|
Remaint -> RE: When Heroes Fail - OOC (4/7/2016 3:07:29)
|
It may read like it, but rest assured that I am not trying to piss upon Kell's description of the little things regarding combat. My Ic post is simply my/Seiserna's view on tridents, shield&maces and general combat essentials. So bare with me, as I would describe these tools similarly outside of this rp.
~~(sort of proof that I am truly not trying to crap on Kell's work)
Strength and speed aren't too significant of factors in armed combat. Having a greater capacity to lift or push would not yield great benefits to armed combat, as any striking advantage gained from muscle is lacklustre compared to the default damage a sword or axe can do. Higher strength assists when swords are crossed and combatants are pressing against one another, but as any competent armed martial artist knows, there is far, far more to armed fighting than the press of blades.
Due to the anatomy of our limbs, we could not effectively move quicker than a certain limit. One competent swordsman would not noticeably swing his weapon faster than another, even incompetent swordsman. It is instead much better to learn when, to act, by studying when the opponent moves. The anatomical motions of the human body flows in such a way, that it is impossible to disguise, just how slow the core of the body moves as it attempts to accelerate the lighter appendages surrounding them. The shoulder drives your arm, your arm drives your hand, your hand drives your sword. And you cannot strike unless your legs carry you over to your opponent. It is certainly easily observed, that the shoulder and the legs move far slower than the sword, so slow as to be noticeable even to those with poor sight. Learning when to act as your opponent moves their slowest body parts is the key to being fast, not simply moving faster.
When one looks upon the usage of polearms, particularly by the Europeans, whether by glancing about centuries-old treatises or modern practitioners, one would find that the wielders of the hafted weapons often have their hands close to the centre of the staff. On the surface, this may seem counter intuitive, for such hand placement would seemingly negate the poleweapons' reach, and easily put them in range of a sword. Yet when one carefully analyses how frequently hooks, spikes, and various projections exist upon things like halberds, guisarmes and glaives, and how frequently the sliding thrust is done within the weapons systems, one may realise that such polearms are not limited to their maximum reach, and that one may wield such tools quite contently in the range of the sword. I would personally describe these complex polearms, and even non complex polearms, for even a simple spear may achieve powerful, leverage-backed parries and lightning-fast thrusts at near any range, as extendable swords. For just as a sword these polearms are fast, nimble and versatile, yet unlike a sword, their reach is variable, and that is one of their most potent strengths.
Throughout history we can see that, one on one, few against few, the polearm handedly triumphs over the sword. (And many-against-many too, but formation fighting is another topic)
A fencing master of the late 16th century, George Silver, recounts that an Italian Rapierist was quite soundly beaten by an English boatman equipped with a humble oar.
This may sound quite absurd, but if we look at the far East, we read that master swordsman Musashi won a duel, wielding a mere boat oar against another person, armed with a sharpened sword.
To go to an extreme, there is an account of an Englishman who defeated no less than three Spanish swordsmen all armed with rapiers and sideswords, using only a quarterstaff.
|
|
|
|
