A Truth About Sword Combat

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)

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

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.<sup>²

Sources</sup>

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

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.

Thus, the image that most modern-day people have of scores of valiant knights encased in plate armor clashing on the battlefield is inaccurate.  They were there in smaller numbers, but the majority of the soldiers, whether archers or pikemen or foot-soldiers, were arrayed in whatever armor they could afford; usually a mixture of leather, cloth, brigandine, and chainmail.