From: cav@bnr.ca (Rick Cavasin)
Subject: Re: period fighting styles
Reply-To: cav@bnr.ca (Rick Cavasin)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 22:00:17 GMT

In article <93Jan21.151255.19981@acs.ucalgary.ca>, parr@acs.ucalgary.ca (Charles Parr) writes:

.....stuff deleted......

|> 
|> >2) We in the SCA ignore the possibility of damage to a shield in the course
|> >   of combat.
|> 
|> Agreed, but I have never found a good way of modeling this, and
|> besides, how do we even know if shield destruction was a factor?

I agree.  I don't like the idea of counting X number of blows as destroying
a shield.  I've never seen the 'anvilling' rule for swords enforced.  Weapon
hafts have also been deemed indestructible.  I have yet to hear a feasible
scheme for figuring in destruction of shields/weapons that would not spoil the
game.

|> 
|> >3) We in the SCA never confirm the effect of our blows on a figure armoured
|> >   to the standards we claim to base our style upon.
|> 
|> I have just begun to do this, with unsatisfactory results. One
|> thing I am learning is that blows sufficient to actually cut
|> armour are *way* into the realm of "stupidly excessive force
|> to be hitting your friends with". I have not yet been able to
|> research underlying tissue damage and blunt trauma associated
|> with blows which do not actually pierce the mail.

You have to be careful here.  While I'm not sure about mail, iron and steel
plate armour was in many cases quite different from the SCA standard.  Some
armour was very light by SCA standards.  Some of the iron used may have been
weaker than the mild steel used in SCA armour.  On the other hand, some of the
later period armours that were made from higher grade steel and hardened/tempered 
would have been much stronger than SCA armour of heavier construction.  It's a
very difficult call to make.

|> 
|>
snip
 
|> 
|> Most of our blows are incapable of damaging a helm, but more than
|> capable of rattling the brains of the occupant. keep in mind that
|> medieval padding was primitive and ineefficient compared to foam.
|> 

Most SCA helms I've seen have at least a few dents in them.  This leads me
to conclude that the force being used is sometimes sufficient to dent SCA
helms DESPITE the fact that the rattan sword flexes and distributes the force
over a wider area.  If we grant that real swords would concentrate the impact,
and that period helms were often lighter (though sometimes of better quality
steel), I'd say that our blows are certainly capable of badly denting (though
perhaps not breaching) period helms on a regular basis.  This is just speculation
of course.  The 'rattling' effect would also be more pronounced with lighter
helms and steel swords.

   snip
|> 
|> A great many maintenance worries would arise if we aimed frequent
|> blows at the knees, though, and articulated knees sets are time
|> consuming both to make and repair.

Yep.  Dents in articulated knees are a real pain to pound out without dis-assembling the knee.  I'm not so sure I like the idea of knee shots when
it comes to two handed weapons though.  I took a polearm shot to the inside of
my leading leg once that left me with a twinge for a few days.  I'm not so
sure I'd like to be placing that sort of stress on my knees on a continuous
basis.

|> 
|> 
|> I would like to see fighting made more period, though, and have a
|> few suggestions.
|> 
|> 1) Ban any weapons shield combo which cannot be documented
|>    to europe/eastern europe/mediterranean from pre1450.

Sounds good to me.

|> 
|> 2) Ban any weapon/weapon combo (eg, florentine, sword and spear)
|>    which cannot be documented in the same way.

Yep.

|> 
|> 3) determine the weight of *real* armour, and enforce a minimum
|>    weight rule for armour based on reality.

This would be nice from the point of view of fairness in competition, but how
to rationalize this with the wide range of cultures and time periods covered
by the SCA?  Some suits of plate armour were surprisingly light.  Unfortunately,
'reality' isn't a simple thing.

|> 
|> 4) Do the same for swords, shields, polearms...

OK.  Not too sure about the heavier weapons though.  Some realistically weighted
pole-axes would pack a mean wallop.

|> 
|> 5) Make the basket hilt mandatory, and allow the hand as a
|> target.

Neat idea.  Baskethilt OR gauntlet.  Put quillions on the sword so that a blow
that slides down the blade onto the quillions can be considered blocked, while
blows that hit the basket without hitting the quillions are counted as good.
(in our area, basket hilted swords are almost never outfitted with quillions)

What to do about two handed weapons where gauntlets are used?  I'd expect alot
more damaged gauntlets and hand injuries if the hand became a legal target.
Maybe not though, people would be trying awfully hard to not get hit in the 
hands, and it wouldn't happen more than once per bout (unless option 7 is 
adopted).

A good one to consider though, as this would give alot of 'bang for the buck'
as far as recaptured realism goes.  I strongly suspect that it would instantly
make two stick obsolete for all but the very best florentines.

|> 
|> 6) allow the knees and shin as targets.

As I mentioned, I'm not sure about potential longterm stress to the knee.  
Never considered whether feet were difficult to armour well.

|> 
|> 7) fight bouts to three "points" *or* a killing blow. So three
|> clean solid blows to the leg would win you the fight. No more
|> silly dropping to knees, putting shield behind back.

Hmmm.  Not bad.  The recipient could yell 'POINT' or 'DEAD' as appropriate.
Big changes in tactics!   Currently, taking an arm
or a leg puts your opponent at a disadvantage.  With this system, your opponent
would be just as much of a threat.  But you could take the same leg more than
once.  It might be neat to run a few lists this way just to see how different
things would turn out.  No major overhall in the system required to try it out. 

|> 
|> 8) Find out, in terms of real hard numbers how hard we have to
|> hit, and develop systems of training that *standardise* blow
|> strength.

Have to hit for what?  If practical, standardization would be nice, but I haven't
had to many bad experiences.  People could be a bit more proactive: when visiting
another region ask someone to do a bit of calibrating with you before a bout/tourney.  Not much help in wars I suppose.


|> 
|> A modest proposal...
|> 
|> 
|> Carolus Malvoix

cheers, Balderik