notice too is that, when practicing against multiple opponents, you should also teach the group how to behave/move, or else you can start imagining it is possible to put everyone in line and kill them one by one.

But I think your point is that it should not be significantly technically different from one on one technique. I do n0t think it is all that different technically, but I think it is significantly different for you to need to practice it specifically, if you want to have a chance of on a naturally disadvantageous situation.

[RayMcCullough]

I don't know much about battle formations, but I have to disagree with you on fencing multiple opponents in general. I think there are significant differences, that if you don't practice them, when you are in that situations you will not be ready for it.

When you are surrounded for example, even striking should be slightly different. You have to sweep the opponents weapons and not get stuck for example.
But the most important is awareness of the surrounding and reacting in all directions, one on one fighting is unidirectional, it is a big step from that to being surrounded.

Figueiredo and Godinho deal alot with fighting multiple opponents in variouse situations if it was the same thing they wouldn't lose time wrighting dozens of rules about it.

But I think your point is that it should not be significantly technically different from one on one technique. I do n0t think it is all that different technically, but I think it is significantly different for you to need to practice it specifically, if you want to have a chance of on a naturally disadvantageous situation.

Practicing multiple opponents I should have said was a given, but would your practice of multiple opponents be different than what you have learned from the masters already in personal combat?
Why is your striking different? It is not good to get your strike stuck in a one on one situation.
Awareness of the surrounding and reacting in all directions is something the masters tell you in personal combat.
Are Figueiredo and Godinho trying to preserve a weapon that was out of major use?
Why would hundreds of masters choose not to go into details of multiple opponents and battlefield tactics? Did they already cover what you need to know? I think so. They for sure understood what to do in these situations.

But how is it significantly different? Are you learning different concepts, fundamentals, and principles? Are you applying these things with different techniques?
I wouldn't and have not when practicing group tactics and multiple opponents.

Did Figueiredo and Godinho teach anything different( concepts, fundamentals, and principles) between one on one and multiple opponents, or did they teach the same thing throughout their books as rules for the montante?

[Frederico Martins]

The principles are not comparable, the goals are different, situation is different, but of course you are striking and stepping.

So, you should neglect authors that deal with that specific topic, because you already know it, from authors that didn't?

[RayMcCullough]

The principles are not comparable, the goals are different, situation is different, but of course you are striking and stepping.

So, you should neglect authors that deal with that specific topic, because you already know it, from authors that didn't?

Why are the principles not comparable?

Why would the concepts, fundamentals, and principles of "the Art"(Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe) change if the situation is different? The goals are the same. Self defense.

"So, you should neglect authors that deal with that specific topic, because you already know it, from authors that didn't?"

No. Did they teach a different "art"?

Did Figueiredo and Godinho teach anything different( concepts, fundamentals, and principles) between one on one and multiple opponents, or did they teach the same thing throughout their books as rules for the montante?

I don't think they did.
Fugueiredo says so in the first paragraph of his closing.

http://oakeshott.org/Figueiredo_Montant ... d_Hick.pdf

[Doug Marnick]

Years ago I posted a similar topic. Search technique on the battlefield or just my name as author. I also had a thread on how one enters into battle (walking vs running). Some of the replies may be of value to this discussion. Be well.

[Frederico Martins]

Ray, I don't know how to explain better, that these are different situations that require different approach.

of course the goal is self defense, but so was USA using the bomb on japan, i'm talking about more specific stuff, of course.

when you are facing your opponent your goal is much more clear to kill and not get kill, find an opening in your opponent, etc.. in multiple opponents, that should not be the main goal, but the main goal should be to survive, manage space around you and place yourself in a more favorable position to preferably find an exit.

Figueiredo, only uses deflection in the only one on one montante against montante rule. in all other he doesn't, just strikes.

Godinho, on 2 swords and on the montante, that deal almost all with multiple opponents, never tells you to parry or deflect. but in all his other weapons he does, on one on one combat.he also says you can use other weapons on multiple opponents, but he mostly stresses that in the montante and 2 sword, my guess is that those are the weapons that give you more advantage in this situations.

Godinho goes as far as to say that when a montante faces another, you should not strike but mostly thrust. Probably because it is a big ass weapon, and thrusts are quicker, with other weapons he tells you more normal technique, parries counter etc...

again, there is a clearly different approach, the goals are very different, and you have things specific to multiple opponents that dont apply and that you don't learn in one on one combat. It is a different SKILL, as being part of the same art, I think so, that is how I see it too.

Luis Preto wrote a book just on Combat in outnumbered scenarios, from the traditional long 2 handed weapons to the modern single handed baton ( http://www.amazon.com/Combat-outnumbere ... 463788614/ ) he explains the basics of combat in outnumbered scenrarios much more than I could here, or godinho or figueredo do, but if you already neglect the historical authors I would guess even more the modern ones, specially if based on traditional art.

[Anthony R. Camacho]

1. Will what you do on the battlefield be different than the things you already have learned from the masters?; and 2. Multiple opponents fighting different than what you have learned?

My Answer to both questions: You will have to apply basic sword techniques to battlefield situations. Practicing for battle simply means that you will practice the techniques you will most likely use on the battlefield.

To understand what techniques are most useful on the battlefield, you must go beyond the master’s text and study first-hand accounts of medieval battles. From what I have studied of medieval battles (I have a B.A. in History from Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri) in the 14th and 15th centuries (1300-1499), they are usually decided during the Melee, which is period of the battle in which the soldiers engage in fierce hand-to-hand fighting. Further, I believe it is fighting in the Melee that most applies to what you are discussing. Here are some good first-hand accounts of the Melee during this period:

There was such a din of blows, such as weapons landing on armor, such a great breaking of spears, such pressure and such pushing, such snarling and groaning, so much noise as they struck the others, and shouted rallying cries on both sides, giving and receiving great wounds, that it was horrible to bear. From The Bruce, ed. A.A.M. Duncan, as quoted in Michael Prestwich’s Knight, the Medieval Warrior’s Unofficial Manual, 168

Breaking spears and armor biting against each other produced such a great clatter and bang, and the clang of swords resounded so loudly, as if some huge rock had collapsed, that even those who were several miles away could hear it. Then knight attacked knight, armor crushed under the pressure of armor, and swords hit faces. And when the ranks closed, it was impossible to tell the coward from the brave, the bold from the slow, because all of them were pressed together, as if in some tangle. Chronicler Jan Dlugosz’s description of the Melee at the Battle of Tannenberg, 1410, as quoted in Michael Prestwich’s Knight, the Medieval Warrior’s Unofficial Manual, 170.

Such a great heap grew of the slain and of those lying crushed in between that our men climbed up those heaps, which had risen above a man’s height, and butchered their enemies down below with swords, axes, and other weapons. Eye Witness description of the Battle of Agincourt, 1415, as quoted in Michael Prestwich’s Knight, the Medieval Warrior’s Unofficial Manual, 169.
Based on these descriptions of the Melee environment, expect to fight in a noisy, confined, and crowded space. In such a place, half-swording and thrusting techniques will probably be more effective than winding techniques. Further, expect to fight against pole weapons at close range. Thus, generally speaking, the Melee will probably limit the applicable techniques to those that can be used in close, confined space.

3. Why don’t we see group tactics?

My Answer: Once again you will have to go beyond the fencing manuals and study the organization and deployment of medieval armies. Your question requires specification as to what size or type of unit will be employing the group tactics. For the 14th and 15th centuries, most knights had small retinues that ranged in size from Hugh Cheyn’s whose retinue in 1376 consisted of chamberlain, 3 sergeants, and a page, or as large as Jean de Cepoy whose retinue in 1378 consisted of another knight and 18 squires. See Michael Prestwich’s Knight, the Medieval Warrior’s Unofficial Manual, 64. The smallest size unit was a Barbuta, which consisted of a knight and his page. This was replaced by the lance, which consisted of a knight, squire, and a page, the first two would fight and the third would look after their horses and equipment. In Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales, written between 1387-1394, the Knight who travelled with a squire, who was also the knight’s son, and a yeoman was probably a lance unit. The rank above knight was banneret, and a banneret commanded 20 or more men. The French divided their cavalry into hundreds, each hundred consisting of 4 bannerets or a total of 16 knights and 80 squires. The French also organized their men at arms in routes of a hundred men, with a captain in command.

Offensive Tactics for these units usually consisted of formations, usually square or triangle shaped formations, which could be open or closed, and maneuvers such as the penetration, envelopment, or flank. Defensive tactics usually consisted of choosing strategic ground with the flanks against impassible or difficult terrain, such as a deep river or thick forest, and a front that channeled the enemy into a kill zone or at least made it unfavorable to conduct rapid mass movements.

As to why we don’t see more group tactics in training, it is most likely the same reason most people do not join the military if they do not have to. For these tactics to work, you have to submit to discipline, command, and believe the unit and its mission is more important than you. Thus, tactics are not impossible to learn, however, they are difficult to put in practice outside of a military style of organization.
Sincerely,

Anthony R. Camacho

[RayMcCullough]

Ray, I don't know how to explain better, that these are different situations that require different approach.

of course the goal is self defense, but so was USA using the bomb on japan, i'm talking about more specific stuff, of course.

when you are facing your opponent your goal is much more clear to kill and not get kill, find an opening in your opponent, etc.. in multiple opponents, that should not be the main goal, but the main goal should be to survive, manage space around you and place yourself in a more favorable position to preferably find an exit.

What? What differnet approach did Figuierido and Godinho give? I don't have Godi. but I do have Figur. and he doesn't teach a different approach. He does not present enough of the Art to replicate it from his book alone, but he himself makes the point that knowing the sword will prepare you for the montante(also a sword). Figur. does not mention anything that is not already been taught by other medieval and Renaissance masters. He presents less of the specifics of the "art".

Figueiredo, only uses deflection in the only one on one montante against montante rule. in all other he doesn't, just strikes.

Godinho, on 2 swords and on the montante, that deal almost all with multiple opponents, never tells you to parry or deflect. but in all his other weapons he does, on one on one combat.he also says you can use other weapons on multiple opponents, but he mostly stresses that in the montante and 2 sword, my guess is that those are the weapons that give you more advantage in this situations.

Godinho goes as far as to say that when a montante faces another, you should not strike but mostly thrust. Probably because it is a big ass weapon, and thrusts are quicker, with other weapons he tells you more normal technique, parries counter etc...

again, there is a clearly different approach, the goals are very different, and you have things specific to multiple opponents that dont apply and that you don't learn in one on one combat. It is a different SKILL, as being part of the same art, I think so, that is how I see it too.

...godinho or figueredo do, but if you already neglect the historical authors I would guess even more the modern ones, specially if based on traditional art.

Figur. mentions deflections agaisnt thrown weapons. But my point is this...He doesn't mention what the opponents are doing either...So are they just standing there? Do we assume they were trying to attack? What if they bind? What if they deflect? What if they grab you? Hmmmm....?
He doesn't tell us enough information. He definantly doesn't tell us something new. The large majority of the manual is a cutting routine with no mention of any opponent. Do we assume they are there?

I don't have Godi. so I can't say for sure regarding him.

I do not ignore Figur. and Godi. I do neglect them because I do not need them. They(at least Figur.) did not teach anything that I did not learn from the other masters in better organized and more descriptive and whole manners. I neglect the English Masters(not Silver) because of the same reasons. There is not enough matierial given. It's to vague. No specifics.

[RayMcCullough]

1. Will what you do on the battlefield be different than the things you already have learned from the masters?; and 2. Multiple opponents fighting different than what you have learned?

My Answer to both questions: You will have to apply basic sword techniques to battlefield situations. Practicing for battle simply means that you will practice the techniques you will most likely use on the battlefield.

To understand what techniques are most useful on the battlefield, you must go beyond the master’s text and study first-hand accounts of medieval battles.

But will the techniques you most use on the battlefield be diffenrent than what you learned in the fencing manuals? I don't see how they would be different than what you already know. Just a different scenario.

Thanks for the post. Very neat primary sources.

[Jonathan Hill]

I’d first ask what your impression of a battlefield is. Do you see a mass melee of chaos with room to move around and the ability to swing a blade or poleaxe? Do you envision an organized line of troops presenting a solid wall of shields? Do you imagine a lance of knights fighting another lance? Do you envision a press of men where the front lines are fighting and there is no way to move to the sides or circle your opponent? Do you envision a tercio of pike men and muskets, or a battalion of musket men lining up to press volley after volley into your enemy? One thing that helps me envision battlefield tactics is the concept that: if two men can work together as one they will always kill one man no matter what the skill level is. The best way to kill someone is to take five men that can act as one to kill one, this way you can guarantee that none of your five will die and the one will.

In the battlefield discipline and order are more important than skill with a blade, lines of attack, distance management and many of the things you learn in the manuals. You may be the best at using a pike but if you step out of line you endanger yourself and every other man in your unit. If you can’t march as one then your whole group can be taken as it gets strung out. It only takes one weak spot in the line to collapse the line.

So to my answers:
1. While the manuals we work from can teach us much of the concepts of fighting it does nothing to teach the discipline that it takes to operate in the infantry, I’d say this is because if you can afford such training you would not be in the infantry.
2. Fighting multiple opponents involves creating many small one on one fights. If you can do this successfully then you will be ok, but you cannot defend two lines at once and you cannot defend a second blade when you are bound by one blade. Multiple opponents that understand this and work for it will almost always kill you.
3. Group tactics – that is the art of the general, not the fighters. Look to other texts for that, De Rey Militari, the art of war, etc. http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~madsb/home/war/vegetius/

[Frederico Martins]

Ray, Agree with you, Figueiredo doesn't give you much, it is practically just movements and a paragraph or 2 in the end. I wouldn't take him much seriously before I found Godinho, and would compleately disregard figueiredo too if I didn't practice multiple opponents already.

Godinho however is much better, in almost all rules he gives advices besides the movements themselfs, some rules have notes and advices 2 or 3 times longer than the rules themselfs. Not only that, he deals with multiple opponents extensivelly with 2 sword and montante, about 14 rules for each, and some rules are similar, but the advices are complimentary, since they are in the same work. It is really a nice work, hope it gets published translated soon.

I understand you would disregard Figueiredo due to its lack of explanation, but I can't believe you think one should approach fighting one guy in front of you alone in the same way as fighting 4 or more people surrounding you in an open field for example. Even if you will be using the same striking thechniques you already know. If the authors you study don't give you tactical solutions for this situations you will be making them up yourself (you might get to good solutions, or bad ones, if you view it unrealistically.). But you do have some authors on it, godinho is the best historical I know of, but I'm sure there are more, and Luis Preto, would be my best advice for anyone doing it, simple yet effective, similar to godinho moves but with even more precise description of tactics.

Fighting multiple opponents involves creating many small one on one fights.

This is the kind of stuff I find completely unrealistic about it. if you are surrounded in front and behind in a street for example, you can't simply create small one on one fights. or surrounded in a plaza from all sides, it is impossible to isolate your opponents, and that is where Godinho, in my view, excels, in a similar way to jogo do pau, he doesn't assume to be possible to do that, but also doesn't assume you can beat all your opponents, but gives you tools to work in that situation, and maybe, survive for some time.

if two men can work together as one they will always kill one man no matter what the skill level is.

To some degree yes, if the 2 guys are really weaker fighters, they will easily make a mistake and get hit, but if the level is similar, the best the lone fighter can do, is survive for some time and find a way out, or some help(and if he can't do that, he will eventually and inevitably lose.). That is the way we practice, in jdp, to survive being attacked by multiple equally skilled fighters. And Godinho and Figueiredo seem to express the same principle, Godinho specially mentions here and there, finding an exit and ways to exit being surrounded.

[Jonathan Hill]

What is meant by ‘create many small one on one fights’ would be to force the opponents to stagger. For example; If you have two men you are fighting one on your left and one on your right, let’s assume they are equal distance to you at about two seconds time to strike you. If you do nothing and stand where you are they both close on you at the same time, and you must fight both. If you attack the one on the right and move towards him, then you increase the time it takes for the one on your left to reach you, ideally keeping him still at two seconds away while you fight the one man. You have created an extra second of one on one fight before the other guy is able to engage you. I do not know the source you work with but I’ll wager the tactics are similar. Naturally the more people you are fighting and the more lines they have covered and the more screwed you are, thus a nice big stick to help keep people away would be nice.

I’ll still stand by that two bad swordsmen that at least can fight as one will always kill the single fighter. I never said both would survive but if they know how to act together then they will get a strike to land even if your blade is sticking in the other one. If they are weak fighters they probably let you isolate one of them, but the key is if they can keep you from separating them, they do not need to be good fighters, jut disciplined at staying together.

There is also a big difference between fighting two men and using the guard of the running man. Best of all is working to a place where you can use that guard.

[Frederico Martins]

Jonhathan that is a nice description of how I see it should be too. I just don't think you can have 2 seconds to fight one on one most of the time, much less than that, and it doesn't allow you to use all one on one techniques you would like (even parries for example)But the idea you give of space and time management is pretty close to what we do. I practice the traditional art of portuguese staff fencing, jogo do pau
You can see some of the traditional practice here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSQFEeVVhgE
and here a more modern application of it with one handed weapons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLGjSk0hezI

[Sean LeMay]

Something I have been thinking about lately and had discussions with folks about.

1. Will what you do on the battlefield be different than the things you allready have learned from the masters?
2. Mutiple opponents fighitng different than what you have learned?
3.Why dont' we see group tactics?

My answers;

1. No. You will be limited by the press of the group and by staying together, but what you will do will not be anything different. Just less of the techniques that you already know from the masters.

2. No, You have to be prepared to move around more and you have to make sure that only one of the attackers can get to you at a time, but what you do will not be different than what you already know.(On a side note this would still be true of combat today with firearms.)

3. Look to answers 1 and 2. Group tactics would not change what the masters have taught you(personal combat). The masters of defense didn't usually deal with Group tactics for some reason.

Does this make sense? Comments, questions, your answers....

Hello Ray,

I believe there are two things you're not taking into account 1)group tactics are different than individual tactics and 2)tactics will dictate techniques.

Without knowing precisely what part of the battle you're searching for answers for I'm hesitant to offer much, but I believe the techniques used would be severely limited until such time as the battle degenerated into indivdual fights (exactly what neither side would wish to see happen). maintaining unit cohesion and the integrity of the line would be paramount.