Grand Unified Theory of Poleaxe Combat

This is an idea that has been percolating for sometime within the cavernous recesses of my mind. Oh, by the way, the title to this post is sarcastic – what this post is about is my process for finding common ground between the three poleaxe manuscripts I study. To put it simply, can I make the plays and tactics of the Anonimo Bolognese and Le Jeu de la Hache jive with the principles laid out in Armizare, which form the basis of how I approach martial endeavors? Yes I can.

But first some background information. The poleaxe (or pollaxe) developed from the large battle-axes of the Early and High Middle Ages into the form we see in many of the manuscripts around 1400. The weapon became a favorite weapon of the knightly class for foot combat, both for war and for tournaments. There are two principle forms of poleaxe; one with a straight, or crescent-shaped, axe head opposite a hammer face; the second with a hammer face opposite a curved, or straight, fluke. Both types were surmounted with a spear-like spike and were mounted on wood hafts, most often between 4.5' – 6', fitted with steel langets reinforcing the upper part of the haft. The bottom of the haft could be fitted with a spike, a steel cap, or simply left bare. While both types feature prominently in contemporary artwork and in surviving examples, it the hammer & fluke variant that is most common in the fighting manuscripts.

Arms & Armor Dane Axe

Arms & Armor Italian Pole-hammer

Arms & Armor Burgundian Axe

   Fiore dei Liberi wrote his manuscript(s) sometime around 1409 (according to the PD, which is the only one of the four to contain a date). Fiore's system of combat, hereafter referred to as Armizare, is a comprehensive martial art covering empty-hands techniques, dagger, sword, spear, poleaxe, and mounted combat. The principle weapon of Armizare is the longsword. There are currently four known manuscripts attributed to Fiore, another by a later student of his art (Vadi), with two other manuscripts known of but missing, and two other manuscripts that feature artwork and techniques from Fiore, but may not be directly a part of the lineage.

   Le Jeu de la Hache, “the Play of the Axe”, is an anonymous Burgundian manuscript that is the only known manuscript whose sole weapon is the poleaxe. Written around 1450, Le Jeu's techniques are presented in paragraph form (73 to be precise) sans illustrations. Included in those seventy-three paragraphs are advice for preparing yourself for combat, combat between right-handers and combat between a right-hander and a left-hander.

   The Anonimo Bolognese, technically the Ravenna Manuscript, is an anonymous mid-16^th century manuscript that covers the single-handed sword, alone and accompanied by numerous other implements, the large two-handed sword, and is one of the last manuscripts to devote space to poleaxe combat in full armour.

Got that? Okay, now that we're all caught up, let's get to the meat and potatoes of this business.

Guards

Fiore describes four guards for the axe – well, six in the Getty, but four in the PD, Florius and in Vadi so majority rules eh? The guards are:

• Posta Breve la Serpentina – Guard of the Short Serpent – Low guard with the head of the axe forward.
• Posta di Vera Croce – Guard of the True Cross / Strong Cross – Low guard with the tail of the axe forward.
• Posta di Donna – Guard of the Woman – High guard with the axe over the shoulder.
• Posta Dente di Cinghiaro – The Boar's Tooth – Low guard with the head of the axe low & off-line.
• *Posta di Coda Longa – (Getty only) Guard of the Long Tail – Low guard with the head of the axe back along the line of the rear leg.
• *Posta di Finestra – (Getty only; similar position is called Posta Sagitaria by Vadi) Guard of the Window / Archer -  High guard with the head of the axe forward, parallel (or greater) to the ground.

Pissani-Dossi. Clockwise from Top Left: Breve la Serpentina, Vera Croce, Dente di Cinghiaro, & Posta di Donna.

   The author of Le Jeu doesn't actually describe the guard positions; he merely mentions that “when you are on guard with the queue (tail) of the axe forward...” or  “when you are on guard with the dague/croix (head) of the axe forward...” This tends to leave quite a bit of wiggle room for practitioners to decide what the guard positions really are. My interpretation (and, I believe the common consensus) are that the guards are very similar to the two Bolognese pole-arms guards; Guardia Alta & Porta di Ferro Stretta (see below).

   The Anonimo Bolognese follows the Bolognese tradition closely in giving only two guards for pole-arms:

• Guardia Alta – High Guard – guard with right arm bent so that the axe head is held over the right shoulder & haft diagonally crossing the body, left arm held straight.
• Porta di Ferro Stretta – Narrow Iron Gate – Low guard with the axe head forward, right arm straight.

These two guards, each held on either side of the body, give a functional total of four guards.

Marozzo. From left to right: Porta di Ferro Stretta (right leg forward), Guardia Alta, Porta di Ferro Stretta (left leg forward).

   But here's the kicker with the axe – whenever you adopt a guard with the axe you are simultaneously in two guards, one for the head & one for the tail. Thus, from Guardia Alta you are both in a high guard & a low guard at the same time. From Porta di Ferro Stretta, you are in a point forward and point back position. Each one of Fiore's four (not including Finestra or Coda Longa) are in Guardia Alta and Porta di Ferro Stretta

• Guardia Alta = Posta di Donna and Dente di Cinghiaro
• Porta di Ferro Stretta = Breve la Serpentina and Vera Croce

Guardia Alta - showing simultaneous Armizare guards.

Porta di Ferro Stretta - showing simultaneous Armizare guards.

While this might seems like I'm stretching to some of you, let's look at the common defenses from Fiore's four guards:

• Breve la Serpentina – used to beat opponent's point to inside, or disengages underneath to beat to outside.
• Vera Croce – rising diagonal parry.
• Posta di Donna – defends with a fendente, either to a middle bind (Breve la Serpentina) or binding to the ground (Dente di Cinghiaro).
• Dente di Cinghiaro – rising diagonal parry.

From Guardia Alta I can: a) strike a fendente, b) make a rising diagonal parry with the tail. From Porta di Ferro Stretta I can: a) beat opponent's weapon to inside or outside, b) make a rising diagonal parry. So why does Fiore seperate each of these guards out? Because Fiore bases all of the weapons combat he teaches on the longsword. This is why the sword in armour, spear and poleaxe sections are smaller than the unarmoured longsword teachings; Fiore only needs to point out techniques that are unique to that weapon – all the principles of Armizare you learned with the longsword still apply. Go read this for a refresher on my views on that, it's okay I'll wait.

Back? Good. According to the principles of Armizare (as I understand them) you have three options when your opponent attacks. You can: Cross, Deflect or Break. I know, I know – in my previous post I had a fourth, Exchange, but an exchange is just a special crossing. So is Breaking, but that drastically changes the line so I make it it's own. Back on topic – Cross. Deflect, or Break the attack.

Let's look at a basic attack – a descending blow from the left with the head of the axe (a mandritto fendente) and see how each of the three manuscripts defend against it from the various guards using each of the three methods of defense.

Fiore:

Cross – from Posta di Donna throw your own fendente, with or without a pass. If you control the line line, thrust them in the face. If you lose the line, bring your tail up sharply underneath their axe, stabbing them in the abdomen or hip.

Deflect – from Dente di Cinghiaro or Vera Croce. From either Guard, snap your rising diagonal parry up (with whichever footwork is appropriate) and either thrust them in the face, hit them with a fendente, or throw them.

Break – from Posta di Donna (or Coda Longa) cover with a fendente and a strong pass, bearing both axes to the ground. From here either snap your point back into their face, forcibly remove their visor then thrust them in the face, or stomp on their axe then thrust them in the face.

Le Jeu:

Cross – from the high guard, strike your blow into theirs without passing, then drive your pedale up, driving their axe aside & down, the stab them in the face. Alternately, step into their blow, taking it on the haft between your hands, and while driving your axe to your right, step behind them and execute a collar throw.

Deflect – from either guard, do your rising diagonal parry with the pedale such that you drive their axe wide. Then hit them in the head.

Break – Here is where my theory runs into issues admittedly. The author of Le Jeu is adamant that you should never allow the head of your axe to stray beyond the outline of your opponent. This reason Fiore is okay with this is two-fold, in my opinion. First is that in the rompere dei punta, you have control of his weapon, lessening the risk. The other reason has to do with the fact that as poleaxes developed they got longer, and Fiore was at what we can consider the forefront of poleaxe usage, therefore it is reasonable to assume his axe is shorter, meaning it is easier to recover.

Anonimo:

Cross – The Anonimo only has two options from the crossing; either thrust your pedale underneath his haft, to the abdomen or hip, or control his axe and enter for a collar throw.

Deflect – The Anonimo features a deflection that is the same as Le Jeu's.

Break -  Again similar to Le Jeu, there are no breaks in the Anonimo.
 

Couple of videos to watch

First up is this video by a University of Oregon Journalism student about Maestro Sean Hayes and the Northwest Fencing Academy. She titled it "Maestro of Armizare" and Sean is very quick to point out (not in the video but in general) that he is a Maestro in Classical Italian fencing, not Armizare.

Second, here are six videos from the guys at Hammaborg on harness fighting from the Gladitoria manuscripts. Great techniques (some of which I am totally going to steal and try to use) and beautiful armour. In fact, I am now extremely jealous of Dierk's armour.

Speaking of armour, I've been debating recently about what type of harness I should try to compile. Basically I have worked it out to three options:

• a Coat of Plates / Brigandine over a hauberk, with some simple arms, knee cops with either quilted or brigandine cuisses. Helm will (hopefully) just be a Windrose Fiore helm with the pierced steel visor.
• a Corrazzina or Churburg type breastplate, over mail. Very 14th C transitional armour setup. Steel arms, steel legs, same helm as above.
• Early Gothic type armour: breast & back plate, full arms, full legs, sallet with bevor.

The reason I like the first two options is that they are (relatively) light, I can put a brig or corrazzina on by myself, and they are easily "modified" - I can play light, medium, and heavy armour, can play with sword, spear and axe at all levels. The only real reason the third option is there is because it looks so freaking cool! I currently own a decent Coat of Plates (which needs a little TLC - like new straps. Oh and a new base garment so the damn thing actually fits) so I guess the real question becomes Brigandine or Corrazzina?

Chivalric Fighting Arts Association

This was announced last night (at least when I saw it). Personally, I am very happy to see this organization come into existence as a solidifying of fraternal bonds that already existed between like-minded schools / instructors. This is the text from the announcement on Sword Forum:

Let it Be Known to all Who Profess the Art of Arms that we send Greetings and a Declaration of Fraternity:

Wherefore, the Art of Defence has also been known as the Knightly Art, and its study has instilled the virtues of Prowess, Courage, Justice, Loyalty, Courtesy, Humility, Largesse, Franchise, and Faith in its adherents;

Wherefore we share a dedication to not only the revival of the fighting arts of the past, but to insuring their transmission to the future;

And wherefore we also hold a deep and sincere belief that the study and practice of these arts is a tool for building character and personal discipline;

We have therefore come together to form the Chivalric Fighting Arts Association (CFAA); an international organization of schools and clubs devoted to the study of historical European martial arts, particularly those practiced in a chivalric context, used in war, the tournament, and the duel.

Just as there are many different approaches to the study of Asia martial arts, over the last decade this has become true within the Western martial arts community as well. Just as classical Jujutsu, Judo and BJJ may have common roots, techniques, and even uniforms, but possess very different emphasis and training goals, so too are there now WMA scholars whose principal interest is national pride and cultural preservation, others focused on the development of a modern combat sport, and others who focus on those elements that have pragmatic application in the modern world.

As the CFAA’s name suggests, our members’ interest is in these Arts as traditional martial arts. We define “traditional” as a focus on:

• Fidelity to the historic treaties;
• Study of our Arts within their cultural context;
• Study of and respect for the ethical milieus in which the Arts were born;
• Emphasis on honorable behavior amongst and between students and teacher alike;
• A belief that, while, competition is a worthy tool that serves to refine our understanding of the Arts, the Arts are not a tool to foster modern competitions.

We see ourselves as caretakers of an ancient heritage, and therefore the texts are the single most relevant and authoritative word on the arts we strive to reconstruct. Therefore, member schools are encouraged to apply themselves to these books with a high level of philological passion--a passion that has, in the space of a few short decades, brought to light so much reliable information about how our ancestors fought.

Equally as important is the respect for the spirit of chivalry and honorable behavior that were part of the ethical milieu in which our arts blossomed. All ethical systems, from Stoicism to Daoism, Zen to Chivalry always exist in idealized forms, but we believe that the importance lies is in the striving for these ideals. This includes favoring the scientific process of scholarship over the stubbornness of ego, healthy emulation to petty rivalry, acknowledgment of your instructor over teaching his labor as your own, and frankness and openness over squabbling and needless politicking.

We respect all other serious approaches to the study of historical martial arts, but it is our belief that this emphasis on tradition, culture and ethics is what separates a martial art from simply being a combat sport or self-defense. Those disciplines are worthy in their own right, and find a place amongst us, but the common philosophy of our member schools centers on fidelity to the arts as they were originally wielded and recorded, the spirit of chivalry in which those treatises were conceived, and the keeping these ideals alive in the study of our arts - qualities that we believe can be of benefit to the modern world as much as they were for the ancient one.

Therefore, in service to the Art of Arms and in respect to our Forbearers, we are –

Christian Henry Tobler, Selohaar Fechtschule
Devon Boorman, Academie Duello
Stefan Dieke, Alte Kampfkunst
Gregory Mele, Chicago Swordplay Guild
Terry Brown, The Company of Maisters
Mark Lancaster, The Exiles
Bob Charrette, Forteza Historical Swordwork Guild
Dierk Hagedorn & Roland Warzecha, Hammaborg
Bob Brooks, Hotspur School of Defence
Claus Sørensen, Laurentiusgildet
Jason Smith, Les Maître D'armes
Sean Hayes, Northwest Fencing Academy
Tom Leoni, Order of the Seven Hearts
Puck Curtis, Mary Dill Curtis, Kevin Murakoshi & Eric Myers, Sacramento Sword School
Guy Windsor, School of European Swordsmanship
Scott Wilson, Southern Academy of Swordsmanship
Bill Grandy, Virginia Academy of Fencing (Historical Swordsmanship Division)

---

Christian Henry Tobler

New Addition

I've decided that I'm going to broaden my studies to include (drum roll please) .........

The Montante.

I'm going to use this translation of Diogo Gomes de Figueyrdo by Eric Myers and Steve Hick. I'm still trying to figure out a trainer (gotta be thrifty at the moment) but it should be fun. I decided to run with this because of all the solo exercises and how it will teach and impact my body mechanics. Oh, and it's a big f*&k-off sword. So there's that.

Freelance Academy Press Reviews

It's a Two-For-One! I'll be reviewing two books available from Freelance Academy Press

In The Service of Mars: Proceedings from the Western Martial Arts Workshop 1999-2009, Volume I


As the title says, this book is a compilation of lesson-plans and handouts from past WMAWs - except that most of the entries have been substantially fleshed out, pictures added, interpretations updated, etc. The book is divided into four parts based on content, which makes quick finding of a particular article easy. I had originally planned on reading this book cover to cover, but wound up skipping from article to article based on my level of interest, which is perfectly fine :)  I wish I had the gumption to go through and give an article by article review, but that would spoil the reading too much. Instead, I'll just give a quick shout-out to my favorite / most helpful articles.

First up is Greg Mele's article on the poleaxe techniques presented in the Anonimo Bolognese. Big surprise huh? Greg gives a great succinct background on the weapon and the manuscript, then gives translation, interpretation, and pictures of each play. It's everything a poleaxe enthusiast could want about a fascinating little piece of axe combat.

Greg's other article on Fiore's Gioco Largo & Gioco Stretto, Jessica Finley's article on Ott's Ringen, Tom Leoni's article on the Spadone were some other highlights for me. However, there are four articles that I believe make this volume worth purchasing. They are Craig Johnson's "How a Sword Was Made", Tom Leoni's "The Judicial Duel in Sixteenth-Century Italy", Keith Alderson's "On the Art of Reading: An Introduction to Using the Medieval German 'Fightbooks'", and finally the article written by John Sullins, Sean Hayes, Puck Curtis, and Eric Myers on how to use Classical Italian pedagogy to develop lesson plans.

In reality, the best part of this book is that there is something for everyone.

Venetian Rapier

I actually received this book last year, but realized I had yet to do a review of it. While I'm not a rapierist (and probably never will be) if I ever do start practicing and / or teaching rapier, this book will be the foundation of my studies. An English translation of Nicoletto Giganti's 1606 rapier curriculum. BTW, it is exactly that - an east to follow, builds upon itself, curriculum for learning the rapier. As with his other translations Tom Leoni manages to create a text that reads as if it were originally written in modern English, which enables the practitioner to read through and follow the instructions without any of the choppiness that can accompany a translation.

Specialization - Good or Bad

I remember reading a blog (I forget who's) where the author was discussing whether being a swordsman equals being a martial artist. Their response was no, that it leads to being a specialist - a word which he writes with dripping scorn, much as I say "the Yankees"

It is a scientific fact.

To the author, the only way to truly practice these arts is to practice all aspects of it - he was particularly vitriolic against those who do little to no grappling.

Okay, my response to this attitude is to ask that if you consider those who only train in one weapon to not be martial artists does that mean that Ott, Leckuchner, Fabris, Capoferro, Giganti, and the anonymous authors of I.33 and Le Jeu, amongst others, are not martial artists? What about Bruce Lee? Yes he studied weapons, but he focused on unarmed, thereby "neglecting" the rest of the "systems" he studied. Is he not to be considered a martial artist?

Specialization is not a bad thing. Everyone I listed above wrote a complete martial system that was based around one weapon. Are Fiore, Marozzo, Vadi, Meyer, Mair or Liechenhauer better martial artists simply because they include more weapons? Specialization is natural and healthy because it is a simple fact that someone who trains and specializes in one aspect of an art understand that aspect better than a "Jack of All Trades" - they have a deeper understanding. Don't get me wrong, I believe in training all aspects of the art in order to put more tools in my toolbox, but it is perfectly possible for someone who only studies the longsword to be just as good a martial artist and fencer as someone who trains in wrestling, dagger, lance, poleaxe and longsword.

Two examples:

• In MMA, when a fighter wants to improve his striking he goes to a boxing trainer. When he wants to improve his ground-game, he goes to a wrestler or BJJ trainer. In other words, he goes to a specialist.
• Most of the instructors WMA events and seminars are specialists, even those who are capable of teaching a broad spectrum. There are people who study Armizare who only study the sword or the dagger and they teach accordingly.

Look, specialization is historical. So is the comprehensive approach. Personally, I take a comprehensive approach to Armizare, but you could say that I specialize in Armizare, with a further specialization in Le Jeu de la Hache. See how silly it is to rail against specialization?

Punch Drunk

I promised at the end of my last post that the next one would be about striking - well, here it is. :)

People, myself included when I started training, are often very confused as to the lack of empty-hand striking in the medieval martial arts. After all, we know the Greeks and Romans boxed, so why not folks in the middle ages? Truth is, we don't know that they didn't. While the majority of manuscripts that feature unarmed sections do not show any striking (Codex Wallerstein is the only contrary example I know of), the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

There are many theories out there about why we are not shown any strikes. These include: Training paradigm, Ineffectiveness, and Lost Knowledge.

Training Paradigm

This is the theory that we are not shown traditional punching type strikes because the punching action does not fit the system's underlying movement patterns. For instance, the overhand dagger blow (ice-pick grip descending blow) is the same motion as a hammer-fist (striking with the bottom of the closed fist). The theory holds that simplicity of training is paramount - why train two separate types of hand motion for striking when one will do. Keep It Simple Scholar.

Ineffectiveness
  
This is the theory that striking does not appear because striking is ineffective against armour and, as with the above theory, you shouldn't train for something that only works part of the time. Punching a man in a breastplate = Not a good idea. In a helm = Still not a good idea.

Lost (Hidden) Knowledge

This is the idea that the knowledge of striking was there, but that it was either considered such common knowledge that it need not be included or that it was considered "secret". I tend to partially agree with the first part, but find the second utter rubbish.

Here is the problem with all of the above theories - there IS striking present in the manuscripts, not just the Codex Wallerstein. It isn't hidden at all, at least not in Fiore.

"If your opponent is not in armor, strike him in the most painful and dangerous spots, such as the eyes, the nose, the temples, under the chin and in the flanks." - Getty Prologue, trans. Leoni

"-knowing the most dangerous places in which to strike" - Eight qualities of abrazare, Getty Prologue, trans. Leoni


"As you become suspicious of someone's dangerous knife, immediately go against him with your arms, hands and elbows. Always do these five things: take his dagger away, strike him, break his arms, bind him, and throw him to the ground. None of these five plays goes without the other" - Beginning of dagger section, Getty, trans. Leoni

There you have it. Three quotes from the two unarmed sections of the Getty, describing when and where to strike. The only thing they leave out is the "How". Sort of. As I discussed earlier, one can easily take the mechanics for striking with the dagger and turn that into a hammer-fist (Hell, that's how I describe it to people). Okay but what about other strikes? The only other empty-hand strike was see is a strike to the throat that can be done either as a palm strike or as a chop with the side of the hand. There are other strikes shown in the manuscript, specifically a kick to the shin or knee, a kick to the groin and a knee to the groin. Fun stuff.

So strikes do exist in Armizare, but what purpose do they serve. They are not "fight-enders" - they are not intended to be. Instead, strikes serve three purposes:

1.  They are used to soften an opponent. For example, if I am trying to secure a ligadura mezzana on you, but you are fighting me just enough to keep me from getting it. Then, I drive a hammer-fist into your left eye. Suddenly, you are not quite as concerned about the ligadura I'm after.

2.  They are used as methods of entry. If you are guarding well my attempts to grapple, I can throw a strike your way in order to break you of your guard, allowing me to gain a good grapple.

3.  They are used to displace some part of your opponent. Particularly in armoured combat, a strong open-hand strike (as Jesse Kulla of the CSG explained it "a bear-paw") to the side of the helm may not knock an opponent out, but it will displace their head, allowing you to gain control.

Notice that none of these three are aimed at knock-out power. Strikes are, by their nature, inconsistent things - a solid punch to the jaw may knock one opponent out cold while another my take punch after punch and simply laugh at you. This, in my opinion, is why the medieval arts focus on grappling - binding, breaking, or dislocating your opponents limbs is a more sure method of taking the fight out of them.

I personally prefer to use hammer-fists, open-palm strikes (both of which allow for an easy transfer to grappling control), elbow strikes, knee strikes, and low (below the waist) kicks, for strikes. But in a fight you use whatever you have at hand - I've head-butted more than a few sparring partners (always while wearing helmet - I'm not stupid).

But there is a bigger issue here than what, if any, strikes appear in Armizare. That issue is that it is not a big freakin' deal. If you honestly believe that you have such command over the material in the sword, lance, dagger, axe, and mounted sections, as well as the grapples shown in abrazare, that you can afford to split hairs over empty-hand strikes then I envy you. I personally doubt that Fiore would care if you struck a hammer-fist, or a jab, or a cross when he says "Strike" - the point is to strike!