You make me blush - and happy!

I am delighted to read this.

More in the pipeline already.

@@swordandshield Excellent!

Indeed!

Not only that - stringere!

While this certainly isn't abstract, it isn't the formation type fighting you'd see on a 14thC battlefield. What Roland and Cornelius are demonstrating above is the first play [series of techniques and counters] from an early 14th century fencing treatise, usually referred to by, I believe, its catalogue number: I.33 I.33 deals exclusively with the day-to-day combat of self defence. In other words, a civilian context. Much of what you can extract from the treatise can be applied even on a battlefield context, but individual agency falls by the wayside in any tight formation in any case. TL;DR Not open warfare, not courtly fencing, but civilian combat in the context of self defence.

John Matthias, we actually know close to nothing about military fighting in this period. What we do have sources about is duelling, and this is what we reconstruct. It shows that medieval swordsmanship was indeed extremely refined. Which is no big surprise after 2.500 years of sword and shield combat.

The combat depicted in I.33 was probably not 'courtly' at all, but more about self defense for common-born travelers and burghers. Distinct martial cultures were developing in medieval cities as merchants and urban militias gained power. Wealthy traders often traveled with their caravans and trained in combat, all of it very different from what took place on the battlefield.

@MRChyort, this is one hypothesis.

If one were to use this in a skirmish or something I would bet that using a shield strike to counter a direct attack would be useful to get a hit quickly and go back to half shield or other very defensible position.

There are indeed three versions with different intros. Only one is public, two are unlisted.

@@swordandshield But...why?? Is there something I need to watch out for?