Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site qubix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sun!qubix!steven
From: steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer)
Newsgroups: net.games.frp
Subject: Re: Fighting Florentine
Message-ID: <981@qubix.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Apr-84 00:57:14 EST
Article-I.D.: qubix.981
Posted: Wed Apr 11 00:57:14 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Apr-84 01:23:23 EST
References: <6990@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: Qubix Graphic Systems, Saratoga, CA
Lines: 93


>  Actually, the fact that lances are designed to be used braced from the
>  back of a charging horse has a lot more to do with it. If you meant spear,
>  you might care to observe that fighting with two spears is an actual African 
>  and Asian style. Also, the method of attack with rapier and dagger is as
>  similar as is possible given the difference in length.

	Yes, there is such a style.  However, you are forgetting to
    make the distinction between a short spear (2 - 4 feet), and a
    long spear (5+ feet).   Even so, I do believe that the African
    spear style is not all that popular, because it is not all that
    useful: (specifically there is no effective way to block an opponents
    weapon, if the weapon is longer than your spears).


>  Huh? Florentine in common usage refers to the simultaneous use of the
>  rapier, a predominantly (in later years completely) thrusting or stabbing
>  weapon and the poiniard or dagger, a stabbing weapon. 

	Nope.  Not the way I've heard it.  What you are talking about is
    usually called 'rapier & dagger'.   This style is a later day fencing
    technique used mainly against unarmored opponents -- IT is NOT
    (technically) florintine, since the dagger is more of a backup weapon,
    and parrying tool than anything else; another popular technique along
    the same line was 'rapier and cloak', the cloak being a heavy cloth
    with which you would attempt to entangle your opponents blade.  (This,
    by the way, is where we get the turn-of-phrase "Cloak and Dagger", since
    this period also spawned the most polished court intrigue).

    Florentine, most correctly refers to a technique for two swords (broad,
    short, or hand-and-a-half).   In this technique, the two swords are
    held pointing straight up in front of the wielder, offset from each
    other.  


>                                            In addition the effectiveness
>  of a florentine facing a single-weapon opponent can be signifigantly enhanced
>  by the difficulty of parrying two attacks with a single weapon.

	Absolutely true, if the weapons are not spears, and one weapon is
    not longer than the other.   Of course, in classic florintine, this is
    not the case.


>                   Beyond that, the point of a dagger or a stiff sword straight
>   sword such as the small sword and most rapiers is one of the most effective
>   attacks against armor, inferior only to modern fire-arms, the long bow,
>   heavy crossbow and pole-arms of the class of the Lucerne hammer, all of
>   which represent high energy thrusts with the point of a very narrow weapon.
>   The invention of the lunge and the use of the triangular cross-section
>   small sword rank along with the causes of the demise of armor you listed.

	I'm sorry, but I have a hard time taking this seriously.   You
    obviously have never tried any of this yourself.   If you are around
    the bay area, I ask you to get the longest, strongest, most triangular
    rapier you can find, and try to stick it through my coat of plates.
    If you are not, go to the local SCA chapter and try it out with some
    other volunteer.  No doubt you will be gravely disappointed.

    (This armor-piercing idea is not a bad one, even if you have slightly
    misplaced it: \maces/ were often adorned with 3 - 5 inch spikes, of
    exactly the kind you discribed.  This did penetrate the armor, since
    there was the force of the mace head backing up the blow.).

	As far as the demise of armor is concerned, I believe that this was
    an effect of the improvement of the effectiveness of missile fire, and
    its rate of speed: specifically the English long bow.    Since a soldier
    can carry only so much, it became more effective for him to have a large
    shield, than to be heavily armored.   Even then, most army officers had
    at least a breast plate, when going to war.


>   Beyond which, armor wasn't used by people on foot nearly as much as by
>   those who had mounts to carry the weight. Fencing in it is a horrible idea.

	True and not true.   First of all, no "fencing" was ever done in
    any of the heavier forms of armor, since it was not invented yet.
    This did not preclude normal fighting.   As far as the 'armor is so heavy'
    argument, this is only true for the 16th century, full articulated
    platemail.  However, even that is an incorrect example, because by that
    time, such heavy armor was totally outmoded and only used on tourney
    fields, and for decorative purposes.

	The real reason battle armor was not used, except usually from horse-
    back, was because it was so expensive.  Thus, anyone who could afford
    it, (i.e. nobility), usually could afford a horse, and a couple of varlets
    as well.   In addition, though heavy armor is not tiring over the short
    run (within 30 minutes), it could get to be a pain if you had to hike
    around in it.

    Steven M.