From: parr@acs.ucalgary.ca (Charles Parr)
Subject: Re: period fighting styles
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 15:12:55 GMT
Organization: The University of Calgary, Alberta

In article <1j78q3INNmvi@usenet.pa.dec.com> haslock@rust.zso.dec.com (Nigel Haslock) writes:
>
>(David Tallan) writes:
>
>>    It seems to me that there are two elements in operation here in
>>our pursuit of period fighting styles.
>>
>>    One is the use of weapons and armour that resemble as closely as
>>posssible period weapons and armour. This is supposedly the tack used
>>by heavy weapons fighters. The theory is that there is a best way to
>>use these things (ie. swords and shields).
>
>This is an interesting theory but it has a number of problems.
>
>1) We in the SCA never confirm our fighting style by attempting it with
>   steel swords.

I *practice* (in a mirror) with a "real" sword to  hone concepts
of edge work, and because it's fun to whiz a real implement of
destruction around. I wish medical science was sufficiently
advanced (perhaps instant regeneration?) to permit real
combat;-) Imagine how interesting it would be to have
a limb severed, if you could just grow it right back;-)

>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?

>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.

>4) We in the SCA have an invented rule about the durability of a steel sword
>   that is based on speculation rather than evidence.

What rule is that? Anviling? I don't think that's SCA-wide.

>5) We in the SCA have legislated against a set of obvious targets on the
>   grounds of 'safety'. 

The wrists and hands would be a silly target: hard to hit for one
thing, and crippling for another. Knights were not usually
interested in crippling each other, but mostly in ransom
and capture. Who cares *what* the peasants thought of for
tactics, *we're* nobles.

The shin was an often used target according to archeological
evidence. I'd like to see it made a legal target, with greaves
required, but I doubt it will happen.
 
>Other folk have mentioned a tendence to block with the edge of the sword and
>pointed out the the greatest danger is not to the edge but to the tang. Ask
>your local sword smith about the dangers of swinging at tree, even with swords
>of modern steel.

Blocking with the edge is perfectly legitimate, as long as you
are using the forte. In fact, blocking with your edge against
his flat is probably the *safest* block for both weapons.

edge to edge will of course notch blades, but the forte 
was often made unsharpened (and unshaped) for just this purpose.

>SCA shields are wonderous objects. Impervious to the heaviest blow,
>indestructable and incapable of snagging ones opponents blade. Perhaps this
>has little impact on sword style but axes and maces might be expected to
>stick in ones shield.

Agreed wrt mace, as I have struck shields with a mace and
observed the damage. I suspect most sword blows would
bounce off a shield though (that's just speculation,
when I fooled about whacking old shields, I didn't have access
to a sword, I'm speculating based on my experience striking
armour made of similar thicknesses of cour boulli)

>My point is three is the development of the wrap shot. I am willing to admit
>that this is the humble opinion of an observer and so may be utterly wrong.
>My observation is that wrap shots rarely land edge on and I cannot convince
>myself that they land with enough force to damage a helm. I would like to
>see this tried on a dummy, steel helm and steel sword.

As for edge on wraps, yes they are *more* difficult, but if the
majority of a fighters wraps are landing flat, then he has a
fundamental problem. Skilled fighters, in my experience, have
little problem. You may be misled by the simple difficulty
of seeing what is happening at speed.

As for force, a properly thrown wrap is among the very hardest
of blows, and also lands on an are o the body covered with both
less and weaker armour.

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.

>When I was introduced to the rule about swords breaking in combat it seemed
>to be based on the theory that the sword needed to be supported at both ends
>to make it break in the middle. Does anyone have any experimental evidence?
>Why does it make a difference if the hilt is held to take all of the strain
>of the block?

No idea, though if it *were* supported in both ends, I'd expect
it to bend, not brake. swords imho would be more likely to break
from stresses arising from vibration (short sharp snapping
blows) than from what would be effectively a long compression
(the classic anvil)

>Safety issues make the hands wrists and knees illegal targets so we ignore
>hits to them. I doubt that period fighters would feel so limited and thus
>would modify their fighting style accordingly.

Wit the possible exception of my head, I'd rather be struck on my
knees than any other part of my body...An articulated knee joint
is *incredible* protection. IMHO, the reason we don't strike at
the knees is simply that when the rules were made, protection
was not very good, and now it's tradition.

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.

>Most of the artisan types have learned that precise and complete reproduction
>of tools and materials is the best (fastest?) way to learn how to make
>reproduction objects. I gravely doubt that fighting is any different and so I
>am extremely doubtful that, at best, SCA heavy weapons fighting is anything
>more that a romantic imitation of period fighting styles.  
>
>		Fiacha, retired trainee fighter,
>		Aquaterra, AnTir

That's okay, though, medieval *tourney* fighting was no more than
a romantic imitation itself...

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.

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

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

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

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

6) allow the knees and shin as targets.

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.

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

A modest proposal...


Carolus Malvoix
Montengarde, An Tir
These are *my* opinions, not the opinions of Carolus Malvoix,
Constable of Montengarde.
-- 
Within the span of the last few weeks I have heard elements of
separate threads which, in that they have been conjoined in time,
struck together to form a new chord within my hollow and echoing
gourd. --Unknown net.person
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca