Medieval Weapons

[The IPB]

I can deliver three hits in a single second - One to your head, the second down on your knee, the third back up at your head (or the other way aropund, if you prefer), all while moving around the length of your sword and any wards or guards you offer up.
That's what I mean by speed.

That's great, but we are talking about multiple opponents, so you throw your 3 strikes at me maybe they kill me, maybe I block them who knows.

But while you do this, the person behind you stabs you, it also takes them one second to do. You seem to have a very biased view on this, I'm not arguing that it is a good weapon but you seem to think using a staff makes you untouchable by swordsman, as long as it's no more than 6.

 

[ttaskmaster]

That's great, but we are talking about multiple opponents, so you throw your 3 strikes at me maybe they kill me, maybe I block them who knows.

If you can stop a full-power quarterstaff strike, you are made of rock and belong in a Marvel comic strip.
But again, without giving you years of martial arts lessons all in one forum post and for free, from which you can understand the points being made, there's not much more to the argument.

But while you do this, the person behind you stabs you, it also takes them one second to do.

And how many seconds for him to first close the large distance I already put between him and me in order to reach you, before he's only then in range to do so, before which I take just one second to do the above?

You seem to have a very biased view on this, I'm not arguing that it is a good weapon but you seem to think using a staff makes you untouchable by swordsman, as long as it's no more than 6.

You seem to have no understanding of the situation, positioning, capabilities, techniques, use of each weapon involved or willingness to go back and read the thread and so understand.

 

[Roar87]

Are you the dancing master from Game of Thrones?

 

[adolf hamster]

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'm considering the starting position in this case as encircling the staffman out of range, i can see how you mean that in a line you can move to keep the rest behind the one your currently fighting, and keep everyone in front of you, but if they're already behind you?

 

[ubersonic]

Here's a sparing session between a staff fighter and sword fighter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA0oeVPwTNk

Obviously the staff fighter has a big advantage as the wooden sword doesn't have many of the dangerous properties of a real one, even still there's zero chance the staff fighter could survive against multiple opponants.

I can deliver three hits in a single second - One to your head, the second down on your knee, the third back up at your head (or the other way aropund, if you prefer), all while moving around the length of your sword and any wards or guards you offer up.

Lol, no, no you can't. You can probably do that to a target dummy, but not against a trained sword fighter, after your first strike is parried/deflected that will screw with your momentum that you're relying on to control/redirect the staff.

Believe it or not, in medieval times trees were actually in plentiful in supply compared to swords, but people who could afford swords used swords because they were better.

 

[Aedus]

Every time I read people theorycrafting about fighting even though there's millions of different factors which you can't even account for, I just remember the fat star wars kid with the staff doing his thing.

 

[Dis86]

Every time I read people theorycrafting about fighting even though there's millions of different factors which you can't even account for, I just remember the fat star wars kid with the staff doing his thing.

Or as he's known to ocuk, ttaskmaster

 

[Angilion]

that's fine and I agree, I'm not trying to make any definitive argument that 6 people with swords will *always* beat the bloke with the big stick, I'm just rather skeptical of the claim that(in general) more attackers present an advantage as you seem to be too

Yes, I am. I'm pretty sure it would only be an advantage in some circumstances and would be a disadvantage in a far greater variety of circumstances.

 

[dowie]

Here's a sparing session between a staff fighter and sword fighter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA0oeVPwTNk

Obviously the staff fighter has a big advantage as the wooden sword doesn't have many of the dangerous properties of a real one, even still there's zero chance the staff fighter could survive against multiple opponants.

interesting, on one of the videos that come up when clicking on that one an expert actually discusses something similar to what has been discussed here:

https://youtu.be/gQv_mCNkAbo?t=468

Basically enthusiasts can get the wrong impression after sparing with a wooden staff vs wooden swords - the guy with the long stick can tap various swordsmen rather quickly however this wouldn't necessarily cause much damage to them and this perhaps explains ttaskmaster's opinion as a false impression gained from having taken part in this sort of sparing/fencing.

I think therefore that the idea that more opponents make things easier for the guy with the stick is now even more far fetched.

 

[Angilion]

ttaskmaster doesn't regard Matt Easton as a reliable source, to put it mildly.

I have some suspicion that Matt Easton's series of videos on sword vs staff is part of the reason.

 

[ttaskmaster]

I'm considering the starting position in this case as encircling the staffman out of range, i can see how you mean that in a line you can move to keep the rest behind the one your currently fighting, and keep everyone in front of you, but if they're already behind you?

If they're in a circle, move toward one and so away from the others. Pretty much the same idea, although perhaps not quite as easy... but you shouldn't be letting them encircle you in the first place. That's just stupid and if you have the advantage of weapon, you should be taking the fight to them before they do this. Your control of the fight starts well before you're in range and may even be decided at that point, if you make the wrong choice.

Here's a sparing session between a staff fighter and sword fighter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA0oeVPwTNk
Obviously the staff fighter has a big advantage as the wooden sword doesn't have many of the dangerous properties of a real one, even still there's zero chance the staff fighter could survive against multiple opponants.

........!!
What the **** was THAT supposed to be??!!
Sorry, you're showing me one internet video of two clueless muppets making a string of fundamental and stupid mistakes, as the ultimate evidence to disprove decades of experience, backed up by numerous contemporary sources??!!
What's next, a video of fat airsofters failing, to disprove techniques used with great success by the real Army for decades?
Yeah, OK, whatever. Go back to your movies and video games - With enough of that under your belt, you might manage to make a film as good as the one you posted!

Lol, no, no you can't.

Ah, well then you must know all about it. Please enlighten us with your wealth of experience on the matter...

You can probably do that to a target dummy, but not against a trained sword fighter, after your first strike is parried/deflected that will screw with your momentum that you're relying on to control/redirect the staff.

"Probably"?
You mean you don't actually know...?
You might wanna look to that...

Believe it or not, in medieval times trees were actually in plentiful in supply compared to swords, but people who could afford swords used swords because they were better.

And your evidence is........?

interesting, on one of the videos that come up when clicking on that one an expert actually discusses something similar to what has been discussed here:

And what have other experts said in response to this particular 'expert' and his opinions?

Basically enthusiasts can get the wrong impression after sparing with a wooden staff vs wooden swords - the guy with the long stick can tap various swordsmen rather quickly however this wouldn't necessarily cause much damage to them and this perhaps explains ttaskmaster's opinion as a false impression gained from having taken part in this sort of sparing/fencing.

As opposed to what kind of sparring/fencing?
So if I'd studied under someone like your Matt Easton, who might sound like he knows his stuff... or better yet maybe Terry Brown (who actually does), for example.... you'd take my word a bit more seriously, then?

Or is it the principles of leverage you're not following and how a 'tap' from a quarterstaff is rather a lot heftier than a tap from a wooden sword, or even a proper steel blade?

I think therefore that the idea that more opponents make things easier for the guy with the stick is now even more far fetched.

That's fine. I explained and answered your questions as best I could. Your opinion is your own and without showing you or having you try something for yourself, that's about as far as we can go.

ttaskmaster doesn't regard Matt Easton as a reliable source, to put it mildly.
I have some suspicion that Matt Easton's series of videos on sword vs staff is part of the reason.

Actually, I regard his unreliability to be initially from his reputation - When that many of his peers (themselves highly regarded in their fields) just laugh and call him some pretty foul names regarding his understanding of what he talks about - that tends to be noteworthy.
But I've since had some direct contact with Matt and left with the same low opinion of him after every conversation. Namely that he is deliberately ignorant of the very historical sources he cites in support of his own arguments, that he has not read them fully, and that his opinion is built on half truths, misunderstandings, misquotings, assumptions and the inability to actually do what he thinks is possible from what little he has read about it.
I also think he's an arrogant nob, but that's nothing to do with his (in)ability as a practitioner or instructor.

 

[adolf hamster]

If they're in a circle, move toward one and so away from the others. Pretty much the same idea, although perhaps not quite as easy... but you shouldn't be letting them encircle you in the first place. That's just stupid and if you have the advantage of weapon, you should be taking the fight to them before they do this. Your control of the fight starts well before you're in range and may even be decided at that point, if you make the wrong choice.

so if you start from being encircled, then its not possible? or just more difficult? hypothetical situation i know but i can see how 6 decent swordsmen trying to work as a team to take down the quarterstaff would want to make life as difficult as possible for him by encircling/attacking from multiple sides at once.

 

[ubersonic]

If they're in a circle, move toward one and so away from the others. Pretty much the same idea, although perhaps not quite as easy... but you shouldn't be letting them encircle you in the first place. That's just stupid and if you have the advantage of weapon, you should be taking the fight to them before they do this. Your control of the fight starts well before you're in range and may even be decided at that point, if you make the wrong choice.

Does anyone know what the melee combat equivalent of an armchair general/keyboard warrior is? ^^

And your evidence is........?

It's called the recorded history of melee weapon combat. If staffs were better than swords people would have used staffs instead of swords as they were both cheaper and easier to acquire, but they didn't because despite what martial arts films may try to portray and despite whatever misconceived notions you have acquired from sparring, a staff is simply not as good as a sword (assuming both users are equally skilled).

I'm not saying a master staff wielder couldn't defeat a novice swordsman, he could just like a master swordsman could defeat an archer who had no clue what he was doing. Just that when all things are equal the sword is the much better weapon in an actual fight.

so if you start from being encircled, then its not possible? or just more difficult? hypothetical situation i know but i can see how 6 decent swordsmen trying to work as a team to take down the quarterstaff would want to make life as difficult as possible for him by encircling/attacking from multiple sides at once.

Basically he believes you can hit them with one end of the staff then quickly hit them with the other like some kind of speed demon, because when fighting a target dummy or even when sparring you can actually manage that. However in an actual fight the attack would be parried and countered, and when its a sharp blade/hilt that stops your staff then slides towards your fingers instead of a piece of wood that throws the "game plan" off entirely.

It's sort of like how in films you see the master samurai spinning his katana around deflecting blows/etc and people see it and get the idea that they are amazing/etc, but in reality he would have difficulty doing so as his opponents would actually know what they were doing and fight to win not follow choreography (I.E Highlander would have been 5 minutes long if the guy with the rapier at the start wasn't scripted to die). Or the way Bruce Lee would have been battered by the gangs he fought if they hadn't attacked in single file.

 

[The IPB]

Is there any video footage of you sparring with a staff ttaskmaster?

Ubersonic the video you selected was rubbish and nothing like how staff fighting would be in a real battle, I have found some good footage though for you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z89Xgep2uPk

 

[ttaskmaster]

so if you start from being encircled, then its not possible? or just more difficult?

More difficult, as everyone is the same distance from you and there's no clear 'safe place' to aim for, safe place being the position you'd need to be in to obstruct the others with your first target. It puts the responsibility for creating that position on the staffman, which is one more thing he's got to think about and deal with.

hypothetical situation i know but i can see how 6 decent swordsmen trying to work as a team to take down the quarterstaff would want to make life as difficult as possible for him by encircling/attacking from multiple sides at once.

Yes and that would be a pretty good strategy, but it'd take a lot of practice as a team and the right circumstances to even get into that position. If nothing else, the three blokes on the far side have to get round there, which takes ages and leaves an opening until they do. No defender is going to just let that happen... unless they're unaware. Then you're into the whole surprise attack side of things and a lot changes at that point.

Does anyone know what the melee combat equivalent of an armchair general/keyboard warrior is? ^^

Dunno, but you're starting to get there...

It's called the recorded history of melee weapon combat. If staffs were better than swords people would have used staffs instead of swords as they were both cheaper and easier to acquire,

So you can show me these records, yes? You can back it up, yes?
Go get your records that show how everyone was using swords, and you'll likely find exactly what I said above - Swords were secondary weapons to polearms, which are staves themselves just with extra bits added on and are used in exactly the same way.
Then go get some contemporary court records covering murder trials and the like - Count how often people used a quarterstaff in such matters, compared to how often this ubiquitous sword of yours features...

Just that when all things are equal the sword is the much better weapon in an actual fight.

Show me, then.
Show me how a shorter weapon will always beat what every contemporary writer, from the days when people routinely killed each other in both peace and war, insists is the superior weapon, especially against the one you're championing. Disprove science, defy physics, destroy thousands of years of proven knowledge and show me...

Basically he believes you can hit them with one end of the staff then quickly hit them with the other like some kind of speed demon, because when fighting a target dummy or even when sparring you can actually manage that.

Of course you can.
Do you know how levers work?

However in an actual fight the attack would be parried and countered, and when its a sharp blade/hilt that stops your staff then slides towards your fingers instead of a piece of wood that throws the "game plan" off entirely.

Yeah, if you say so....
Tell me more how it's nothing like in the films, but then use a 'just like in the films' scenario to tell me how "real life" would happen...

Edit: Show me how you expect to parry things like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-pIjgvjPFo
Note that this is an untrained guy simply 'having a go' with a lighweight hickory staff...

 

[ttaskmaster]

Is there any video footage of you sparring with a staff ttaskmaster?

There may be, yes, though none I can immediately pin down - The most likely videos are from public demonstrations, where we're wearing padded helmets so I can't definitively prove it's me anyway. A lot of it would have been semi-scripted for the display anyway, as watching properly trained people try and hit each other is quite boring by comparison - Lots of stalking and careful attempts at finding openings without getting hit.

You might find some footage of guys in white polo shirts up at the "Cotswold Olympicks" on Dovers Hill, which was a regular haunt of ours and there were usually cameras pointed at us. You'll see cudgel, sword, staff, various mixed weapons and one year even demos against someone in full plate armour.
Jeremy Clarkson did film us once and it was a very good list of displays we had that year, but I've never found the footage. I know it was for something other than Top Gear, but that's about it. That was the year I had a bash at the Shin Kicking, as well, and he filmed/interviewed me about it.

 

[ubersonic]

Is there any video footage of you sparring with a staff ttaskmaster?

From the way he talks this is probably it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPPj6viIBmU

Ubersonic the video you selected was rubbish and nothing like how staff fighting would be in a real battle

That's why I specifically pointed out the disadvantage the swordsman was at in the video and how the odds would be in his favour using a real sword.

I have found some good footage though for you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z89Xgep2uPk

Like I said it's very easy to do significant damage to a target dummy, and to hit them with rapid blows when they are not fighting back, this is probably why ttaskmaster has his belief that a trained quarterstaff wielder would be able to hold their own against a trained swordsman (using an actual sword).

Tell me more how it's nothing like in the films, but then use a 'just like in the films' scenario to tell me how "real life" would happen...

Actually I told you real life is nothing like in films, then gave an example of how a film portrayed something nothing like in real life.

 

[ttaskmaster]

That's why I specifically pointed out the disadvantage the swordsman was at in the video and how the odds would be in his favour using a real sword.

The disadvantage is in the shorter reach. You could have a sword so sharp it can cut a party atmosphere, but if his opponent has the reach on him it's of no greater use than anything else.

Like I said it's very easy to do significant damage to a target dummy, and to hit them with rapid blows when they are not fighting back,

It's very easy to make ignorant assumptions when all you know of a subject are YouTubes of morons failing... But whatever. You clearly think you know more about this than any of us, so I bow down to your considerable martial prowess and await your learned teachings...... would be nice if you followed up on that evidence for your earlier assertions too, by the way.

this is probably why ttaskmaster has his belief that a trained quarterstaff wielder would be able to hold their own against a trained swordsman (using an actual sword).

Fine, I give up. You know better than me, dozens of proven martial arts instructors, hundreds of students and centuries of people who actually proved this in life-or-death combat.... You have disproved them all with just a statement of opinion. Well done. You win.

Actually I told you real life is nothing like in films, then gave an example of how a film portrayed something nothing like in real life.

********....!!
You said: "However in an actual fight the attack would be parried and countered, and when its a sharp blade/hilt that stops your staff then slides towards your fingers instead of a piece of wood that throws the "game plan" off entirely".
You just try that parry. Please, try it.... That first blow should, by all the laws of physics, end up with your sword pivoting back into you. But you know better, so I look forward to being amazed at you managing it....

 

[ubersonic]

Fine, I give up. You know better than me

Well done. You win.

I wasn't trying to upset/embarrass you dude, it's just the myth you were peddling flies in the face of historical combat and real world results. It's a similar scenario to the Judo black belt who thinks he's a great fighter because he can win all the tournaments, then he gets in a bar fight and when he tries to throw somebody they grab him by the eye socket and kick him in the ****. What works in organised sparring doesn't always work the same in real world situations.

 

[ttaskmaster]

I wasn't trying to upset/embarrass you dude, it's just the myth you were peddling flies in the face of historical combat and real world results.

No no, it's fine. I'm not embarrassed at all.
I mean, those same historical combats and all the period fight manuals and treatises that illustrate exactly why it's fact and not myth... If only I'd known they were so easily and obviously disproven by merely saying so, I'd have saved myself decades of time, effort and money!!
I mean, I've yet to see anything from you that actually disproves Silver, Swetnam, Wylde, Saviolo, Ringeck, Hutton, Lichtenauer, Fiore, or any of the others... but I'm sure you don't have to prove it. Just saying so is enough, yeh?

What works in organised sparring doesn't always work the same in real world situations.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEALLY???!!!!
Cor, what a revelation........ Tell me more.