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?
If you want to add 3 & 4 in, so they're all line-abreast 1-2-3-4, then you go for 1 or 4, around the outside and keep that one target between you and the other three until you can do the same to them.
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.
I'm sure they can react... but not only does the staff move fast and hit hard, it has the reach and can be used to keep the others back, so limiting what reactions they can have.
Well it does, simply because there are more of them. I don't even need to know anything about medieval weapons to say that.
You're right - The Risk Management Manual of Mathematics does indeed say exactly that.... but the reality is very different. Risk only applies to those who can reach you in the first place, which your aim is to control and limit.
A live grenade sat right next to you might blow up and kill you, but the further away you keep that grenade or the more barriers you put between yourself and it, the less that risk becomes, no? Exact same idea here - If they can't reach you, they can't hurt you...
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.
No, it comes from the staffman's ability to rob them of their numerical advantage. Same idea behind why some fighters seem lightning fast - They're not fast, they're just doing things that slow their opponent down and taking away their advantages.
If all 4 of them attacking at once is such a significant disadvantage then surely trained swordsmen wouldn't do that?
Depends on the numbers.... and a lot more besides, but we'll keep with just the numbers for now.
There is a point where sheer numbers will overwhelm the lone fighter, but to get to that you need to add more attackers at the same time, at a rate faster than the lone fighter can impede or dispatch.
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?
Duck what?
You're being attacked with a combo - One hit is coming diagonally down in a line from your shoulder to your opposite hip, which will then either be wheeled around to a sideways sweep that will likely burst your knee as it sweeps your legs, or be cut into a thrust straight at your solar plexus if you try to jump back from the first blow.
But even if you do manage to avoid those, you still have to close the distance, a good 3 steps at least, which gives the staffman time to step back and/or move off-line, direct another attack, and/or even slip the staff to hit you with the reverse end.
It is one absolute ******* of a weapon!!!
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.
Yup, pretty much.
I should perhaps point out that this is by NO means an easy thing to do for the staffman, without a fair bit of training. I had a good year of just quarterstaff training before I was allowed to try this for myself.
But it feels bloody great first time you get your head in the right place to manage that many people!!
That whoever is currently winning has a momentum and a psychological advantage on their side?
Yes, pretty much, although different arts describe it differently.
For me - Fights can last 2 minutes or they can last 2 hours, but they are all won or lost in a fraction of a second.
That fraction is where you have judged your distance to give you the time, to gain the position from where you may safely strike without risk to yourself. That's the point at which you're 'winning' and unless you've made a mistake (which can happens, because we're human) your opponent cannot stop you without defying basic physics.
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
Yes, with most of those factors coming down to how good a staffman you are. Like I said, it's not the easiest thing in the world...!!
The former seems a common scenario, the latter oddly specific. And also a little unlikely.
The sword was a backup weapon anyway, for the most part and an expensive one. People in battle would be armed with polearms and bows primarily and even then things like mauls and falchions were more popular for close-in work. You might get some well-off mugger using a sword against a staff in some surprise close-range attack on an unsuspecting victim in a close environment, but again not so likely.
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.
Oh, if only they would!!!!!!!!!
they may or they may not... there is a chance they may not ergo there is still more risk in that scenario whereby some number don't immediately engage
I don't think you can really assign a numerical value to psychology, when it and so many other factors are not constant. You couldn't even average it, due to all the other variables over each individual's lifetime, without considerably unreasonable effort.
There is a 'chance' one of them could have a crossbow as back up, for example... or that one would throw his sword with all the skill of Brett Riverboat... or that the staffman could trip on his shoelace... This is why the principles are worked out with all other things being equal.
I'm just saying that it seems rather flawed in that if it is obvious that 6 attacking together would have a disadvantage and we are to assume that they are 'trained' then surely the logical way for them to behave would be to not attack together.
Then lets do what you did with your 100 swordmen and take it to an extreme...
You have 100 attackers, all armed with a penknife. They are attacking across open ground (freshly mown lawn) with no cover for miles in any direction. Their one target is a soldier armed with an L1A1 and enough ammunition to drop each attacker ten times over.
For the exact same reasons as the Quarterstaff, each attacker is disadvantaged by the defender's superior range. Even when the attackers get close, those will be further disadvantaged that have to also go around their buddies to get closer to the target... and even then, they're still disadvantaged.
If two people attacking is in some way advantageous then a better strategy for 6 people would be to say attack with two and have an additional 4 who may attack
[/quote]
And that is the deciding factor - If they cannot get close enough to attack, even if they wanted to, that strategy cannot be applied.
but either way pose more potential risk than simply 2 attackers alone.
I agree completely - they pose a 'potential' risk.
What I'm dealing with, though, is the likelihood of risk and how that likelihood can be severely reduced by how you handle yourself and your staff (yes, feel free to giggle - Gotta keep it light!).
Is that making better sense?
No. Your logic is flawed in that you ascribe all unknowns an equal possibility.
To be fair to Dowie, his logic does seem pretty OK to me.
There is a lot he doesn't know, by his own admission, and I'm not about to even try to instruct readers here in decades of martial arts classes, practice, experience and the like... especially since I had to pay for lessons!!
There is some reading that could be done to help clarify things for Dowie and anyone else who may be interested, but without that knowledge I think it quite reasonable that he's trying to equalise his unknowns.
And at least it's still a fairly civil and enjoyable thread!! 
Indeed, I'm fairly certain that when they began talking about this it started with something along the lines of "it may seem counter-intuitive but..." So why do you assume it is "obvious" that one person is better able to fight someone than that same person helped by five others?
Your consideration is appreciated... but if it helps, I am a 'He' rather than a they. 
I shudder to think what the world would be like if I was a plural, although I'm sure the wife would be DELIGHTED!!
Dowie doesn't know exactly what is counter-intuitive, let alone why... and without some demonstrations, I suspect it's very hard to understand for someone who doesn't already have the knowledge that makes it happen. So it's again only reasonable that he applies the same reasoning and logic most people would when faced with the concept. I'm possibly not the best to explain everything, either, but whaddya want fer nuthin'?
I think you can be a trained swordsperson without being trained to attack one by one.
That's "a whole 'nuther" matter and a hilarious training session, trying to get everyone fighting together, in a wall formation or something... this is where you learn who your good friends really are!!
In any case, am I right in thinking that ttaskmaster has some experience in staff and sword fighting or is reporting the statements of someone who does?
You are right. I have many years experience in barefist, cudgel, broadsword, quarterstaff, sword & dagger, sword & buckler, some in two-hand sword and billhook, a litle bit in sword & shield and threshalls/flails, plus a mishmash of other weapons including improvised, a couple of weeks with some side-sword (rapier-style spada da lato thingy), a couple lessons in Marrozzo and Italian swording, plus a number of years 'trying out' a bit of kung fu, karate, judo, iaido and some other stuff I've long since forgotten. I also have other hobbies that involve hitting things with sticks, such as drumming.... don't mess with me, or I'll triple-inverse-flammadiddle you upside the head!!
I'd assume that if they were 'trained' then they'd have practiced fighting against someone with a staff.
A reasonable assumption... but against a trained staffman, there's not a lot you can do, all other things being equal.
He must make a stupid mistake, lack sufficient training, be very tired, accidentally slip or something, really. Not unless he doesn't have the room to move properly, in which case all things are no longer equal and you may be able to find yourself some advantages.
This is just trying to highlight, via a simplistic scenario, a flaw in the idea that more attackers presents an advantage to someone.
I would suggest considering that more attackers are more disadvantaged than the fewer attackers already are, if that makes sense?
I'm going to say that my assumption would be that the optimal solution for the attackers, if we were to assume that all 6 attacking at once presents a disadvantage to them, would probably be something along the lines of two of them attacking and the other 4 looking for opportunities to find a gap.
I'd think the best tactic would be for the attackers to try and feint, in some way. Draw the staffman into doing something stupid, to create a gap. But then, you're the attackers - I assume you're attacking for a reason and if you just stand there doing nothing, waiting for him to attack, nothing tends to happen...
Indeed, this occurs a lot in our free-sparring sessions, as the nature of our fighting system is defensive. It's quite hard to defend yourself when nothing is attacking you... and not so easy to attack when you rely on incoming attacks to counter into your own attacks!
This is often another reason why it's still not easy for the staffman to defend against multiple attackers.
I think he's both reporting statements of his instructor and has experience. But he's also making a rather bold claim that doesn't seem right and if it was true could be countered somewhat.
Kinda the same thing, really.
This is somethingI have experience of doing myself, but I have often had the attacker role against fellow students doing the same and even more often against my instructors as they demonstrate it while teaching it to us. All my own experience, I guess, but from all sides of the scenario, including stood-back observer.
As for the counter - On the surface, yes perhaps. But I got used to bold claims being proven pretty much from my first lesson - Made, proven and then taught to to do it myself, which was the bit that got me training regularly.
But if everything were obvious and intuitive, we wouldn't need fight clubs and instructors and study and training and treatises and the like.... and we'd all be fighting like polecats or something. Gorillas, maybe.
If a staff was such a superior weapon it would have been used in battle far more than it was. I'm not sure it was ever used as a battlefield weapon. (EDIT: Unless you regard polearms as staffs.)
There are period historical texts that detail battlefield versions of the Quarterstaff, which is sometimes referred to as the Shortstaff while also describing the Longstaff. George Silver is my favourite, but Zach Wylde and a few others also cover such things.
A properly sized Quarterstaff will be about 8-9' long for an average man, while a battlefield style Longstaff tended to be notably longer - No definitive length or method of precisely sizing is given, with some even suggesting you can do what the hell you like so long as you can still fight with it, but reckoned about 12' by modern researchers and practitioners. However, a 9' pole isn't exactly the easiest thing for a traveller to heft about, so your 'EDC' quarterstaff was more like 5-6'.
And yes, I regard staves and polearms to be pretty much the same thing, in general terms. They're all staves and are used in the same way with teh same teqhniques, albeit with points and axe blades and things added to make them even better - If you have one of those and the extra defences, wards and attacks, why would you keep the quarterstaff?
But doubtless people made do with what they had and not every village blacksmith could make you a decent forest bill and not every peasant-yeoman could afford one, so together with contemporary writers taking the time to give such detailed descriptions on which weapons do/don't beat the Longstaff and explain why, I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that they weren't an uncommon thing to encounter.
In my limited experience of longstaves, it's not the easiest as it's far beyond the perfect length for a polearm and, if I'm honest, I found it more of a hindrance, generally. It's also very expensive to get one that long (unless your mate's dad owns some rough land with suitable ash saplings for you to nick) and a PITA to transport between classes!!
The psychological effect is real though and would apply to some extent in some circumstances with some number of attackers. Maybe even 6 on 1 in some specific circumstances.
Heck yeah - There are a number of guards/stances you can take on, which both look wide open to attack and also make it clear that whoever closes within range WILL be getting hit. I quite like those, although they take a bit more skill to actually use if anyone does have a go.... They're usually best used (if you have the space) right after you've just dropped the first or second opponent. If they're stupid enough to still attack, that one opening they're going for is exactly where you want them....
I'm far from convinced that a quarterstaff is such a hugely superior weapon or that 6 on 1 is better for the 1 than 2 on 1 or that 6 on 1 is at all likely to end with the 1 winning. But I think it could happen in some circumstances.
Had I ever been allowed, I might have videoed such lessons as those where we practiced this. All I can do is assure you it's perfectly possible even with comparatively little training, so long as you understand the principles behind it, and that I've separately seen and been one of nine attackers defeated by a 60-something man from Nottingham with a big stick and a generally good sense of humour... except when you joke about him being Little John, or anything else Robin-hoody/Nottinghamy!!
It is all about the huge variety posed by circumstance: the geography of the fight, the disciplines the fighters adhere to, their experiences, their physical conditions, what they are wearing and the weapons in their hands - to name but a handful.
they are blunt-force trauma weapons - you have to hit someone hard to have a real effect (and make contact in a place where it counts);
That's why it's such a ******* weapon - Once you understand how to generate the leverage with two hands, you can deliver frightening force compared to a sword, as well as the speed to do it many times very quickly.
Swords are also long in some cases - I have a one here from 1888 that is 110cm long - rapiers could be even longer; and 'swordsmen' rarely took a sword into battle without something in their left hand.
There comes a point (pun intended) where something is too long for practical use though and you start losing advantage. There were some city laws enacted around the Elizabethan era at one stage that actually restricted rapier lengths, as it was getting ridiculous - Five feet in some cases, apparently!!
Guards had the authority to measure the blade and promptly snap off any that were too long.
There is, however, a perfectly clear answer for 100 swordsmen against 1 quarterstaff-wielder: 100 swordsmen inherit a quarterstaff.
In theory, according to all the principles of science - No way.
In reality, with all the human factors and likelihoods - Damn right!!
That's not to say the lone person cannot win, but the odds are against them and more often than not they will not win.
Just those odds alone are, yes. But all the other odds we've been discussing are what change The Odds.
If that's not enough for you, then so be it.
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}