On the battlefield different than one on one?

[James Brazas]

A lot of people on this topic are talking about Godinho. I see great value in learning how to deal with multiple opponents or front line combat from an actual historical manual rather than just trying to figure it out myself.

Where might I find more information about Godinho or others that deal with that subject?

Also, could any of you give more information on Godinho? What era was he from? What weapons does he deal with?

[Frederico Martins]

James, the guys translating his work say they can't find much information on him, contrary to Figueiredo that we know a bit more about, and has a similar work on the montante .

Domingo Luis Godinho' s "Do arte de Esgrima" is from 1599.
He is Portuguese, but the text is in spanish.
It deals with diverse weapon combinations, single sword, sword and shield, sword and dagger etc..
The work on multiple opponents is mostly dealt with with the montante and with 2 swords.
The multiple opponents deals with self defense situations, not war specific.
These include from fighting in a very narrow street to fighting on an open field, surrounded, fighting on a galley, fighting in a 4 way street. protecting goods, protecting a lady or a friend etc...

[James Brazas]

That sounds fantastic! That's a lot of great material on dealing with multiple opponents.

So you say it's still being translated?

I speak fluent Spanish, though it's modern Castilian Spanish. So the time gap could be difficult. I've read medieval Spanish texts before, but only with great difficulty. So I'm not sure how well I would be able to decipher such technical literature in Medieval Spaish.

Once translated, would you say it would be an easy manual to understand?

If so, then that's a definite "must learn" manual for me - especially so as it sounds like it has my favorite mix of weapons! I've been looking for a good text on sword and shield. I'm guessing it's the rodela/rotella?

How different is the montante from the longsword? Is it closer to the longsword or bidenhander/True Two Hander?

[RayMcCullough]

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.

Yes to all.

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.

I'm not sure I've been clear. I do that some time. Your skill with weapons(personal combat/self-defense/Martial Arts) will not change in battle or multiple opponents. I say this because you will use the same techniques( although less of them) you learned already. You will ,in battle, stay together, but what will you do different with someone on each side of you that you would not do one on one or that you have not already learned? Make sense?

To go even further I will paraphrase Kostas Dervenis of Pammachon.
Are the movements and tactics(theory) you have learned different from what you would do:
-Armed or unarmed
-armored or unarmored
-alone or in a group
-against one or many
-on the battlefield or in a civil dispute(the "street")

[RayMcCullough]

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 to hope Godinho comes out 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.).

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.

So Godinho and JDoP has you fight all of them at the same time? That sounds unrealistic. If they don't have you fighting all of them at the same time, then you are creating many one on one fights by moving. If not that then what?

http://youtu.be/RWUImz7hHwQ
This is an example of creating many one on one fights

http://youtu.be/EY5LOGtefAc
This man continues to make one on one situations keeping only one in striking range at a time.

Start this one at 8:20
http://youtu.be/ov_iVrHy4_A
He moves so as to keep only one in striking range at a time.

[RayMcCullough]

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.

I think we are saying the same thing. Will the techniques you do in the group be something you haven't already learned? No, just less of what you already know.

Make sense?

[Frederico Martins]

James, I don't read spanish very well myself, and have not studied the other weapons deeply, but it isn't that hard to follow.

The montante is about 80% multiple opponents, he just gives some hints on one on one combat, but his sword section seems to be common one on one combat stuff. but I'm not the best to compare since I don't study much historical sources.

http://youtu.be/RWUImz7hHwQ
This is an example of creating many one on one fights

http://youtu.be/EY5LOGtefAc
This man continues to make one on one situations keeping only one in striking range at a time.

I agree, of course, you can not let them fall on you at the same time, and must manage distance.
But I really think calling this "creating many small fights" is a very misleading description of what is going on there. and since those guys are my masters, I'm not just guessing and know how they teach, and have trying to explain a bit...

In the 3rd video he indeed seems to be trying to create small fights and isolate the opponents, he is able to do that because they are not making the effort to surround him and make his job harder.

This 2 different ways to approach it slightly, or even greatly, affect the way you strike. But I already mentioned that.

[RayMcCullough]

http://youtu.be/RWUImz7hHwQ
This is an example of creating many one on one fights

http://youtu.be/EY5LOGtefAc
This man continues to make one on one situations keeping only one in striking range at a time.

I agree, of course, you can not let them fall on you at the same time, and must manage distance.
But I really think calling this "creating many small fights" is a very misleading description of what is going on there. and since those guys are my masters, I'm not just guessing and know how they teach, and have trying to explain a bit...

In the 3rd video he indeed seems to be trying to create small fights and isolate the opponents, he is able to do that because they are not making the effort to surround him and make his job harder.

This 2 different ways to approach it slightly, or even greatly, affect the way you strike. But I already mentioned that.

They couldn't surround him because they didn't have a chance to, and he wouldn't let them if he could. He attacked the two no differently than he would have one on one. Notice he counter strikes. He bound his first opponent and struck him in single tempo, then went for the second man.

The biggest diference between the 3 fights is in the first two, they did not counter strike. They only parried the weapons or struck at them. There doesn't seem to be an attempt to end the encounter. Very 18th century small sword duo tempo.

[Frederico Martins]

I've seen other martial artists that also don't use any historical source for multiple opponents, nor any martial tradition nor have to use it in any practical way, doing it the way you describe, and assume they can isolate and defeat their opponents one by one.

I guess it works against multiple opponents that are much weaker fighters than the lone fighter. But in that case anything can work, like an unarmed guy can disarm a guy with a sword, if the guy with the sword doesn't know what he is doing.

Jogo do Pau and the tradition Godinho and Figueiredo are teaching doesn't assume that, it assumes the opponents might actually know what they are doing. That changes tactics completely and is much more reasonable in my view.

[Sean LeMay]

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.

I think we are saying the same thing. Will the techniques you do in the group be something you haven't already learned? No, just less of what you already know.

Make sense?

Your explanation above^^ cleared up my misunderstanding. I agree with your ideas.

Frederico-in my experience the only way to survive a fight when you're outnumbered is to "create one-on-one fights".

[James Brazas]

I realize that I have less experience in ARMA than many of the others who have posted here, but I thought it might be of vaue to point out a few things.

Many on many combat in loose formations:

For loose formations, I would definitely agree with the posts above. There would be no new attacks, no new parries, no new techniques at all. The main point would be to maneuver yourself and your allies to allow you to fight as few enemies at once as possible.

Examples of such squad tactics would include the following:
Fighting back to back to avoid attacks from behind

fighting in a schiltron (sp?) or porcupine formation so that it would be impossible to be surrounded

Out-Flanking the enemy

Surrounding the enemy

Spear-point or piercing movements

Pincer attacks

Positioning men on key chokeholds like bridges, river crossings, stair cases, paths through dense forest, or turns in narrow roads

Thus, the only thing that would change would be your tactics rather than your techniques. There would be some techniques you would no longer use, though.

Ground fighting would be extremely foolish (as the Masters all say) because it freezes you in place and leaves your back and flanks exposed.

Extensive grappling would have the same problems.

Extensive or elaborate binding would likewise have the same problems.

You would not want to spend too much time on any one enemy lest the other enemies surround you, out-flank you, etc.

So you would have to move quickly from one enemy to the other. If you can kill them that quickly, great. If not, just make sure they can't kill you until you or a team-mate can get back to fighting them.

This gets much easier to do with team-mates who can watch your back. That allows you to worry more about killing the enemy and less about keeping yourself from being out-maneuvered. Still, troop positioning is vital even in squad-level fights.

[James Brazas]

Tight infantry formations:

The biggest difference between one-on-one fights and many-on-many fights is when you get to tight infantry formations. If you are one individual in a huge, tightly packed infantry formation, you cannot move much independent of the group. If you try to dodge, you run into a team-mate. If you try to maneuver yourself to keep enemies from surrounding you, you run into other team-mates. That ruins the formation and the enemies overrun you.

Luckily, in such a formation, everyone is protecting everyone else.

Good examples in the medieval era of this are the shield wall and the schiltron (sp?) or pike formation.

Obviously, tactics for such large, tight formations are greatly different than in one-on-one fights. Yet it is also different from the tactics of a loose formation. In a loose formation, each member still retains a high degree of individual mobility. They can dodge or sidestep an enemy to better position themselves.

In a tight infantry formation, everyone has to fight as one and move as one. Everyone has to about-face at once or the defensive advantage of your shield wall or pike formation is useless. Everyone has to assume the same formation and, quite obviously, you are only as strong as the weakest link.

In a shield wall, for example, there are techniques you would not use as an individual sword-and-shield user. You have to interlock shields, move your shield in time with the others, and move your shield out of the way to allow offensive shock troop to pass through the line, then reform the shield wall as soon as they pass.

Pike formations likewise have to move in unison and move in ways that they would not as an individual spearman (like walking sideways to make sure your pike is pointing out from the center of the circle).

No doubt there are many other techiques that a member of a shield wall or pike formation, but I think that is sufficient evidence that there are at least some techniques that a member of a tight infantry formation would use that a duelist would not use and may not know.

As to why the Masters never included such material on the group tactics of loose or tight formations, I have a few ideas.

First, the vast majority of the differences I mentioned were based on tactics rather than techniques. The fechtbuchs were literature on martial arts techniques rather than battlefield tactics. There were other books on battlefield tactics.

Second, the new techniques used by infantry formations (or even cavalry formations) are easier to learn than the complexities of fencing proper. The difficulty with formations and troop movements was not for the individual soldier to worry about. "About face" is a simple command. Locking shields isn't all that hard. It requires courage and a unified spirit, but it isn't terribly technically complicated. The real complexity was for lords and generals leading the entire army and giving the orders.

Third, the military would have already given them whatever training they needed in tactics. If they're low level enlisted, all they would really need to know is how to stay in the formation they were ordered to be in. If they were high ranking officers, they would have already had plenty of training in tactics, operations, and strategy. These manuals were marketed as a way to teach anyone - officer, enlisted, or civilian - how to be a skilled warrior. It was broader than just being marketed towards an infantry or cavalry officer.

Still, it would be nice from my perspective to have a one-stop shop for combat in literally every situations (unarmed, armed, on foot, on horseback, without armor, with armor, one-on-one, one-on-many, many-on-many in loose formation, many-one-many in tight formation, etc.)

[Stacy Clifford]

This article contains an actual account of a one vs. many street fight in which the single fighter both gets himself out of being surrounded in an alley and carries the fight down the street on the run. The description of how he pulled this off is fairly well detailed and very interesting.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/digby.html

[RayMcCullough]

I've seen other martial artists that also don't use any historical source for multiple opponents, nor any martial tradition nor have to use it in any practical way, doing it the way you describe, and assume they can isolate and defeat their opponents one by one.

I guess it works against multiple opponents that are much weaker fighters than the lone fighter. But in that case anything can work, like an unarmed guy can disarm a guy with a sword, if the guy with the sword doesn't know what he is doing.

Jogo do Pau and the tradition Godinho and Figueiredo are teaching doesn't assume that, it assumes the opponents might actually know what they are doing. That changes tactics completely and is much more reasonable in my view.

Martial Arts were created with trained and untrained attackers in mind. You seem to imply that singling out the many attackers changes the tactics and that Figueirido and Godinho are teaching something different. Figueiredo doesn't teach a clear enough method to know that he is teaching something different than other Masters of his time and to think he is teaching something new is rather ridiculous. Haven't seen Godinho to say for sure.
JDoP does teach something new compared to the older medieval and Renaissance method. What I have seen of the multiple opponents doesn't look different to many of the other multiple opponents stuff you see on the net(creating one on one fights). From the 2 JDoP videos posted by me earlier, they seem to not actually be attacking the man and he isn't attacking them either. He is just moving and striking their sticks away not threatening them with strikes of his own. He does single them out.

I think it is wrong to assume that JDoP is practicing what Godinho and Figuerido were teaching. JDoP is, and looks very 18th century French Smallsword theory. There isn't a medieval and Renaissance master(other than smallsmord teachers) that teaches some "new" fencing principles, and core concepts. They present it in their own way but they do not teach something different.
JDoP teaches something "new" and different compared to the medieval and Renaissance masters even if they are "interpreting" masters from that earlier period.

[Sean LeMay]

http://youtu.be/RWUImz7hHwQ
This is an example of creating many one on one fights

http://youtu.be/EY5LOGtefAc
This man continues to make one on one situations keeping only one in striking range at a time.

Start this one at 8:20
http://youtu.be/ov_iVrHy4_A
He moves so as to keep only one in striking range at a time.

I disagree completely about the first 2 videos creating one on one fights. In both the man is arguably able to keep the attackers at bay, but only because they never attack him. Director Clements does a much better, cleaner job of isolating and finishing one opponent then turning to do the same to the other opponent.

Even if I accept the first 2 videos as effective ways to defend against superior numbers (which I don't) he is still left with the same situation at the end that he had at the beginning.

All of which is off-topic as far as battle/duel are concerned although interesting from a self defense perspective.