Yes, they were. Almost all of our knowledge of European swordsmanship is based in some way on Liechtenauer. And that encompasses MULTIPLE works by MULTIPLE masters. Even Fiore and the other Italian masters, and the fragmentary remains of the English manuscripts, share most of their elements with the works of the German books.
Note that this is NOT just a matter of lack of historical record, either. Liechtenauer is held up as THE authority on the longsword even by his contemporaries and successors.
So longsword fencing very much WAS a universal system. Every master may have had his own unique spin on it, the Germans may have approached grappling in a slightly different manner than the Italians, but the fundamentals are all the same. Hell, thereâs even some elements that arenât too dissimilar from the katana, simply because human body mechanics donât change.
thats the point, its not supposed to be doable unless you have the skill, just like real life. you would probably have to practice to get good, and once you have gotten good enough you will be able to take on like 2 MAYBE 3 guys.
All those manuscripts and books only state that there have been people in that specific time who did know those techniques. I am not talking about the basics, but more about those fencing tricks that are shown as combos ingame. Also modern martial arts are based on human body mechanics, but that doesnât mean that everyone knows how to do that. Just imagine travelling to the future and finding one of those âmodernâ martial arts books from today. Would you think that all âprofessional soldiersâ today (if you were in the future it would be the past) would use those techniques?
I find this topic very interesting, thanks to you all replying to that
The âfencing tricksâ as you call them, are âcombosâ because thatâs what is most fluid when fighting. As a beginner swordsman, i can attest to the intuitiveness of said âcombosâ - they just make sense. They fit together well. When you do a diagonal downward cut (upper right to bottom left), your sword is now pointing towards the ground on your left side. It makes sense that your next attack will come from either its current position diagonally up (lower left to upper right), horizontally back to the right (middle left to middle right), or from diagonally up from the right (lower right to upper left). Its a way to attack while moving your sword into a new striking position, instead of aimlessly flailing and leaving yourself open to attack. These concepts can be taught in minutes. Granted, proficiency may take a day or two of determined practice. But still, armies on the march did not move quickly, and a man-at-arms most certainly spent more time marching and standing around, than he did fighting for his life.
Regarding whether or not people knew more than just the basics - if theyâre a mercenary, its because they know more than the basics. Its just stupid to hire yourself out as a mercenary without knowing how to kill people. As far as peasant levies go, if i was a farmer called upon by my lord, the first thing i would do is find a veteran in the camp, and have him show me some techniques. See my previous paragraph for how easy that is.
Lastly, regarding the written manuscripts we have. There is a well-informed YouTuber that I subscribe to, Skallagrim - his videos are entertaining and informative, I highly recommend him. Anyways, in one video where he talks about other possible sword techniques, he states that what we have in the manuscripts consists of tried and true methods - techniques that would have been widely used because they worked. Techniques that werenât effective most likely died with the person or people that attempted them, so we have the distilled version of what worked. Its kind of like natural selection, except for fighting techniques.
Also, one more thing. âmodernâ martial arts - by which I assume are things like unarmed combat techniques - are very specific, and very different in style and approach to situations. You have karate which involves lots of striking, Jiu Jitsu which is exclusively grappling, you have Krav Maga which is straight up dirty fighting, and many other things. Sword-fighting was not that varied in Europed. Yes, there are slightly different approaches between Italian and German longsword (iâm learning Italian), but the core concepts and techniques are just about the same. Likewise - and I dare provoke the wrath of more experienced swordsmen here on the forums (please donât kill me ) - but basic sword techniques take less instruction and less physical training to grasp than unarmed combat techniques. Yes, to master said sword techniques takes lots of practice, but the basics are quite simple.
Actually, being able to swing a stick without tiring very quickly takes a lot of physical training, and thatâs just for swinging a stick. Imagine doing that with armor on your body and against an enemy who is bound to use physical force on you. I might be wrong here, be medieval combat required more physical training than renaissance sword fighting.
You canât compare the two. Being good at hand to hand combat is in no way required for a modern soldier⊠their main weapons is a firearm and it is very, very rare for a modern soldier to get into hand to hand combat.(when they do a medal often follows)
When I was in the army I might have had a handful of times where we did any sort of training in it in it, after we finished basic training.(and during basic trailing is was rather limited)
And the main reason for doing the bit we did, was for the physical training not the combat skills.
For the medieval soldier hand to hand combat was the norm. (unless you where an archer, and even then they might very well need to use a sword also. Both in battle and during skirmishes and raiding)
So to compare it you should be reading a book about marksmanship. like the relevant US army book on how to teach recruits marksmanship.
I think you missunderstand the use of mercenaries at those times.
Most of them have been poor people, beeing in debts or hoping to become rich by beeing hired.
Edit: They didnât even had to be much skilled because there were cheap weapons that were easely to handle like a spear or crossbows
They all got hired just to outnumber the enemy, because there werenât enough levies to fight for those feudal masters. Else their whole economy would have collapsed, if they sent all the levy farmers and craftsmen.
The only difference between soldiers and mercenaries were that mercenaries fought to get money and soldiers had to, due to the feudal rights of nobles.
Also in german mercenary (Söldner) and soldier (Soldat) describe nearly the same thing.
People that are recieving a pay (Sold).
I allready did subscribe to Skallagrim for almost a year. But I wouldnât describe him as âwell-informedâ.
I would recommend you to watch a few videos of Holmgang Hamburg. Even if they focus on Viking themed stuff. They try to reconstruct fighting techniques by doing it the hard way. (but I still have to say that they are some crazy messed up dudes and because of that it might be not that enjoyable for some people ) Also I would recommend Lindybeige, because he has unique points of views on different topics. (but he is kinda strange, too :))
I agree on that natural selection part, it mostly makes sense.
But it still doesnât prevent groups of people using worse or much more different techniques.
Just think about the differences between the roman legions and germanic or celtic tribes.
Maybe those groups outnumbered the enemy in a battle or didnât even fight against people with other techniques.
It makes sense for me that, groups of people who did use other techniques did exist in the medieval times. Maybe they all died in combat or didnât even fight and died in high ages. But there is still a high chance they existed. Maybe even in that specific area and time that KC:D is lokated at.
If my points are not clear enough just ask me. English is not my native language and I am also very tired from work.
I still need to do that video where I and a few others tin up to show you how to deal with 1 vs 2 or 3. It is more than possible if you know what youâre doing.
I agree about the locking part - it is too CONSOLISH IMO, and weâve had a promise for Deliverance to be a PC game before anything else. Free look, non-locked and more dynamic combat should be better as far as Iâm concerned.
As for the mouse mechanics - I also agree, it is hard to play right now. Blocking is too lame - just a single key to press and hold and no timing, no direction dependance. Not like M&B or Chivalry and too arcadeâŠ
That being said, I more and more doubt that Deliverance would be the game with best sword combat, neither would it be most realistic. I worry about @warhorse getting lost in their own super complicated motion captured high tech process and just fail to deliver the real fun like M&B does considering its really simple engine.
I wish @warhorse the best and hope theyâll manage somehow. However, summer 2016 isnât looking realistic release date for me since 0.4 was launched. Just so many things to do in less than a year, given the fact many promised (expected) features were already cut offâŠ
As Iâve said before, Iâm not too keen on the combat system. I get why itâs implemented how it is, due to the motion sensor and disallowing spasm fighting like in M&B. However, I think a non locking system would be better, allow free camera movement and player movement and let us strike wherever we want⊠Dare I say? Like Skyrim? but with you know, a bit of M&B attached so you can actually choose attack and block directions. If we have to absolutely have to lock, let the lock be broken by looking away, not button command (so like a focus instead). Either way, I canât wait for the game and if I can play Skyrim with only one attack button and block, not even being able to choose attack directions, so be it. Itâs the story that counts! Who cares if we canât hit a chicken or whack a wall with a mace? Apart from you know, those insane peopleâŠ
Sure you can master some spear techniques and you sure need a bit training how to use it before you are ready for a battle. But spears simply outreach other weapons if used correctly. And you donât need that much of training to know how to correctly thrust with that while beeing out of reach for enemiy strikes. (and yes I am aware about that there are many countertactics how to gain reach to your spear-holding opponent, so I am just referring to a battlefield type of fight - not a duel)
Edit: Damn I should have refreshed before replying @SirWarriant
The main problem about that is that we just donât know about other aproaches of sword fighting.
The most knowledges we have are from skilled masters. So it is kinda a more philosophical thing to discuss about what a simple soldier or mercenary knew/ was skilled in.
But we also canât say that those manuscripts or FechtbĂŒcher described the common art of sword fighting just because we know that they existed/ got written in that era. That was the point I was reffering to using the modern martial arts as example.
You are still not getting the point. Most of the basic that is in the books are just that - basics.
It based on body mechanics and physics⊠and something that you can teach a person in a few days.
There are basic stuff that you find in early sword and buckler, late sword and buckler, Italian longsword, German longsword, Messer, polearms and so on.
Ballance, tempo, reach⊠if you strike low and I strike high I got longer reach then youâŠ(when we are armed with similar weapons) that is simple geometry that any idiot can learn in a few minutes.
That is an universal truth.
And yes some of the books are clearly advanced stuff. I.33 for one is⊠but that donât change the fact that it is based on the same basic rules of body mechanics and physics and everything else is.
) - but basic sword techniques take less instruction and less physical training to grasp than unarmed combat techniques. Yes, to master said sword techniques takes lots of practice, but the basics are quite simple.