It's like an episode of "The Walking Dead" - I'm back!
For now.
Thing is I am in the middle of graduate school - getting my Master of Art in Teaching and it is swallowing all of my time.
But that doesn't mean I am ignoring HEMA and Armizare. It just means that I am not being as active as I used to be.
Today, however, I decided to post about something that is a question that has been buzzing around in my brain for some time now.
Who decides whether or not I use armoured fighting techniques - me or my opponent?
Let me explain. I see the armoured fighting techniques displayed in Fiore (halfswording, etc.) are clearly designed to beat your opponent's armour. That's why you grasp the blade of the sword - so you can use the sword as a level, use the sword as a short spear, etc. There are a number of videos, including a documentary a few years back featuring a famous, if controversial, man in full harness fighting an unarmoured opponent. The problem was - he was halfswording and his opponent wasn't. This is where I got confused. In my mind, the man in full harness should have using the longsword like "normal" and the unarmoured guy should have been halfswording.
But that leads to the question again. Armoured techniques are designed to defeat armour, so why would I use them if my opponent is not wearing armour?
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It depends. If the armoured man (A) is intending to use his sword normally against the un-armoured (UA)one that on one level makes sense, however, UA knows he can't fence at range, so needs to close, and if A is still using his sword normally he will be at a disadvantage.
Equally if UA, goes straight to half sword because he has to bridge the gap and get in range he has laid his cards on the table and makes it easier for A to set him up on the way in.
So... it depends ;)
Post a Comment