Medieval Weapons

[Angilion]

It works out in a way in that sense:

If 6 armed and trained people attack 1 person and that one person isn't quickly dead, things have gone badly wrong for the 6. Unless they're fanatical or very disciplined about killing this person, running away is going to be looking like an increasingly good idea. If that one person kills 4 of the 6, things have gone very badly wrong indeed for the 6 and the remaining 2 really should run away because they've got almost no chance now unless something major changes.

 

[TheMightyTen]

Exactly, much of the confidence of a group of fighters comes from the group mentality, if that is eroded enough flight kicks in over fight. It's a very special skill to remain an idividual and yet be part of the herd in a stand up fight (particularly in a Shield Wall). The best trainer/instructor I ever had taught us all to be excellent individual fighters that trained hard as a team, on numerous occasions 8 of us held flanks against 30 odd people (at the large Hastings in 1995 The Vikings, Regia Anglorum and Conquest all tried to buy our services with Mars Bars and beer, we were true Norman mercenaries in our pomp ), we used to get told off for breaking battle lines to quickly and rolling up shield walls and it was because once you've broken a few it only needs a couple to turn and run and that becomes infectious.

 

[ttaskmaster]

that seems very counter intuitive

A lot does in martial arts. Most people naturally back away from an attack, when they would be better off moving in to choke it up, for example.

If we take that at face value then you're saying that say 6 opponents are easier than 2 right?

Yes.
There are only so many that will be able to reach you at any one time, you can use some to block others and they will still get in each others way however well-trained they are.

they're trained swordsmen so there is always the risk that one of them does kill/wound you at any time...

There is always that possibility, yes, but the staff has the advantage against the sword(s)... and it's a considerable advantage. Generally, against a swordsman, the staffman may go on the offensive without fear... meaning he wouldn't need to stand on a guard or fight defensively, because he has the reach and power over the sword. You can hit him wiothout him being able to reach you - Only someone without a clue how to use a staff would lose against that.

but say you've got 6 opponents, you take out 4 of them... you've now got 2... so the dangerous situation we were comparing to earlier..

Yes, and on top of that, you'll be tired from taking those 4 out, too. But you still have the advantage and the principle is the same - get one in front of the other and take them one at a time, or split them up and again take one at a time.

it doesn't seem to work out at all

3 opponents at once are easier than fighting 6 all at once.
But if you use those 3 to block off the other 3, you're still only fighting 3, right? The other 3 cannot reach you because the first 3 are in the way. Done right you could block off 4 or even 5 opponents, leaving you just 1 to face.
Basically the more you have coming at you, the more they will inhibit themselves.

I can't see how more of them can make things easier for the bloke with the stick unless they all collectively do something to increase the risk to themselves, which if they're 'trained' we ought to assume they don't do.

The one governing factor is that they have to get to you. Many of them, one of you - That means they either have to funnel themselves, or attack you one or two at a time and lose any 'benefits of numbers'.
Also, the "bloke with the stick" has a far greater reach and can control his space far faster than the shorter-weaponed swordsmen can move themselves around it. So the whole group are slowed down, herded around and disadvantaged by one target holding a big stick.

6 attackers could well be say 2 attacking and 4 standing back a bit further... ready to replace either of the first two. I can't see how that could possibly be easier to deal with.

That's less of an advantage, but even then no staffman worthy the name would find that a problem. Against the sword, assuming all other things being equal, the staff will annihilate its opponent. Against two, the fight would just take a couple more moments longer.

 

[wolfie138]

You need to stop watching Steven Seagal films.

you need to stop talking about things you don't have experience of.

 

[J.T]

Someone sounds like the giant from the Princess bride...

 

[dowie]

It works out in a way in that sense:

If 6 armed and trained people attack 1 person and that one person isn't quickly dead, things have gone badly wrong for the 6. Unless they're fanatical or very disciplined about killing this person, running away is going to be looking like an increasingly good idea. If that one person kills 4 of the 6, things have gone very badly wrong indeed for the 6 and the remaining 2 really should run away because they've got almost no chance now unless something major changes.

But if there were say only two or four to begin with then they'd both be killed regardless. The situation you've outlined still carries more risk from multiple attackers - the two remaining may or may not run but there is a level of risk from them.

Taking it to a silly extreme - how about 100 swordsmen vs one guy with a staff?

It apparently works from the other posters explanation by using some to block others. However if that is the case and we're talking about 'trained' swordsmen then presumably they've trained to fight against people with staffs and so should collectively take an action that increases the risk to them.

 

[J.T]

Blimey, there is some proper "big boy" rubbish being said in this thread... surprised no one has come out with the old "Katana is better than a European Sword" crap yet... lol

 

[The IPB]

you need to stop talking about things you don't have experience of.

What do you know of my experience with martial arts? I would love to hear.

 

[adolf hamster]

So this whole 6 swords vs 1 quarterstaff business, how does the chap with the quarterstaff stop the swordsmen encircling him then moving in front and rear?

All it would take is for one to block the staff wielders attacks long enough for his freind to gut them from behind.

This is of course assuming a nice open arena free from usable obstacles and that both parties start the fight from outside engagement distance.

 

[ttaskmaster]

The situation you've outlined still carries more risk from multiple attackers

Any risk present comes only from those attackers who are in a position to attack. If you move to put one of them between yourself and the other three, the risk is only 1. Adding more attackers does not immediately raise the risk level by that number, or anything, unless you let them get close enough to present a threat.

the two remaining may or may not run but there is a level of risk from them.

Again, so long as you control the fight, you control that risk.

Taking it to a silly extreme - how about 100 swordsmen vs one guy with a staff?

In theory, the same applies.
So long as the staffman can keep an eye on all 100, or at least the general mass of incoming bodies, the science holds up.
Chances are the physical limitations/endurance of the staffman will come into play and there's likely a diminishing return the longer he has to travel to move around the body of 100 - ie, if they're all in a line and he starts off in the centre, that's 50 people he has to pass to gain position and he'll likely lose position as those on the end close round. If they were in a circle, however, his chances are far better.
It's also one big reason why polearms were a better weapon than swords on the battlefield.

I'd still not want to try that many by myself, though!

It apparently works from the other posters explanation by using some to block others. However if that is the case and we're talking about 'trained' swordsmen then presumably they've trained to fight against people with staffs and so should collectively take an action that increases the risk to them.

Training against staves is mostly an opportune thing, really. Assuming all things being equal, the staffman will utterly thrash the swordsman every single time. Same for sword against knife, Longstaff against Shortstaff, etc etc. many of these principles are also what allow the staff to dominate the space and control multiple opponents.

But things are rarely equal and psychology plays a big part in all this, as do physical and mental fitness, technique, levels of training and experience.

Before someone says something about being off-topic: In essence, it's why I chose a billhook - You gain some distance on the bear and a lot of power, you dominate the space against the two gorillas and you gain some speed against the wolfpack.

Blimey, there is some proper "big boy" rubbish being said in this thread... surprised no one has come out with the old "Katana is better than a European Sword" crap yet... lol

I know, right!!
As if a weapon designed against light wooden armour and grubby peasants is any match for a Knightly blade!!!

 

[ttaskmaster]

So this whole 6 swords vs 1 quarterstaff business, how does the chap with the quarterstaff stop the swordsmen encircling him then moving in front and rear?

He fights his way toward a position where there's 1 in front and all the others are behind that 1, ideally. His weapon length means he can defend a much wider space and strike far faster, which means any swordsman wanting to reach him has further to move and is thus slowed down.

I hate to bring up the usual cliche, but read up on Richard Peeke and the account of his capture by the Spanish, called "Three To One".
Basically after being wounded twice during capture, he was forced to fight before a court of nobles in Cadiz, for their amusement. Using rapier and dagger, he bested the first guy, but then demanded a quarterstaff for the second fight (they improvised by unscrewing the head of a halberd for him) and promptly beat the crap out of him. Next fight there were two opponents and, being a cocky *******, he asked if any more wanted to come help them.
He boasted he could take any number under six... so a third man joined them, all three with rapier and dagger. They spent a short while circling and trying to get through his defences, before he went all out and attacked. He killed the first outright and in short order disarmed the other two, whereupon they fled in terror.
Apparently the Spanish were so impressed with Peeke, they set him free, gave him some money & good clothing, and saw him safely back to England.

All it would take is for one to block the staff wielders attacks long enough for his freind to gut them from behind.

Yeah, good luck with that.
A properly wielded staff will either batter through any block or ward from a sword, or the wielder will completely wide-space it and go around to then smash the swordsman. The tip of a staff moves very far very fast by comparison. If you can do what all the internet warriors always claim they'll do and "just catch the staff", then the staffman is not worthy the name.

 

[Orionaut]

Taking it to a silly extreme - how about 100 swordsmen vs one guy with a staff?

Not quite the situation you are describing, but it does remind me of an account from the Batlle of Stamford Bridge.

Basically it was the classic "One man on a bridge Vs an Army" situation, the bridge was too narrow for more than a couple of attackers to engage him at a time and this lone Norseman held the bridge, accounting for (Allegedly) 40 attackers, using only an Axe, up until somebody sneaked round beneath him and (as the account of the day put it) "Pierced him inwardly from below"

I am sort of saddened that such a courageous and determined warrior should be defeated in such a manner, but then again. It was War, not a Tournament.

 

[Edrof]

I hate to bring up the usual cliche, but read up on Richard Peeke and the account of his capture by the Spanish, called "Three To One".
Basically after being wounded twice during capture, he was forced to fight before a court of nobles in Cadiz, for their amusement. Using rapier and dagger, he bested the first guy, but then demanded a quarterstaff for the second fight (they improvised by unscrewing the head of a halberd for him) and promptly beat the crap out of him. Next fight there were two opponents and, being a cocky *******, he asked if any more wanted to come help them.
He boasted he could take any number under six... so a third man joined them, all three with rapier and dagger. They spent a short while circling and trying to get through his defences, before he went all out and attacked. He killed the first outright and in short order disarmed the other two, whereupon they fled in terror.
Apparently the Spanish were so impressed with Peeke, they set him free, gave him some money & good clothing, and saw him safely back to England.

Cliche? Completely unreliable source, you mean.

 

[The IPB]

"However no comprehensive research into the authenticity of the Ricard Peeke story has been done. Certainly we know that there are no historical records of Richard Peeke and so these pieces of literature may just be fiction"

Is what I found when I just looked into it.

 

[adolf hamster]

H
Yeah, good luck with that.
A properly wielded staff will either batter through any block or ward from a sword, or the wielder will completely wide-space it and go around to then smash the swordsman. The tip of a staff moves very far very fast by comparison. If you can do what all the internet warriors always claim they'll do and "just catch the staff", then the staffman is not worthy the name.

so a block would be completely useless then, even at mitigating serious damage, after all if his buddy is going to finish the fight the swordsman taking the hit only needs to survive rather than perform any kind of successful attack.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Cliche? Completely unreliable source, you mean.

Go on, then...

"However no comprehensive research into the authenticity of the Ricard Peeke story has been done. Certainly we know that there are no historical records of Richard Peeke and so these pieces of literature may just be fiction"

It is "suggested" the story is not authentic, he says. It's also not been checked out, either, so that doesn't really say anything.
He doesn't even say who "we" are, either... aside from an anonymous blogger who cites historical texts and then denies the very words written in them, contradicts himself and then muddles up the standards he uses to critique other researchers.

so a block would be completely useless then, even at mitigating serious damage, after all if his buddy is going to finish the fight the swordsman taking the hit only needs to survive rather than perform any kind of successful attack.

His buddy has to get there first, though. You cut around guy 1 so that guy 2 has to go around, or cut toward 1 so increasing your distance from 2. This gives you the time to drop 1 and then turn to face 2 all by himself.
The exact same basic principle applies to shorter weapons, right down to barefist stuff. You just have a lot less safety distance and time in which to make your moves.
Against the animals mentioned, though, even a sword may not be long enough as they can move a lot faster.

 

[adolf hamster]

His buddy has to get there first, though. You cut around guy 1 so that guy 2 has to go around, or cut toward 1 so increasing your distance from 2. This gives you the time to drop 1 and then turn to face 2 all by himself.
The exact same basic principle applies to shorter weapons, right down to barefist stuff. You just have a lot less safety distance and time in which to make your moves.
Against the animals mentioned, though, even a sword may not be long enough as they can move a lot faster.

So when encircled, 1 takes q's advancing assault, which has brought q out of range of 2 behind him, but closer to 3&4 who flank him to the front of each side and are now close enough to strike while q is dealing with 1?

I guess what i'm meaning is that if the sword group employs proper teamwork i find it hard to beleive q can smack down one guy faster than one ore more of his buddies can react.

 

[dowie]

Any risk present comes only from those attackers who are in a position to attack. If you move to put one of them between yourself and the other three, the risk is only 1. Adding more attackers does not immediately raise the risk level by that number, or anything, unless you let them get close enough to present a threat.

Well it does, simply because there are more of them. I don't even need to know anything about medieval weapons to say that.

If two attackers have a risk level of X then 4 attackers where two go first and the other two hang back have that same risk of X plus an additional risk from the remaining 2.

More attackers being an advantage for the staff carrying person seems to stem from a situation where the people with swords take some action that disadvantages themselves. If all 4 of them attacking at once is such a significant disadvantage then surely trained swordsmen wouldn't do that?

 

[Roar87]

Couldn't you just duck the staff strike and stab him? Or would the staffsman be unworthy of the name if he missed a single blow?

 

[h4rm0ny]

If two attackers have a risk level of X then 4 attackers where two go first and the other two hang back have that same risk of X plus an additional risk from the remaining 2.

I don't know much about sword or staff fighting, but I have been reading this thread and the above was already addressed the last time you raised it, Dowie. People are not simple things. If they find they're stepping over the unconscious or screaming bodies of their friends to get to their opponent, they may well reconsider. You're considering an abstract scenario of absolutes. I believe what ttaskmaster is saying is that in practice six will be more advantageous than two for defending against because it is easier to defend against six and by the time the six becomes two, other factors are coming into play. And that seems plausible to me - in a combat isn't there the concept of pressing the advantage? That whoever is currently winning has a momentum and a psychological advantage on their side? So if six really are easier to defend against than two then it provides an opening opportunity for the staff user to gain the advantage. I don't know if that's true or not and I suspect that in reality things get very complex very quickly with a lot of different factors in play - which is what ttaskmaster said earlier, I believe. However, I think they have made their point well and it's understandable to me.

More attackers being an advantage for the staff carrying person seems to stem from a situation where the people with swords take some action that disadvantages themselves. If all 4 of them attacking at once is such a significant disadvantage then surely trained swordsmen wouldn't do that?

Trained in what sense? Trained to use a sword or trained in acting as a team against outnumbered staff users. The former seems a common scenario, the latter oddly specific. And also a little unlikely. If as ttaskmaster is describing, a staff user can use people against each other through skilled positioning then you're effectively saying that sword users should be trained to hang back and approach the staff user one at a time. Given we seem to be regarding the sword users as the aggressors in this scenario, that seems a rare edge case. People are seldom so organised or methodical. In a chaotic fight situation that has likely sprung up suddenly, even less so.