Outside of American dojos or mist-shrouded temples of the orient where the spirituality-infused tradition of oriental martial arts is passed on, the combat techniques and martial arts traditions commonly used throughout Europe for hundreds of years have largely been lost.
In recent years a number of groups have turned to a relatively scarce number of surviving manuals and, through study of those manuals and diligent practice, have made an effort to recreate the combat arts that existed in Europe (and many parts of the Mideast) for the centuries before firearms turned the sword into primarily a civilian weapon. Before the advent of such groups, however, our view of such combat was shaped largely by filmmakers, who had no concern with historicity, and every concern with visual impact.
The result has been and still is sequences of sword dueling that, however exciting they may be to watch, are not bounded by any biomechanical or practical reality in either technique or length of encounter. This is true even though such scenes have gotten far more sophisticated, having moved beyond the simple strike-edge-to-edge-parry-disengage-and-repeat sequence of old swashbuckling films.
The intent was far more driven: keep from getting killed and if possible, kill your opponent. Which meant the action that followed the intent was far more explosive and intense--and by extrapolation, short-lived. Assuming that skill, weapon-quality, and armor-quality are equal between two combatants, a simple mistake or miscalculation was all that was necessary to the end the encounter. To see just how quickly this could happen, watch the short video below. Please note that this particular discussion pertains to opponents wielding swords. Sword-and-shield techniques are different, as are the techniques for knives, bludgeoning weapons, and polearms.
ARMA Longsword techniques
Additional techniques (ARMA)
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Thursday, May 22, 2014
The Real Macbeth
Macbeth, or Mac Bethad mac Findláich, was born around 1005. His reputation as a coward and a murderer is not reflected in any records or writings by men contemporary to him. Our modern view is shaped almost exclusively by the character of Macbeth as portrayed by Shakespeare, who in turn based his character largely on the portrayal of Macbeth in Hector Boece's "History of Scotland" published in 1527. This history contained a number of distortions and even actual inventions, including the characters of Banquo and the witches.² It is generally agreed that his father was Findláich the mormaer of Moray (mormaer meaning a steward, but the Latin word used for it typically denotes "earl"), from the familial line of Loarn, which was a branch of the Dal Riata rulers. There is some uncertainty regarding his mother, but some historians believe she was Donada, a daughter of Malcom II of Scotland.¹
Macbeth's father was murdered when he was in his teens, and Macbeth's cousin Malcom, and afterward Gillecomgain took the title of mormaer. When Gillecomgain was murdered in 1032, the title of mormaer came to Macbeth. In 1033, he married Gruoch, Gillecomgain's widow, but they had no children.
Previous mormaer's of Moray had been very hostile toward Duncan I and the main royal line of the kings of Scotland, but Macbeth was more restrained in his hostility. He could afford to be, for Duncan was a poor strategist. He attempted to raid Northumbria to the south (to which his wife, Sybilla had strong family connections) in 1040 and was unsuccessful, so he turned his attention to Caithness and Thorfinn, the Earl of Orkney, to the north.²
Macbeth is believed to have a close relationship with Thorfinn, who is believed to have been his half-brother. When Duncan, whose raid on Caithness went poorly as he found himself outmaneuvered, Macbeth sent soldiers to supplement those of Thorfinn as Duncan retreated. Ultimately it was Macbeth that at encountered Duncan on the battlefield at Pitgaveny in August of 1040, where Duncan I was killed. Unlike the old man characterized by Shakespeare, Duncan was only 39 at the time of his death. His two young sons, including Malcom (who would become Malcom III) were sent away to safety. Macbeth was next in the line of succession, and he was elected to throne.²
In 1045 Crinan, Duncan's father and Macbeth's uncle+ staged a rebellion. The battle occurred near Dunkeld, where Crinan and his second son, Maldred were killed. In 1050, he was apparently secure enough in rule that he traveled to Rome for a papal jubilee.
In 1054 Duncan's son Malcom, supported by Kind Edward the Confessor of England and given the aid of Siward's (Earth of Northumbria) army, invaded Scotland. The two quite large armies met at Dunsinnan on July 27, 1054. This is believed to be the battle referred to in Shakespeare's play by the witches, though it was fought in the open and not with Macbeth hiding in a castle.¹,²
The battle was essentially a Scottish conflict, with Northumbrian (English) forces fighting on behalf of Malcom. Interestingly, most of Siward's army was comprised of Scandinavian troops, and much of Macbeth's army were Norman troops, the result of Normans taking refuge in Scotland after being expelled from England by King Edward. There was also a high probability that Thorfinn had sent men from Orkney, which would also have been largely Norse. Thus the battle was fought between old enemies--Danes versus Norse.²,³
Macbeth was defeated, but he was not deposed, and Siward had sustained large enough losses that he was forced to withdraw south to Strathclyde. He used this as a base of operations for continuing raids into Scotland, resulting in several years of civil war as his strength grew, and Macbeth's declined. In 1057 Macbeth found himself cut off from his main army during a retreat, and possibly wounded during a skirmish. He was then ambushed by at Lumphanan and killed. Indications are that support for Macbeth was quite strong, as his stepson Lulach was chosen to succeed him rather than Malcom, who had successfully defeated Macbeth.²
Sources
1. "Macbeth" Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/macbeth.shtml
2. Mike Ashley, (1998) The Mammoth Book of British Kings & Queens (pp393-395), New York, Carroll & Graf Publishers, Inc.
3. "Macbeth" (n.d.) Wikipedia, Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macbeth_of_Scotland
 |
| The medieval portion of Iona Abbey, located on the Isle of Iona on the west coast of Scotland, where Macbeth is buried. Photo by Oliver-Bonjoch |
Macbeth's father was murdered when he was in his teens, and Macbeth's cousin Malcom, and afterward Gillecomgain took the title of mormaer. When Gillecomgain was murdered in 1032, the title of mormaer came to Macbeth. In 1033, he married Gruoch, Gillecomgain's widow, but they had no children.
Previous mormaer's of Moray had been very hostile toward Duncan I and the main royal line of the kings of Scotland, but Macbeth was more restrained in his hostility. He could afford to be, for Duncan was a poor strategist. He attempted to raid Northumbria to the south (to which his wife, Sybilla had strong family connections) in 1040 and was unsuccessful, so he turned his attention to Caithness and Thorfinn, the Earl of Orkney, to the north.²
Macbeth is believed to have a close relationship with Thorfinn, who is believed to have been his half-brother. When Duncan, whose raid on Caithness went poorly as he found himself outmaneuvered, Macbeth sent soldiers to supplement those of Thorfinn as Duncan retreated. Ultimately it was Macbeth that at encountered Duncan on the battlefield at Pitgaveny in August of 1040, where Duncan I was killed. Unlike the old man characterized by Shakespeare, Duncan was only 39 at the time of his death. His two young sons, including Malcom (who would become Malcom III) were sent away to safety. Macbeth was next in the line of succession, and he was elected to throne.²
In 1045 Crinan, Duncan's father and Macbeth's uncle+ staged a rebellion. The battle occurred near Dunkeld, where Crinan and his second son, Maldred were killed. In 1050, he was apparently secure enough in rule that he traveled to Rome for a papal jubilee.
In 1054 Duncan's son Malcom, supported by Kind Edward the Confessor of England and given the aid of Siward's (Earth of Northumbria) army, invaded Scotland. The two quite large armies met at Dunsinnan on July 27, 1054. This is believed to be the battle referred to in Shakespeare's play by the witches, though it was fought in the open and not with Macbeth hiding in a castle.¹,²
The battle was essentially a Scottish conflict, with Northumbrian (English) forces fighting on behalf of Malcom. Interestingly, most of Siward's army was comprised of Scandinavian troops, and much of Macbeth's army were Norman troops, the result of Normans taking refuge in Scotland after being expelled from England by King Edward. There was also a high probability that Thorfinn had sent men from Orkney, which would also have been largely Norse. Thus the battle was fought between old enemies--Danes versus Norse.²,³
Macbeth was defeated, but he was not deposed, and Siward had sustained large enough losses that he was forced to withdraw south to Strathclyde. He used this as a base of operations for continuing raids into Scotland, resulting in several years of civil war as his strength grew, and Macbeth's declined. In 1057 Macbeth found himself cut off from his main army during a retreat, and possibly wounded during a skirmish. He was then ambushed by at Lumphanan and killed. Indications are that support for Macbeth was quite strong, as his stepson Lulach was chosen to succeed him rather than Malcom, who had successfully defeated Macbeth.²
Sources
1. "Macbeth" Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/macbeth.shtml
2. Mike Ashley, (1998) The Mammoth Book of British Kings & Queens (pp393-395), New York, Carroll & Graf Publishers, Inc.
3. "Macbeth" (n.d.) Wikipedia, Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macbeth_of_Scotland
Friday, May 9, 2014
Medieval Armor--Iconic Versus Historic
Attend any renaissance fair or re-enactment of the middle ages, and you will find no shortage of warriors in plate armor carrying longswords. For many, it is the only solid image that comes to mind, for the "knight in shining armor" is perhaps the icon of the era. And though the image itself is grounded in reality, the view of it as the norm for all of Western Europe throughout the entire Middle Ages is grossly inaccurate.
 |
| Jousting Match from Gugulix via Flickr |
 |
| Source: Mykg via Flickr |
Weapons, tactics and armor all developed in relationship to each other and therefore development was regional. In the early middle ages, most armor was leather or cloth, designed to provide some sort of protection against weapons that, for the most part, inflicted damage by cutting. The Roman gladius was a primarily a cutting weapon with a short blade that could be wielded safely within the tight ranks of the Roman legions. As time progressed, blades seemed to lengthen, one would surmise in the attempt to gain a reach advantage over one's enemy. The greater length also provided greater force when the blade made contact, increasing the potential for damage. This became of greater importance with the advent of chainmail (some say as early as the 5th century in the British Isles), which defended quite well against cuts. It did not, however, protect against concussion, and a blade landing with significant force could cause injury even if it was prevented from actually cutting.
The increasing use of chainmail led to the development of swords with narrower tips that rendered the weapon more suitable for thrusting and cutting. A blade thrust might pierce less substantial chainmail, and a soldier incapacitated by a forceful blow that failed to cut was then susceptible to a sword-thrust to unprotected areas.
Chainmail did not provide the same high level of protection against arrows or spears, and it's probably no accident that the increasing use of archers in battle seems to have been accompanied by the appearance of plates of metal being incorporated into armor. As plate armor became more prevalent, so did the use of weapons other than the longsword, even the best of which cannot cut through plate. Some crossbows might be able to pierce plate, but for the most part, the most effective weapons against plate were hammers, maces, and pikes. Hammers and maces could dent and cause rents in the armor, and in the process, beat the man inside to a pulp or knock him to the ground where a sword or dagger could be thrust into gaps for the kill; pikes wielded with enough force could actually pierce plate armor.
Because different regions developed at different speeds, it was not uncommon to see weapons and armor of predominately one type in one region, and those of a different type in a different region. Even moreso, to see all manner of types on the same battlefield even if there was a prevalence of one, as weapons and armor of one sort did not fall into disuse or disfavor all at once. The truth was, a man wore what he could afford that he thought would protect him most, and he armed himself with whatever he could afford that would enable him to kill his enemy before he got killed himself.
Obviously, plate was the ultimate in battlefield defensive armor, but it was vastly expensive and out of reach to all but a small percentage of elite soldiers and knights. In the early middle ages, a good sword might cost over a dozen cows (in a time when having one or two was average to well-off). A full suit of quality plate-armor cost the equivalent of thousands of dollars.
 |
| The highly-engraved (and probably for parade-use only) armor of Emperor Frederick II. |
Thursday, April 17, 2014
The Fate of La Isabella
 |
| Christopher Columbus, Cristofo Colombo, Cristobal Colon |
In 1492 Christopher Columbus, or Cristofo Colombo in his native Italian, set sail from Spain and landed just over a month later in what we now know as the Bahamas. He continued on and landed at Hispaniola (the island now home to Haiti and the Dominican Republic). There the ship Santa Maria foundered on a reef. Columbus established a fort or settlement there, christened it "Villa de la Navidad" and left just over 3 dozen men there. Since he was convinced he had found Asia, Columbus returned to Spain.
In 1493 Columbus left Spain a second time. When he returned to Hispaniola, he found that Villa de la Navidad (in what is now Haiti) had been destroyed and several of the men massacred. He sailed some 50 miles east along the northern coast and built a new settlement which he named La Isabella, which was located in the present-day Dominican Republic and was the first permanent non-native settlement in the Western Hemishpere.
 |
| Columbus' First Voyage. Map by Keith Pickering. Columbus' nomenclature in blue, modern names in black. |
 |
| Colombus' Second Voyage. Map by Keith Pickering. |
Though established with in the vicinity of a 1000 settlers, La Isabella was abandoned within 4 years. Disease and a hostile relationship with the local natives caused by Columbus' harsh treatment of them are believed to be the primary cause. Some of the typical diseases are to blame: malaria, smallpox, influenza. But new evidence uncovered by forensic archaeology suggests that a previously-unsuspected condition may also have played a role: scurvy.
The bones of crew and settlers indicate that many suffered from severe scurvy, a disease caused by vitamin C deficiency and common to sailors of the era. Some of the scientists believe that being afflicted with scurvy at the time the settlement was established resulted in the settlers being more susceptible to other diseases, and that disease, privation, and poor morale all combined to destroy La Isabella.
Monday, April 7, 2014
Kingdoms within the UK 600-900
 |
| A rough idea of the kingdoms what is now the United Kingdom 600-900 AD. Based on a chart drawn by Brian Inness in Mike Ashley’s The Mammoth Book of British Kings & Queens, Carroll & Graf Publishers, Inc., New York, 1998 |
Northumbria and Mercia emerged as among the most powerful kingdoms of the era. Not until the late 600s did Wessex begin to unify. Under Egbert, the West Saxons dominated and became the rulers of England. It’s unclear when he was born, though it could have been as early 770 or 771. He is believed to have been the son of Eahlmund, who was briefly king of Kent. After the murder of Cynewulf, King Offa of Mercia gave the kingship of Wessex to Beorhtric, who viewed Egbert as a threat.
It’s believed that Egbert, with connections to Kent and it’s strong ties to the Frankish kingdoms, avoided potential murder by Beorhtric by removing himself to Charlemagne’s court. While there he was married to a close relative of Charlemagne’s. After the death of Beorhtric, the witan (council) recalled him from exile in 802 to succeed as king of Wessex. By 815, he had succeeded in bringing Kernow (Cornwall) under the near total influence of Wessex.
In 825, Mercia invaded, but its new king, Beornwulf, was defeated. Almost immediately afterward, Egberte sent his son, two earls, and the Bishop of Sherborne with an army into Kent, driving out King Baldred. Egbert's forces continued on into East Anglia, where it appears they may have been welcomed, as the East Anglian king wanted Egbert’s support against Mercia. Egbert invaded Mercia itself in 829 and moved on into Northumbria. King Eanred met him there and agreed to Egbert’s overlordship.
Egbert’s success was soon tempered by raids by Danish Vikings. In 835 they landed in Kent and the following year in Devon. Egbert failed to drive them out, by 838, the Vikings had combined forces with the Cornish in a war against the Saxons. The Saxons defeated them, however, in a battle near the Devon-Cornwall border. Egbert died about 839 and was succeeded by his son, Athelwolf, who was the father of Alexander the Great.
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Oddest Cause of Death Ever?
Around 875 there was a man by the name of Sigurd I, also known as Sigurd Riki (Sigurd the Mighty) who was the earl of Orkney. He was a brother to Ragnald I and a direct descendant of one of several lines of Scandinavian kings. Ragnald initially was earl (jarl) of Orkney, but chronicles suggest he had little interest in administration and more in seafaring and warfare. He gave the title and the responsibility to Sigurd.
Sigurd was ambitious and wanted to establish his own kingdom. He teamed up with a cousin--the descendant of one of his ancestral uncles--and began to conquer northern Scotland. These conquests became the material of many Norse sagas, all of which portray Sigurd and his cousin Thorstein the Red, as two of the mightiest warriors of their day. They conquered the Picts of northern Britain, which resulted in the border of their combined kingdoms extending considerably south, with Sigurd possibly also laying claim to the northern Hebrides.
The Scottish kings were apparently too busy sorting out their own affairs in the south. Attempts to defend against the invaders were left to the earls of the Picts and Scots. One such earl was Maelbrigte, who was possibly the earl of Moray (and therefore an ancestor of Macbeth). He refused to negotiate terms with Sigurd, who flew into a rage and killed Maelbrigte. He hung Maelbrigte's head from his saddle as a trophy. Over the course of riding, however, the teeth from the severed head scraped Sigurd's leg. He developed septicemia and died, thus becoming the only ruler known to have been killed by being bitten by a dead enemy.
 |
| via Pinterest. Depiction is from a 6th century viking helmet |
Sigurd was ambitious and wanted to establish his own kingdom. He teamed up with a cousin--the descendant of one of his ancestral uncles--and began to conquer northern Scotland. These conquests became the material of many Norse sagas, all of which portray Sigurd and his cousin Thorstein the Red, as two of the mightiest warriors of their day. They conquered the Picts of northern Britain, which resulted in the border of their combined kingdoms extending considerably south, with Sigurd possibly also laying claim to the northern Hebrides.
The Scottish kings were apparently too busy sorting out their own affairs in the south. Attempts to defend against the invaders were left to the earls of the Picts and Scots. One such earl was Maelbrigte, who was possibly the earl of Moray (and therefore an ancestor of Macbeth). He refused to negotiate terms with Sigurd, who flew into a rage and killed Maelbrigte. He hung Maelbrigte's head from his saddle as a trophy. Over the course of riding, however, the teeth from the severed head scraped Sigurd's leg. He developed septicemia and died, thus becoming the only ruler known to have been killed by being bitten by a dead enemy.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Lady Jane Grey
Politics in the Middle Ages was often a treacherous quagmire of ambition, spheres of influence, and opportunity. It proved fatal to the Lady Jane Grey, even though she was a daughter of Henry Grey, Duke of Suffolk, and her mother was a daughter of Mary Tudor, Queen of France and a younger sister of Henry VIII. These connections also made her a granddaughter of Henry VII and 1st cousin to Edward VI.
In 1547, about age 11, she was sent to live in the household of Thomas Seymour, who married Henry VIII's widow, Catherine Parr. Not long afterward, Thomas was arrested by his brother, Edward Seymour, Lord Protector and 1st Duke of Somerset, who is believed to have felt threatened by Thomas' popularity with the young king. Thomas was eventually executed.
Lady Jane was afterward proposed as a bride for the Lord Protector's eldest son, but nothing came of it. In the spring of 1553, she was engaged to Guildford Dudley, a younger son of the 1st Duke of Northumberland, who had assumed the role if not the title of Lord Protector while the king was still a minor and was one of the most powerful men in the country. In June of that year, the teen-age king lay dying of consumption and congenital syphilis, passed down from his father, Henry VIII. A zealous Protestant, he named Jane as successor to the Crown in an amendment to his father's will, thus barring the claims of his devoutly Catholic half-sisters Mary and Elizabeth. He died on July 6, 1553, and 3 days later, Jane was informed that she was now Queen of England, and was officially proclaimed as such the following day. Aware that the nobility resented what they viewed as Northumberland's scheming to get his son on the throne, Jane insisted that her husband would not jointly be proclaimed king.
Immediately after the king's death, however, Mary, daughter of Henry VIII and his first wife, Katherine of Aragon, set out to begin gathering supporters. She was extremely popular with the public, and seeing a threat, the Duke of Northumberland left London with troops in mid-July intending to arrest her. He was defeated and the Privy Council switched its allegiance from Jane to Mary, proclaiming her queen in London on July 19. Jane was subsequently imprisoned in the Tower of London.
On August 3, Mary entered London and 19 days later, the Duke of Northumberland was executed. In September, Parliament declared Mary the rightful queen and revoked Jane's proclamation, making her an usurper. She and her husband, Guildford Dudley, were both charged with high treason, along with two of her brothers-in-law and Thomas Cranmer, former Archbishop of Canterbury. Not surprisingly, they were all found guilty and sentenced to death, although an imperial ambassador reported to Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, that her execution would be stayed.
Circumstances changed, however, when a Protestant rebellion broke out in January 1554. Even though she had nothing to do with the rebellion, she was known as a staunch Protestant, and her father and two uncles did join the rebellion. On February 12, 1554, Jane's husband was executed first. After his remains were taken back to the Tower, Jane was taken out to the scaffold at Tower Green. She made a statement, recited Psalm 51, and blindfolded herself. She couldn't find the block until someone assisted her. The executioner asked her forgiveness, which she granted, and then Lady Jane Grey was executed. She was not yet 20 years old.
She and her husband were buried in the chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula on the north side of Tower Green. Her father, Duke of Suffolk, was executed 11 days later. Her mother remarried in 1555 and was allowed to live at Court with her two surviving daughters.
Sources: The Mammoth Book of British Kings & Queens by Mike Ashley, Carroll & Graf Publishers, Inc., New York, 1999, pp 637-638.
Wikipedia.org
 |
| The Streatham Portrait of Lady Jane Grey, Oil on oak panel, dated c.1590. Source: Wikimedia Commons |
In 1547, about age 11, she was sent to live in the household of Thomas Seymour, who married Henry VIII's widow, Catherine Parr. Not long afterward, Thomas was arrested by his brother, Edward Seymour, Lord Protector and 1st Duke of Somerset, who is believed to have felt threatened by Thomas' popularity with the young king. Thomas was eventually executed.
Lady Jane was afterward proposed as a bride for the Lord Protector's eldest son, but nothing came of it. In the spring of 1553, she was engaged to Guildford Dudley, a younger son of the 1st Duke of Northumberland, who had assumed the role if not the title of Lord Protector while the king was still a minor and was one of the most powerful men in the country. In June of that year, the teen-age king lay dying of consumption and congenital syphilis, passed down from his father, Henry VIII. A zealous Protestant, he named Jane as successor to the Crown in an amendment to his father's will, thus barring the claims of his devoutly Catholic half-sisters Mary and Elizabeth. He died on July 6, 1553, and 3 days later, Jane was informed that she was now Queen of England, and was officially proclaimed as such the following day. Aware that the nobility resented what they viewed as Northumberland's scheming to get his son on the throne, Jane insisted that her husband would not jointly be proclaimed king.
Immediately after the king's death, however, Mary, daughter of Henry VIII and his first wife, Katherine of Aragon, set out to begin gathering supporters. She was extremely popular with the public, and seeing a threat, the Duke of Northumberland left London with troops in mid-July intending to arrest her. He was defeated and the Privy Council switched its allegiance from Jane to Mary, proclaiming her queen in London on July 19. Jane was subsequently imprisoned in the Tower of London.
On August 3, Mary entered London and 19 days later, the Duke of Northumberland was executed. In September, Parliament declared Mary the rightful queen and revoked Jane's proclamation, making her an usurper. She and her husband, Guildford Dudley, were both charged with high treason, along with two of her brothers-in-law and Thomas Cranmer, former Archbishop of Canterbury. Not surprisingly, they were all found guilty and sentenced to death, although an imperial ambassador reported to Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, that her execution would be stayed.
Circumstances changed, however, when a Protestant rebellion broke out in January 1554. Even though she had nothing to do with the rebellion, she was known as a staunch Protestant, and her father and two uncles did join the rebellion. On February 12, 1554, Jane's husband was executed first. After his remains were taken back to the Tower, Jane was taken out to the scaffold at Tower Green. She made a statement, recited Psalm 51, and blindfolded herself. She couldn't find the block until someone assisted her. The executioner asked her forgiveness, which she granted, and then Lady Jane Grey was executed. She was not yet 20 years old.
 |
| Ejecución de Lady Jane Grey by Paul Delaroche, 1833, Oil on canvas Source: Wikimedia Commons |
She and her husband were buried in the chapel of St. Peter ad Vincula on the north side of Tower Green. Her father, Duke of Suffolk, was executed 11 days later. Her mother remarried in 1555 and was allowed to live at Court with her two surviving daughters.
Sources: The Mammoth Book of British Kings & Queens by Mike Ashley, Carroll & Graf Publishers, Inc., New York, 1999, pp 637-638.
Wikipedia.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)