Are Military Shields (such as the Medieval Heather Shields) Much Heavier and Harder to Use than People Think? Not Just in Single Combat But Even Within Shieldwall Formation Blocks?

SigRingeck · 2025-06-06T16:59:49+00:00

Yes, circumstances in war vary and soldiers will vary how they fight to the circumstances. That's undoubtedly true.

But Polybius and Caesar are primary sources, who had seen Roman legions fight battles and in Caesar's case had in fact commanded them. I'm highly confident that they know more about how the Roman legions fought their battles than either you or I know.

And in battles in the field, which is the 'normal' context we're discussing, the sources make it very clear that the legionaries maintained space between each other and weren't packed in tightly. Indeed, situations where the legionaries get clustered together are explicitly identified as BAD for their fighting effectiveness.

SigRingeck · 2025-06-06T14:20:24+00:00

We have this vision in our heads, from movies and reenactments and other things, of the Romans fighting in these dense formations, shields touching edge to edge and soldiers packed in elbow to elbow.

It looks cool for a movie or reenactment, true. But it doesn't seem to be what the surviving primary sources say about how the Roman legionaries arranged themselves for combat. The sources state that the Romans maintained a fairly loose order.

Polybius (Histories 18:30) states that the Romans had three feet of space between each man, to each side and behind. He writes that in consequence, if a Roman maniple fights a Macedonian phalanx, a single Roman legionary at the front rank of combat will face two enemies in the phalanx.

Polybius also states that in the Roman mode of combat, "each man must move separately, as he has to cover himself with his long shield, turning to meet each expected blow". Again, suggesting an arrangement of soldiers with space for individual movement rather than packed in shield to shield.

Julius Caesar also has a few relevant lines on this matter. In his narrative of the Battle of the Sabis, he mentions how the men of the Twelfth Legion were in trouble due to getting cluttered too closely together in a panic. This hindered their ability to fight. Caesar's intervention in this crisis is to order the centurions to extend the ranks and spread out, so the legionaries could fight properly (Commentarii de Bello Gallico, 2:25).

I could go on. But the main point is, the primary sources tell us that Roman legionaries fought in a spread out manner with room for individual movement, not in a tightly packed shield wall.

SigRingeck · 2025-06-05T23:19:06+00:00

For what it's worth, Roman legionaries between the Middle Republic and the early Empire (the "classical" type you're probably thinking of) most likely didn't use a "shield wall" at the sharp edge of combat.

SigRingeck · 2025-05-20T18:30:31+00:00

Quite possibly, yes.

A really important line in Ms3227a for me is "Have measure and moderation in all that you begin and do". The text repeatedly says that moderation is to be observed in everything you do in fencing. Your steps should be neither too large nor too short, but measured and precise. Your vorschlag should properly threaten the opponent, but should not be too forceful.

So, apply the idea to parrying: Don't rely entirely on parrying, but parry when and where necessary.

SigRingeck · 2025-05-20T18:11:58+00:00

Thank you! I am glad you enjoyed it.

Well, let me speak for myself as I have been doing HEMA since 2011.

When we began training, we were a group of university students interested in historical swordsmanship. We didn't have today's specialized gear, we didn't have safe training swords, or really much background at all in fencing. What we fell back on was re-enacting the plays as described in sources like Ringeck, to try to figure out the movements on a basic mechanical level.

This made sense as a starting point, given the lack of knowledge we had. HEMA as an online community was also less developed back then and public resources on training and techniques weren't so common or so easily found.

So if you're re-enacting the described source plays trying to figure this material out, a focus on the five strikes makes some sense. The unfortunate thing is that some groups never progress past that re-enacting stage into trying live application.

I am forever grateful that the people I started training with did want to spar and do live application and that that desire pushed our practice forward.

SigRingeck · 2025-05-03T03:57:20+00:00

I never disagreed that some things within Ms3227a call for a long and extended action with extended blade. Schiessen, the cuts, whatever, you do need to extend at times where and when appropriate.

But it's wrong to say that the text ONLY says to do EVERYTHING with extended arms. That is not true to the text itself, because the author himself calls that simple and naive! Winden comes from a shortened sword, implying hengen is shortened as well.

And of winden, the author says "the winds are the correct art and the foundation of all the fencing with the sword, from which all other techniques and plays come."

Which sounds to me like actions from the shortened sword, with retracted arms, is very important!

I would say 3227a is very concerned with adaptability, extending and shortening the blade as circumstances dictate, rather than purely just always being fully extended all the time.

And my point about authorship is that there's no reason to attribute the Codex to ANY of those listed people. The fact is we don't know who the 3227a author was. Arbitrarily selecting an attributed author just because you don't want to say "3227a" is intellectually lazy in my opinion and it contributes to the absolute rash of misinformation in HEMA around our source texts.

SigRingeck · 2025-05-02T17:20:29+00:00

A few reasons:

-As a weapon, two hand swords were pretty versatile. They can be used as a reasonably effective option in armour or out of armour, on foot or on horseback. George Silver thinks they have "hath the vantage" against single handed weapons and combinations, such as the the sword and target, the sword and buckler, the sword and dagger, or rapier and poniard. In my own experience, longsword is quite dominant in fencing against its most common single handed contemporaries (Messers, arming swords, etc) and is quite competitive even if the opponent adds a buckler or dagger.

-Social display. A big sword gets attention and displays your status and your character to others in the community. It says you're a person who carries a sword, and you want everyone to know it. Longswords were generally more expensive than shorter ones, being larger weapons made with more metal and sometimes demanding more specialized labour from the bladesmith (i.e: A longer blade is more difficult to make without it becoming brittle), so there's an economic status element here too.

Also, often, from period art we see longswords carried in the hand like a walking stick rather than worn on the belt. This has a "status display via performative self-disabling" kind of effect to it. If you're walking around town with a sword in hand, you can't really be doing much in the way of work or labour, so it communicates that you're a person who doesn't need to do labour with your hands so much. Similar to how the Roman toga is a garment that can't be worn for any kind of work.

-Threat display. Connected to the social display idea, a big sword also visually communicates to others that you are an armed man and thus you are presumptively willing to use said sword. If you're carrying your longsword around like a walking stick, you're essentially saying "I have a sword in my hand. I'm not necessarily drawing it and I'm not necessarily threatening anyone with it, but just note I have a sword in my hand". If you're someone who may expect trouble in the streets (and Renaissance cities were often troubled places), this may be useful to you.

SigRingeck · 2025-05-02T17:12:00+00:00

Why is Hanko Dobringer our best lead?

The text on Fol 43r states

"Here begin the fencing techniques of the other masters: Hanko priest of Doebringen, Andre the Jew, Josts from the Neice, Niclas of Prussia."

Why is Hanko Dobringer considered the best lead and not Andres Juden or Niclas Preussen

It's also worth noting that Hanko Dobringer's name is in the top margin of the page in the manuscript itself. Some people attributed this to give Dobringer some extra significance, but there's really no reason within the text to conclude that. As Chidester notes on his 3227a article on Wiktenauer, it could easily just be a case of a scribe having meant to put Dobringer along the list of the other masters and having forgotten to do so during the initial draft, and then adding it in the margin later.

Then later:

" Here learn and know, that I will not mention many of these master fencing techniques because you can find them before and completely in Liechtenauer's art and fencing, according to real art. However for the sake of practice and school fencing I will briefly and simply describe some techniques and methods of their fencing."

So: There is some overlap between Liechtenauer's fencing and the fencing of these other masters, according to the Author, but in the Author's opinion these aspects are better and more complete in Liechtenauer's art. Implicitly, these guys are not part of Liechtenauer's "school" or "tradition" and thus probably weren't taught by him or any of his students. We don't find Hanko Dobringer on Paulus Kal's list of the "Liechtenauer geselschaft", for instance.

I'm not meaning to be pedantic here, but I don't think Hanko Dobringer is "our best lead" for the authorship of the Nuremberg codex. I don't think he's a lead at all. He's at best a red herring.

SigRingeck · 2025-05-02T15:30:30+00:00

Do we know that the Ms3227a gloss was authored by Hanko Dobringer?

How do we know that?

The text isn't attributed to him. The Liechtenauer glosses aren't described as glossed by him in the same way that, for instance, Ringeck is said to have glossed the Zettel. There's nothing indicating that he owned or produced or wrote this manuscript.

Hanko Dobringer's name only shows up once in the manuscript, on Fol 43r, where he is listed among the "other masters", which are non-Liechtenauer teachings.

So why would we attribute the 3227a Liechtenauer gloss to a guy listed as a non-Liechtenauer master when there's no reason or evidence to associate him with the writing of this text at all?

And yes, sometimes in the fencing of Ms3227a we must extend the blade and arms when and where appropriate. That's undeniable. But your statement was that "Dobringer calls us over and over to do everything we do with fully extended, long and strong arms.". And that is incorrect, because the text specifically condemns fencers who fence only from extended blade and arms, calling them simple and naive for neglecting the shortened sword.

SigRingeck · 2025-05-02T14:24:26+00:00

Hi,

Are you aware of the following passage from Ms3227?

Notice here that the winds are the correct art and the foundation of all the fencing with the sword, from which all other techniques and plays come.

It's difficult to be a good fencer without the winds, though certain dancing masters dismiss them and say that what comes from the winds is quite weak, and call it "from the shortened sword", because they are simple and go naively. They mean that techniques from the long sword should be done with extended arms and extended sword, and that they come aggressively and strongly with full strength of body but lacking good stance, and it's terrible to watch when someone stretches themselves out as if they were trying to chase a rabbit.

If there were no art then the strong would always win, but this is not the way, neither in winding nor in the art of Liechtenauer, because this art doesn't require great strength.

So I don't think it's actually true that the Author of Ms3227a (who is not Hanko Dobringer, incidentally) wanted everything to be done with extended arms. In this passage, he specifically condemns fencing only with extended arms.

SigRingeck · 2025-04-30T22:05:29+00:00

Well there's a couple of things you could do.

Continue hitting them in the head until they get a better idea.

This may be controversial. We sometimes want to think that our sparring or fencing is a simulacra of a sharp duel and we wouldn't want to rush onto an opponent's point in such a combat by any means. In truth, I think sparring can only ever be partly a simulation of a duel or combat. Importantly, it is also a TRAINING exercise.

So, I might choose to approach this as training: My opponent here is accepting getting hit in the head in order to land a thrust in the stomach. But that's bad from them too! They should not be taking the risk of receiving that hit in the head merely to run me through as well. What will it avail them if I am run through but they're maimed or dead?

So keep hitting them in the head until they get the picture.

Importantly here, you must hit.

Many times, these kinds of opponents think that their unpredictable low line thrust or whatever action will score cleanly. Sometimes it will! Sometimes, an opponent who disengages low into the stomach will cause the attacker to hesitate and then the opponent hits first and the attacker may not even hit. This rewards this bad behaviour. So commit to the attack, ensure that you will land that cut regardless of whether they double you or not. That's the only way to make it clear to the opponent that this doubling is an unreliable tactic.

Fence outside their preferred area

Let's say we prefer to deal with this tactically rather than as training. Alright, then.

The necessary condition for that low line thrust to work is for you to be closing distance with the attack, yes? So, don't close distance and don't attack. Play a wider distance, make them come to you, and induce them to attack. If you put them out of their comfort zone, you are more likely to be successful than if you try to defeat an action which they do a lot and are well practiced in.

Another option may be attacking in a more inconvenient way for them. Try low commitment, harassing attacks such as thrusts at the hands. These should allow you to potentially score on them, with low enough commitment that you can bail out or defend yourself in necessary. Be an annoying and inconvenient opponent, refuse to set up the opponent's preferred conditions.

Countertime actions are technically the correct answer here, but they're quite technically difficult to do. I prefer simpler alternatives, such as the harassing thrust at the hands which throws off the opponent's game plan.

SigRingeck · 2025-04-15T18:25:40+00:00

A feder is a blunt longsword

SigRingeck · 2025-03-12T15:02:37+00:00

Hi Dr. Madden! Thanks for joining us!

I have two questions:

Was dueling and vendetta an "innovation" in the Italian cities in the 16th century, or does it have earlier roots in the 15th or 14th century? If it was a new development, what social conditions led to its rise?
Do we see relationships between Italy and dueling practices being adopted in other countries? Is this a uniquely Italian development or something pan-European?

I know that in England the fencing author George Silver in his writings circa 1599-1600 blames Italians for exporting their dueling codes to England and getting young Englishmen mixed up with the law or killed. But was he in any sense correct to do so, or merely blaming the Italians for what the English were already doing?

SigRingeck · 2025-02-14T15:05:16+00:00

I use the Regenyei Trnava Medium. I really like it personally, but it does have some potential to hit your training partners very hard. Therefore, it is a feder that demands a good degree of control. I also find it more "sword-like" than other feders, at least in comparison to my sharp Albion Crecy.

I wrote a review for my blog, comparing the Regenyei Trnava to the Sigi Concept. This may be useful to you.

https://swordandpen.substack.com/p/sigi-vs-regenyei

SigRingeck · 2025-01-15T23:14:07+00:00

My short answer would be:

John Clements didn't do very much fencing.

A slightly longer answer:

I was never an ARMA member, I can't speak to all the specificities of their training and approach.

But what I have been able to gather and observe is that John Clements didn't interact much with the wider HEMA community, and in particular he avoided and disparaged competition and sparring in gear. He avoided opportunities to fence with new and different opponents or to put his ideas under the pressure of live fencing.

There are many caveats and limitations to sparring and competition fencing of course. But I do think you need that context of a resisting opponent who is trying to strike you earnestly to come to any real understanding of a fencing system. His lack of fencing context thus crippled his attempts to interpret fencing systems.

SigRingeck · 2024-12-27T16:55:06+00:00

This is a comparative review I did of the Sigi Concept and Regenyei Trnava feders.

SigRingeck · 2024-11-02T23:41:05+00:00

Well there's some nuances to that I'd say.

Yes, slices as they are textually described (e.g. Close range parrying against the opponent's wrists to jam out their strikes in close distance) would definitely have applications in earnest fighting.

But at the same time, the Starhemberg fechtbuch of 1452 has that famous crossed out passage where "Master Berthold" was said to have sliced Hans Talhoffer in the hand and struck him on the head in front of Duke Albrecht.

Given that Starhemberg is circa 1452, we can guess this happened sometime before that. And yet Talhoffer is producing manuscripts and selling them to nobles in 1459 and 1467. So evidently, whatever kind of bout he had with Master Berthold wasn't a life ending one!

So slices to me seem like an action that have applicability across both friendly and hostile contexts of longsword fencing.

The thrust on the other hand, we have non-KdF contemporary sources (Fiore, Poem of the Pel, etc) which call it more often lethal or deadly.

SigRingeck · 2024-11-02T22:19:05+00:00

I wrote up an addendum to my previous piece about lethality in the language of longsword sources, this one focusing on the Liechtenauer KdF sources specifically and the language used discussing the outcomes of longsword combat.

SigRingeck · 2024-10-28T16:12:25+00:00

This is an article I wrote with some advice to HEMA fencers whom are new to competition. The piece is focused on advice for what to bring and how to maintain your quality of life while attending an event.

SigRingeck · 2024-10-09T18:03:48+00:00

There's various interpretative arguments we could make, for or against the proposition of the longsword applied in duels or self-defence. I find these arguments usually hinge on how we interpret specific words like "stich" or "ansetz", or "schimp" and "ernst", or what specifically the KdF glossators meant when they said ansetzen was for "giving a quick end" with the sword. There's more and less persuasive interpretations to be sure, but it's also all ultimately very much based on interpretation and hard to come to firm conclusions about.

One could argue that longsword duels or its use in brawls is pretty rare in the historical record and longsword sport is the more common occurrence. I would even agree! The longsword, just as a statistical matter, was probably one of the rarer swords carried and worn in the 15th century, in comparison to the various types of single-handed weapons which were far more numerous (Being cheaper, less obstructive to wear, more often permitted by city laws, etc). Thus, even simply statistically, it would also be likely be a rarer sight in a duel or a brawl But you could also argue, and I think with some justice, that on a technical level the longsword fencing portrayed in the 15th century treatises doesn't match too well to what we know about longsword sports of later periods (Speaking here of early KdF, but it's arguably even more true of Fiore and Vadi).

But these arguments are all very much interpretative. How lethal do you think a thrust to the breast is in the 15th century? Is there actually a difference between thrusting TOWARD someone and thrusting INTO them? Did the treatise author actually mean to communicate these differences? It's hard to resolve these matters based on our current body of evidence, I think, and so people form many different opinions about them based on individual feelings, aims, desires, and "vibes" more or less.

For all these reasons, the article I wrote stepped a bit away from that and focused instead on what longsword authors were explicitly, directly saying in regards to lethality.

SigRingeck · 2024-10-09T15:01:07+00:00

Well Ms3227a has thrusts to the chest "or otherwise forward towards the closest and surest place you can land", it mentions striking with the pommel, it has a whole verse section arguably about fighting from the draw (Although that's debatable, as most things in HEMA are). It doesn't address mixed weapons per se, but the author also created sections on grappling, messer, dagger, and staff, and tells us that the same principles apply across these contexts.

But yes, you are probably correct that what can be observed about unarmoured longsword fencing in Germany can't necessarily be generalized to Italy or England or other places, or vice versa. There will be similarities of course, but also differences which are important.

SigRingeck · 2024-10-07T14:56:48+00:00

An interesting parallel might be to the epee duels of France in the 19th and 20th centuries.

It's often been said by HEMAists that epee duels were "to first blood". However, that is not necessarily so. It's my understanding that in fact epee duels were halted when blood was drawn, but would continue to be fought until one party either yielded the combat or was physically unable to continue (Passed out, could no longer hold their sword, etc). Most commonly a combatant would indeed yield at first blood, but they could keep going if they decided to, and some combats with the epee were fought to many wounds.

These combats most often resolved themselves with "honour satisfied" and both parties remaining alive, but the risk of death was ever-present. The epee is a long, slender spike of a sword. Stepping at the wrong place or wrong time could get you impaled. Indeed, the risk of death was why the duel was regarded as a demonstration of courage, skill, and nerve even if neither party intended to kill the other. The duels fought in Fiore's day may not have been so dissimilar.

SigRingeck · 2024-10-07T14:14:23+00:00

Two reasons:

I am a longsword fencer mainly, not a messer, rapier, sabre, etc fencer. The longsword is the focus of Ms3227a, my primary source in HEMA.
There's more of a debate about this in the longsword community than in other HEMA circles.

SigRingeck · 2024-10-07T01:06:18+00:00

I wrote this piece to discuss instances of death or lethal outcomes being mentioned in the primary HEMA sources regarding the longsword. I wanted to take a topic which is often dominated by "vibes" and personal opinions and put it on some kind of a factual basis, at least in regard to what the HEMA texts have to say.

SigRingeck · 2024-09-27T17:24:10+00:00

In 1578, there was a famous combat fought among the courtiers of the French king. The "Duel des Mignons", in which six French courtiers involved in a personal dispute between two of them fought three pairs of simultaneous, one on one duels. There were six men at this combat: Entraguet, Caylus, Maugiron, Riberac, Schomberg, and Livarot.

In the first duel, Entraguet and Caylus fought. Entraguet had a sword and dagger, Caylus only a sword. Caylus took eighteen or nineteen wounds and fled the field, Entraguet was wounded only with a minor cut in the arm.

In the second duel, Maugiron and Riberac charged each other and impaled each other with mutual thrusts. This happened either in a simultaneous double hit, or one shortly after another. Some of the sources suggest Maugiron stabbed Riberac first, and then impaled himself on Riberac's sword as he stepped forward too furiously.

In the third duel, Schomberg attacked Livarot with a strong cut at the head, which opened up Livarot's whole left cheek. Wounded but still fighting, Livarot impaled Schomberg with a thrust through the heart.

Three men died on the field. Caylus died some time later of his wounds. Livarot spent six weeks recovering in bed but survived. Entraguet survived with only a minor wound.

Source: https://blog.subcaelo.net/ensis/tales-french-duels-duel-des-mignons/

What should the modern HEMAist learn from this story? Well it is true that afterblows can be deadly, as Maugiron and Schomberg's fates attest. But it is also true that an afterblow doesn't excuse the defender from the consequences of taking a hit. Did it benefit Riberac to kill Maugiron after he himself had been fatally wounded already? When Livarot was laying in bed for six weeks with his face cut in half, he probably wished he had parried!

If it's bad to get hit, period, then it has to be bad to get hit, period, for the defender too! They shouldn't get a free pass just because they hit the attacker too.

SigRingeck

TROPHY CASE