From: bloodthorn@sloth.equinox.gen.nz (Jennifer Geard)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Illegal targets (was: period fighting styles) 
Distribution: world
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 23:46:14 GMT
Organization: Lethargy Inc.

Unto Charles the Clerk, and others on the Rialto, does Pagan le Chaunster 
send Greetings!

I've tried to stay out of this discussion on hands as targets (after all, 
what do *I* know about fighting?), but I feel it is time to quote some 
handbooks on the matter.

The [Society] Marshal's Handbook of 1992 is fairly waffley:

    The striking surface of a weapon in motion may not be grasped or 
    blocked by the hands or limbs as a means of impeding a blow.  
    Inadvertently bringing the hands in contact with the striking 
    surface of such a weapon when attempting to block a blow with 
    another weapon shall not be considered to be in violation of this 
    convention.  (p. 33)

It seems to say "No intentional blocking with your hands" but doesn't give an 
indication of what happens if a fighter does use a hand-block.  

Caid's rules are more specific (although, I understand, irrelevant to most of 
you):

    If a normally illegal target is intentionally placed in a target 
    zone, striking that area shall be considered a normally 
    incapacitating blow.  (e.g. if a fighter raises his or her leg 
    during combat and is struck on the knee or shin by a blow that 
    normally would have been legal, the blow shall be counted as good.  
    Similarly, if a fighter is struck on the hand while attempting to 
    grab a shield or basket hilt, the arm shall be considered to have 
    been lost).  [My pagination is skewed - this is from the 
    "Acknowledgement of Blows" section.] 

As I understand it, in Caid if a blow is intentionally blocked with the hand
the arm is lost.

However, just to confuse things the Society Marshal's Handbook gives a 
definition of the theoretical armour of the SCA fighter (which I'll 
reproduce here in its entirity, since it's vaguely interesting).  From the 
definitions section, p. 24:

    Fully Armored:  For the purposes of acknowledging blows, a fully 
    armored fighter is presumed to be wearing a light-weight, short 
    sleeved, knee length, riveted mail hauberk over a padded gambeson, 
    with boiled leather arm and leg defenses and an open faced iron 
    helm with a nasal.  (The helm may be presumed to include a very 
    light chain mail drape --- permitting vision and resisting cuts by 
    a mere touch of a bladed weapon.)  (Note that the hand, knee, and 
    lower leg armor are considered to be proof against all attack.  
    Also, the hands, wrists, knees and lower legs, and feet, including 
    the areas up to 1" (2.5 cm) above the knee cap and 1" (2.5 cm) 
    above the bend of the wrist, are not legal targets.) 

I find the wording of the statement that "the hand, knee, and lower leg 
armour are considered proof against all attack" confusing.  Do they realise 
that the rules lawyers amongst the fighters have started blocking with their 
hands because within the terms of the SCA game hands are invulnerable?  I far 
favour the Caidan version.

There also seems to be a lot of confusion about basket hilts.  (I'm one of 
the bewildered, so please be gentle with me.)  On the one hand <ahem>, for 
the purposes of blow-calling we're meant to be wearing this Crusader-ish 
armour, right?  And all the fancy plate we think we see in the fighters is 
there because it looks good and gives better real-life protection, right?  
And basket hilts weren't found in any significant numbers until late in 
period?  (I'm waiting to be corrected on this one -- I may well be wrong.)  
So isn't the basket hilt -- like the peascod breastplate or the stiff 
armoured skirt -- a figment of the imagination where blow-calling is 
concerned?  Something that has no existence except insofar as it stops your 
hand from being mundanely pulped by accident? 

One the other hand there's the theory that basket hilts are some sort of 
small impenetrable shield which can be used to block (even punch-block) 
anything.  Can someone please explain the rationale behind this idea, and 
whether the basket hilt is a shield, a weapon, or a mundane safety accessory 
which happens to look like late-period sword furniture?  

Pagan le Chaunster
Totally ignorant about fighting.  Willing to learn.  Sick of being 
browbeaten by people who want to be able to fight in just a helm and gorget.  
If it's that important to them they're welcome to do it on their own time.  
________________________________________________________________________ 
Jennifer Geard                         bloodthorn@sloth.equinox.gen.nz 
Christchurch, New Zealand