a Knight vs a Samurai?

[Salamander]

I notice you do not want to accept the challenge. ;)

See, now this is the stuff I don't like.  Here you are speculating about what goes on in my mind so that you can rationalise my objections.  I didn't mention it earlier when the point was raised, but I'm related to a family that has been career military since 1066 after fighting at Hastings; they achieved Knight Banneret status, have a coat of arms derived from the Crusasades, owned castles in Ireland, and were still in service in WW2.  This does NOT give me any special insight, of course; but trying to excuse my position on the basis that I have some Victorian-worshipping western rejectionist mindset is futile.

Same said speculation can be said to be going on in your mind in the same regard. You say that there is documantation required. Very well, provide documentation to the opposite. You are the one accusing the western tradition of not being a martial art. Prove it. All in the same aspect, show me the books written in the ancient orient that prove they actually study a martial art. Or do we simply have to suck up to them as being inherently superior because they happen to have a broader establishment?

When your argument is reduce to "help help we're being repressed" its not very convincing.  It is, as above, an attempt to play the man and not the ball; to slander the source of the argument rather than try to defend against the argument.  Its exactly this sort of hubris, "we're right and everyone who disagrees with us is an ignorant egoist", that bugs me about ARMA.  I'm the first to agree that fencing is NOT real military praxis, it is only a sport praxis, but it is my reading of the record that exists that it was only at this point that it become codified and formalised to the point that it could be meaningfully described as a martial art.  As I have mentioend before, that does NOT mean I think that knights had no skills.  Equally, referring to the centralisation in the East does not parse as "this is better"; it is only meant as "this is different".  Different places have different histories and different forms of social structure, thats all.  There is no suggestion or implication in recognising factual, structural diufferences that one is "better" or "worse."  Those judgements are largely meaningless.  I can easily agree that it was exactly those centralised qualities that lead to their stagnation and eventual supercession (albeit probably only temporary) by the west.

Odd, I don't remember whinging about being repressed, but merely defending my postion, granted not to your satisfaction, but I am still obligated. In regards to playing the man, not the ball... I apologize for having given you that impression. But it was the impression you put across to me that caused such action. Should you happen to more learned in the fighting arts of the world, provide account, please.

The Wests main beverages are coffee (south america), tea (china) and beer (mesopotamia).

Well done!

[tauman]

If you want evidence of a complete fighting methodology, read Fiori's Flos Duellatorum. While it isn't every conceivable technique you could ever put into a book, it does cover unarmed vs. unarmed, unarmed vs. dagger, longsword vs. longsword, and also armored fighting and fighting from horseback. It is as complete as many books written by eastern martial artists, and given how effective they are, I'd have a hard time believing someone came up with everything on his own without learning and building on the works of others.

As for evidence of a system of fighting for a particular weapon: read Salvator Fabris' treatise on the rapier: De Lo Schermo overo Scienza d'Arme . It is in every way a complete rapier system. It also has one of the most scientific examinations of swordfighting you'll find in any manual: not just explaining what to do, but why it works, and why not doing it doesn't work using principles of geometry and physics. Now I just can't believe that Fabris just came up with all of this himself. Furthermore, Manuals of succeeding generations refer to Fabris by name in a way that demonstrates a more than superficial understanding of his work (and this is not at all an isolated example of masters of one generation being very familiar with the teachings of a master of a previous generation).

If the fencing studio is a yardstick of measure for any sort of tradition then the reason you haven't seen any earlier one might be because you don't read Italian. If you can read Italian, then read the following authors of manuals in this order:

Fiore dei Liberi
Antonio Manciolino or Achille Marozzo
Camillo Agrippa
Salvator Fabris
Francesco Alfieri
F. A. Marcelli

If you wait a few years, you'll see all of these translated (as the first 5 should be available soon, and I'm translating on the Alfieri myself).

Clearly there was a tradition as you can follow the development of swords and sword use in the works of the above 6 masters (there are several more that extend from this line out of the Renaissance and into the 1800s).

BTW, I'm NOT an ARMA member, this isn't to prove ARMA's point. You may not like ARMA or John Clements, but that doesn't mean that everything they say is incorrect.

Steve Reich

When I set out my stall initially was recognising the capacity of people to learn, really learn, from their own experience.  I am arguing only that a "lost martial tradition" does not exist.  This does not imply that there is no knowledge, nor that there is no rigour in the investigation.  But IMO, the only time a real tradition appears is in the fencing studios.  I quote, regarding I33, from the ARMA's own website on the manuscript: "The Royal Armories Fight Interpreters at Leeds, who had been studying the manuscript have expressed views that it contains fairly obvious basic techniques of the weapons as opposed to any complete methodology of fighting."  Evidence of intelligence, investigation, yes.  Evidence of a system, no.

[/u]

[Jake Norwood]

RE: ARMA and arrogance, etc.

Listen. I'm hearing a lot of "the ARMA does this" or "the ARMA does that." Bullcrap, eh! I'm the number-frickin-two guy in the ARMA and none of the totalitarian views that are being referenced here are mine or that of 95% of the ARMA. THERE IS NO OFFICIAL ARMA DOCTRINE, only official ARMA training methodologies, etc. What I think I'm seeing is "I don't like John Clement's PR skills," which has little to do with what the ARMA studies, practices, endorses, or teaches. The ARMA is the largest organization of its kind in the world, with as many members as all similar organizations added up together. It's not one man--John Clements. He's a member and the director, but not the end-all be-all of the ARMA.

Jake

[Muggins]

I agree. Bashing ARMA serves no purpose. Many of the ideas in this thread are generally held by all us sword-swinging people. Check recent threads on www.swordforum.com, or the wealth of information in the books published by Chivalry Bookshelf. Me, I have a rough association with a bunch called AEMMA (www.aemma.org), and I have trained with people from Germany and England (www.hemac.org). ARMA may have a wider profile than some, but there are many of out there, studying many different periods and types of western fighting.

And leave Jake alone!

He only criticises my knowledge of Meyer occassionally!
(Only because he lives on the wrong side of the Atlantic where I can't get to him!)

James

[Drifter Bob]

Yeah I want to agree with that.  Through research and my little side business of selling sparring weapons, I have had dealings with most of the Western Martial Arts groups around the world.  As far as ARMA goes, I think I can safely say I'm not one of John Clements favorite people, we have clashed many times.  But on the other hand, ARMA is definately not the monolith some people make it out to be.  You can see that just by checking out their own dicussion forum which is open to the public and full of all kinds of dissent.  One of my favorite pass-times is putting sparring clips on their board for people to criticise me on my allegeldy bad footwork.  Plus individual members of ARMA have quite a free range of opinions on all these subjects.  It's just a large association of people who are trying very seriously to systematically learn about Western Martial Arts.  And once they learn a few other weapons besides the Long Sword they are going to be very good at it!  (just kidding!)
JR

[WCarew]

.

I disagree.  Even under some of the greatest leaders knightly armies exhibited many of the same tactical and strategic problems.

You point out to social issues being the reason.  I agree, but not the issues you cite.  Actually, I think Jake gave us the answer to this whole discussion already in TROS.  

In TROS you have soldiers, and you have warriors, and you have fighters.  I think this is a very astute breakdown.

A solider might be considered something like a Swiss pikeman or a Roman Legionaire, or a discplined man-at-arms or knight in a late Renaissance Army.  A fighter might be someone like a professional duelist or a knight who was an expert at the tournaments.  Most pre-renaiassance era knights however were really Warriors first and foremost.

That is why, at the beginning of the first several major battles of the Crusades for example, the knightly armies had very poor siegecraft abilities.  That is why throughout the medieval period and into the early Renaissance, they displayed terrible battlefield discipline (which is one of the major reasons why it became trendy to make them fight dismounted) that is why they had contempt for infantry and marksmen, why they had no real concept of supplies, battlefield intelligence, or basic stategical considerations.

What is just common sense to a soldier, seems like cowardice, or bean counters work to a warrior.  What seems like courage to a warrior, can seem like irresponsibility to a soldier.

Think of how knightly Armies fought: just like the Celts and Romans of the Classical era, with the leader up front demonstrating his courage.  Great for morale, for making good stories for the minstrels to describe.  Not so great for being able to direct the army necessarily.   That is why the knightly armies did not have the feigned retreat, and why they did not understand it: to them, to run away was cowardly.  Plain and simple.  It took a long time for them to make at least a partial transformation into becomming a soldier, before they could understand the tactical value of such a maneuver.


JR

There's just one problem with this. It's wrong.

The feigned retreat was not only understood, but was used by some of the earliest knights, namely the Normans in the 11thC. They used it at Hastings under William, to draw the Saxon foot out, and the Southern Italian Normans under Robert Guiscard (i.e Robert de Hauteville) used it at earlier battles like Civitate. Your assertion that it was unknown to them is demonstratebly, and factually false.

On the topic of the Normans, they were noted for their excellent discipline and flexible, sophisticated use of both battlefield tactics and broader strategy. The Guiscard was the scourge of the Pope and HR Emperor (especially after Civitate) and of the Byzantines and Muslim Sicilians, none of who lacked discipline, all of whom vastly outnumbered the Normans and all of whom were outwitted or out fought at some stage. And this was possible despite the fact that Robert was forever putting down revolt after revolt led by his own quarrelsome Norman barons.

This pattern only continued under Roger the Great Count of Sicily (you know, that island that used to held by the Muslims, but was conquered in short order by a small number of Normans) and his son, Roger the II, King of Sicily, who reigned over (arguably) the most advanced, intellectual, tolerant, sophisticated court anywhere in Europe or the Middle East in the 12thC.  

As for no understanding of logistics, have you read about Richard I and his preparations for, and conduct of the 3rd Crusade? How he planned every stage of his travel in order to fortify and supply his forces, and how he used the local geography to protect his march along the coastline?

The real point of all this is, you are dangerously oversimplifying a very long, complex and varied segment of history (the Medieval period), and as a result your assertions lack authority, meaning or accuracy. For every example of apparent knightly stupidity, there is at least one more of brilliant tactical and strategic thinking. That's the way it is with real history - it defies simplistic generalisations.

My 2c FWIW.

Cheers,

[Drifter Bob]

Siege warfare (please note, viewers, this is once again a firm left turn in the thread...):

Medieval armies were traditionally bad at siege warfare for several reasons. Firstly, compared to the majesty of Ancient warfare, the armies are miniscule. With even the largest Crusader armies numbering less than 30000 men (Verbrugge's revised and realistic figures), there were never enough men to properly invest a castle or city. Couple with a poor supply train and the fact that most cities were ports, it was never likely that a Crusading army could win except by direct attack. A feat like Masada would simply be impossible- some estimates have the Roman army at over 100000 men, with supplies for 4 years.

The later medieval armies, who used cannon in conjunction with the more massive siege engines, did pull off some impressive feats of siegecraft. But not often- they built and supplied those castles good, and there was never enough time to do the job properly.

James

And yet, the Moslems were quite skilled at siegecraft.  Saladin had an entire sapper corps which was very effective, and by the time of Baibars and the Mamelukes, there wasn't a fortification that could stand up to their sophisticated mining techniques, including such truly mighty fortifications as the Knights Hospitaler's Krak de Chevaliers.  One of the toughtest, not to mention coolest- looking castles ever made anywhere.  

Here is a pic of le Krak, for those who have never seen it...

http://chasm.org/photo/misc/krak.jpg

JR

[toli]

including such truly mighty fortifications as the Knights Hospitaler's Krak de Chevaliers.  One of the toughtest, not to mention coolest- looking castles ever made anywhere.  


JR

Great picture.  I put it on my desktop....Krak de Chevaliers is one of my favorite castles.  As I remember (unless I'm mixing it up), it was once taken my tricking to garrison into surrendering it.  I forget how.

NT

[Drifter Bob]

including such truly mighty fortifications as the Knights Hospitaler's Krak de Chevaliers.  One of the toughtest, not to mention coolest- looking castles ever made anywhere.  


JR

Great picture.  I put it on my desktop....Krak de Chevaliers is one of my favorite castles.  As I remember (unless I'm mixing it up), it was once taken my tricking to garrison into surrendering it.  I forget how.

NT

That may have been the case at some point, but in the end, I believe baibars got it conventionally, I believe with miners.  I have to go sort through my library of Crusades books since I have been once again challenged, so I'll have that definitively for you shortly...

JR

[toli]

That may have been the case at some point, but in the end, I believe baibars got it conventionally, I believe with miners.  I have to go sort through my library of Crusades books since I have been once again challenged, so I'll have that definitively for you shortly...

JR

It certainly could.  I don't remember exactly.  I vaguely remember Baibars taking the outer ring and then tricking the garrison into believing they had permission to surrender the whole castle.  It may be an entirely different episode or castle...I wasn't so much challenging as wondering...I'll have a look through some stuff too...

If you like Crusades era stuff, I highly recommend the autobiography of Usamah ibn Munqudh.  It is an interesting read with lots of action...and some weird stuff...NT

[Drifter Bob]

(you know, that island that used to held by the Muslims, but was conquered in short order by a small number of Normans)

Do tell!  Any other basic geographic lessons you would like to give me while you are at it?

...and his son, Roger the II, King of Sicily, who reigned over (arguably) the most advanced, intellectual, tolerant, sophisticated court anywhere in Europe or the Middle East in the 12thC.  

Norman petty lords were known for a lot of things.  Tolerance, sophistication, and intellect were not among them.  First of all the knightly class were rarely even literate in the period of which you speak.   Second of all... lets not forget, these were people who didn't wipe their arses properly after taking a dump, (unlike the moslems who always washed)

Sophistication is not a word which comes to mind.

Second of all, Tolerance?  

Tolerance?   Are you insane?  You mean like the tolerance displayed when virtually the entire population of jerusalem was put to the sword in 1099?

Tolerance, like during the depopulation of Southern France during the Albegensien crusade?  

And if the Normans were so tolerant and well liked in southern Italy, how come there were such huge, unviersal uprisings against all French speaking men in the country, at the alleged birth of the Mafia in 1282?

As for no understanding of logistics, have you read about Richard I and his preparations for, and conduct of the 3rd Crusade? How he planned every stage of his travel in order to fortify and supply his forces, and how he used the local geography to protect his march along the coastline?

If his logistics were so great, how comes none of his drives to Jerusalem got anywhere?

The real point of all this is, you are dangerously oversimplifying a very long, complex and varied segment of history (the Medieval period), and as a result your assertions lack authority, meaning or accuracy.

It's this kind of way out wish-thinking that gives everybody who studies WMA or medieval history a bad name.  It's like the Americans trying to pretend they actually Won Vietnam by making 50 movies with Sylvester Stalone and Chuck Norriss mowing down Viet Cong by the thousands...

For every example of apparent knightly stupidity, there is at least one more of brilliant tactical and strategic thinking. That's the way it is with real history - it defies simplistic generalisations.

That is not real history, that is wishful thinking, because you WANT the knights to be clever, so you are selectively reading what you want to read into it.  The next thing you'll be telling me is that there is karma and bad people get what they diserve.   Everything equals out, right?  No sorry pal.  That is wishful thinking.  There may be many anecdotes all over the place, but in the vast majority of wars and battles of the middle ages, the knightly armies proved to be awful at tactics and operational planning.  That is the reality.

Look, I admire the knights.  Just like I admire the Roman Legionaries.  I admire them both for what they were: tough hombres who had adapted well to living in the very harsh times they found themselves, often showing considerable courage and elan on the way.  I don't try to make them into well rounded sensitive intellectuals with good morals, because that is something they were not.  And when it comes to Knights, I don't try to bend history to make it seem like they were brilliant tactitians, because they were not that either.

Thats just the fact.  Try not to take it so personally.

JR

[Ingenious]

.................For the love of GOD, this thread is growing by a page per day now.. Fri Jan 23, 2004 10:09 am was my last post.. and this one was on.. Sat Jan 24, 2004 9:35 am
Nearly a page and one-half in just under a whole day. WHY?!?!?!?!?!?!?!


Could we just for once take a moment to look at how utterly freaking rediculous this is? Stop the egocentric postulation of who is right and who is not. This is just about ego. Take it somewhere else damnit. Like the IRC, or PM. In the chatroom you can yell at each other for all I care.. curse, swear, say anything as often as you want.

Drifter Bob... we're now talking about tolerance. I've tolerated seeing this thread go from something serious, intelligent, and worthwhile.. to its current state of sheer nothingness.

Do I really care that someone is going to say 'Knights were not all that noble or chivalric'? No. Because, like every freaking person in the world... they are individuals. Some might be corrupt.. some might be noble and chivalric, some merciless and stupid.

175 posts at the inception of this reply.. of which the previous FIVE of them have been between just TWO people. More posts to come unless we all come to our senses and 'take it outside'... Aside from addressing the concern of any NEW person to the forum that has to sit here and read the whole entire God damn thing. It's maddening to consider some new person in the TROS community wasting his time like that. I might just time myself on how long it takes to read the entire thread up to this point.

For more info on using IRC, search this forum for it.
-Ingenious

[WCarew]

(you know, that island that used to held by the Muslims, but was conquered in short order by a small number of Normans)

Do tell!  Any other basic geographic lessons you would like to give me while you are at it?

...and his son, Roger the II, King of Sicily, who reigned over (arguably) the most advanced, intellectual, tolerant, sophisticated court anywhere in Europe or the Middle East in the 12thC.  

Norman petty lords were known for a lot of things.  Tolerance, sophistication, and intellect were not among them.  First of all the knightly class were rarely even literate in the period of which you speak.   Second of all... lets not forget, these were people who didn't wipe their arses properly after taking a dump, (unlike the moslems who always washed)

Sophistication is not a word which comes to mind.

Second of all, Tolerance?  

Tolerance?   Are you insane?  You mean like the tolerance displayed when virtually the entire population of jerusalem was put to the sword in 1099?

Tolerance, like during the depopulation of Southern France during the Albegensien crusade?  

And if the Normans were so tolerant and well liked in southern Italy, how come there were such huge, unviersal uprisings against all French speaking men in the country, at the alleged birth of the Mafia in 1282?

As for no understanding of logistics, have you read about Richard I and his preparations for, and conduct of the 3rd Crusade? How he planned every stage of his travel in order to fortify and supply his forces, and how he used the local geography to protect his march along the coastline?

If his logistics were so great, how comes none of his drives to Jerusalem got anywhere?

The real point of all this is, you are dangerously oversimplifying a very long, complex and varied segment of history (the Medieval period), and as a result your assertions lack authority, meaning or accuracy.

It's this kind of way out wish-thinking that gives everybody who studies WMA or medieval history a bad name.  It's like the Americans trying to pretend they actually Won Vietnam by making 50 movies with Sylvester Stalone and Chuck Norriss mowing down Viet Cong by the thousands...

For every example of apparent knightly stupidity, there is at least one more of brilliant tactical and strategic thinking. That's the way it is with real history - it defies simplistic generalisations.

That is not real history, that is wishful thinking, because you WANT the knights to be clever, so you are selectively reading what you want to read into it.  The next thing you'll be telling me is that there is karma and bad people get what they diserve.   Everything equals out, right?  No sorry pal.  That is wishful thinking.  There may be many anecdotes all over the place, but in the vast majority of wars and battles of the middle ages, the knightly armies proved to be awful at tactics and operational planning.  That is the reality.

Look, I admire the knights.  Just like I admire the Roman Legionaries.  I admire them both for what they were: tough hombres who had adapted well to living in the very harsh times they found themselves, often showing considerable courage and elan on the way.  I don't try to make them into well rounded sensitive intellectuals with good morals, because that is something they were not.  And when it comes to Knights, I don't try to bend history to make it seem like they were brilliant tactitians, because they were not that either.

Thats just the fact.  Try not to take it so personally.

JR

Sorry, but this post has made it clear that you haven't the foggiest notion of actual Norman history, especially Siculo-Italian Norman history. Firstly, you should note that Norman rule of Sicily ended in the late 12thC when it was taken over by the HRE, so the events of 1282 have nothing, zip, to do with the Normans. It is well noted that the after Roger II's rein, and especially after Norman rule ended in Sicily, the culture lost much of it's tolerance and brilliance. While the Normans could be brutal and nasty, they were no worse than anyone else in the period, including your enlightened Muslims, who were not above slavery, torture and murder themselves.

So before you spout more misguided vitriol about the illiterate, brutal Normans, perhaps you should do some actual research on the Normans in Sicily - I suggest starting with J J Norwich's excellent "The Normans in Sicily".

If you start actually researching this topic, you will find that Norman Sicily in the later 11th century under Roger I, and especially under his son Roger II in the first half of the 12th century was an incredibly rich, cosmopolitan and tolerant kingdom, the likes of which was not seen again in medieval Europe. Muslims, Greeks (orthodox) and Christians lived in relative harmony under Norman rule, and Roger II attracted many of the foremost artists, mathematicians and intellectuals of the age to his court, many of them Muslims, as well as Greeks. Sicily was a meeting point for Christian, Greek (Byzantine) and Islamic culture, learning and art and architecture, unique in the medieval period. The fact that you are blissfully ignorant of these historical FACTS, and seem to be determined to remain so, doesn't change them.

Not only were both Roger's highly literate, Roger II was known as a keen intellectual himself, and surrounded himself with men of like character. In this he was hardly unique - Richard I was fluent in French and Latin, could out debate cardinals and was a reknowned troubadour of the age. You would of course know this, and know that learning, poetry, dancing, falconry and courtly conduct was highly prized among men and European lords and knights of high station, if you bothered to but look without your readily apparent bias against them. Could they be arrogant to a fault and cruel and brutal? Sure, but that doesn't make them illiterate idiots, and your attempts to present them as such just makes you look silly when confronted with the facts.

FWIW, and it annoys me to have to present this detail to counter your simplistic, one liners denigrating his achievements, on the subject of Richard, he and Saladin ended in somewhat of a stalemate during the 3rd Crusade - Richard had thrashed Saladin in battle at Arsuf, but Saladin had the advantage of numerical superiority and being on home turf, and Richard was sweating to get back to Europe to protect his Angevin lands from Phillip, who was taking the opportunity to stir up trouble in Richard's absence. In the end, Richard didn't capture Jeruselum because he knew he a) didn't have enough men to hold it and b) wanted to get back to his Angevin lands ASAP. The result was an agreement between Saladin and Richard allowing Christians safe passage to Jeruselum for pilgrimage. As I said before, real history is too complex for silly, simplistic one line cause-effect explanations.

Back to Roger II, his good friend, the Muslim Abu Abdullah Mohammed al-Edrisi, wrote a book for his Norman patron, entitled "The Avocation of a Man Desirous of a Full Knowledge of the Different Countries or the World" or more simply known as "The book of Roger". Sadly, much of the book is lost, but on the very first page we read the words:

"The earth is round like a sphere, and the waters adhere to it and are maintained on it through natural equilibrium which suffers no variation..."

In one foul swoop of actual research, we discover that Muslim and by extension, European intellectuals already knew the world was round and that gravity kept the seas in place, centuries before most people credit it. Theories that educated European medieval people thought the world was flat are therefore bunk. Maybe it's time to actually crack open the books (and not just the ones dealing with the crusades, but culture and society back in Europe) and reassess your rather ignorant and ill-informed opinion of all Norman lords...

Really, that is all I have to say on this, as I think it is clear that you hold strong views and do not want to consider alternate viewpoints, even those backed up by historical research and facts. I have better things to do with my time...

[Drifter Bob]

Drifter Bob... we're now talking about tolerance.

To me it was just a discussion, I raised points which were vigorously rejected, to which I responded as clearly as I could.  Since two people are now starting to insult me, I'll quit posting to the thread.   One "duel" is enough for me this month.

jR

[Drifter Bob]

I do want to add though, that I learned a lot from this thread and enjoyed reading it.  The origins of Indian martial arts, further insights into the intricasies of the fecthbuchs, the different types of tachi, Russian versus Japanese wrestling... I have a lot to think about now, for that thanks lads, you are an intelligent bunch, even those of you who are wrong! ;)

JR