Eirik wrote: his "I don't fight, but here's what's wrong with what you do" post
clearly, I failed to put over my point cleanly there... at least three times.
I apologise, wholeheartedly, for failing to convey my meaning adequately;
to re-emphasise with no uncertainties - the SCA is
not in any way wrong. I do not, and never have felt that the SCA is wrong - or indeed that any other form or society is more or less right. there is simply difference.
In such a subjective environment as an associated interest in western martial arts and history, be it from a fantasy environment of larp gaming with boffers and created background, be it a sport form with rattan and history period chosen by each individual member, be it with rebated steel and dedicated period living history as part of a group, or the practice of combat as a modern martial art, there is no quantifiable "right" or wrong. it is the variation which gives option, it is the variation which lets us thrive, and will let us all grow, irrespective of the personal category which every one of us participates in.
My original comment was vague, in failing to comprehensively state that I was referring specifically to AriAnson's comment of not imagining that the same percentage of fights continuing with one or the other participant on their knees applied historically. Again, I apologise for any offense that this misunderstanding has caused, as it was certainly not my aim to imply in any manner an inherent inferiority, or superiority in my comment. Re-reading my original comment, I can see why my meaning could be misconstrued, and I intend to edit my post with a postscript to clarify to prevent further offence.
I failed earlier to notice the context in which my comment could be taken, missing AriAnson's original statement, and therefore, felt, erroniously, that a number of participants in the thread were focusing on the post in an excessive fashion, taking my statement out of context. I trust that the context has now been corrected, and I do not have to defend my statement from further hostility.
Should anyone continue to take perceived offense at my statement, I would politely ask that they raise the matter via a personal message, and I am happy to discuss with them, if my meaning is still unclear following this.
Shall we try to get the subject back on track, now, please? I dont like flamewars, no-one benefits from them.
---------------------
Baron Alcyoneus;
you commented - unfortunately missed by me amidst the assorted flaming and resultant arguments, that the vast majority of the leg blows were not fight stoppers - do you have any further data on additional injury locations, as I commented to mordreth's original note raising the subject of wisby?
as you commented;
Baron Alcyoneus wrote:If you got cut with a real sword on your shin, and your leg did not fall off, would you calmly accept death, or would you do your damnedest to take the bastard with you?
please, gladly correct me, as, given my very limited familiarity with sca practice, but I have been lead to believe that the majority of SCA leg strikes are, (at least with sword and shield practicioners) to the thigh and knee in shots coming around the shield, rather than strikes to the lower shin with the weapon dropping so low?
the reason I'm checking that is simply that in my experience - fortunately not with swords weilded by opposing forces, but my own misspent youth of adrenaline junkie sports falling down mountains, is that relatively major shin damage can be ignored, to a greater or lesser extent, while muscle damage to the thigh was much more debilitating to mobilty even when relatively superficial. Given the nature of combat, I've generally learnt that taking the sword so low as to strike the shin opens the face up to counter, while the thigh is a much faster and safer target to take.
the difference that causes, is that the knee or thigh damage significantly alters the ability to balance, and that in turn alters the ability to move adequately.
With the experience of combat added into those misspent teenage years of having countless dozens of stitches, in such a situation that immediately raises a third question which you missed; you asked, "would you calmly await death, or do you damndest to take the bastard with you.". The third choice which you missed was: would you do your damndest to defend yourself, in the hopes that your allies can bear a threat to your agressor and prevent yourself from being killed? the first, I think we can all safely dismiss as unlikely. but of your latter, and the third, I am personally more inclined to doubt your second choice was the most likely choice.
Personally, in a melee situation, I suspect that the defence while attempting to withdraw is a far more likely outcome, whereas in single, lone, or grossly outnumbered combat, where you have the knowledge that you stand and fall alone, combatants are more willing to push on - a statistic that can be seen in the incidence of double fatality in later renaissance period rapier, when compated to duelling with broad or longsword in earlier periods - there is evidence that the broader-bladed cut and thrust weapons produced more debilitating superficial injury, of the type capable of disabling the target rapidly, whilst the later rapier, particularly in thrust-oriented schools of use, resulted in smaller, less grossly damaging, but ultimately more fatal wounding.
but that is slightly sidetracking the subject - although the evidence of healed previous injury in the archaeological record, as well as modern medical opinion strongly corroborate the suggestion that limb injuries are significantly less life-threatening.
to assume an average that leg injury on fatalities in wisby was sufficient to prevent withdrawal from the line of combat, as assaulting forces pushed into the city line, I would suggest (and by all means, suggest otherwise), that there are three logical courses of action - that in the midst of the press, a victim is wounder in the legs, be it by spear, or by sword or axe is relatively irrelevant. the victims at this point, if wounded in a manner that does not impede their ability to move, would either carry on in the ultimately futile defence, or if sufficiently debilitating to prevent combat, withdraw from the press, to attempt to find medical aid. If the same combatant is wounded in the press in a fashion that they are immobilised, their life is in immediate danger; few people I know would, in such circumstance, attempt the inevitably suicidal counter-attack when such impairment of their ability effects them, unless absolutely all hope of respite is lost - at which point such acts of desperation are what legend is made of. in such a situation, unable to withdraw, the victim is, I believe, more likely to turn to solely attempting to defend themselves, relying on their allies to resist, and thus, be able to attempt to extract themselves from combat. lastly, if unable to rely upon allies to come to aid, the unfortunate victim is in a position where they are likely to be quickly overwhelmed - and thus my point of wound placement - the victim set upon by multiple attackers, arms drawn up over the face, the victim thrown to the ground and a blow to the face or back of the head, or, the victim struck by blows above the head and shoulders, casting down as they try to fight back in last moments of struggle? we can safely assume that in a press, such an injured person incapacitated by a leg injury is likely to be rapidly swamped by the advancing forse pushing back the defenders - and I vaguely recall a few accounts - one roman, one viking, and at least one post-renaissance suggesting that in the press of battle, back rows regularly despatched those incapacitated by non-fatal blows.
I seem to have gone on rather at length there.
erm. did any of that make sense? probably not. "stabbing in legs, general result, try not to die in agony as you drop, not try to continue the fight" is the general gist of what I was trying to imply.
which is, of course, taking the subject way on a tangent. oops.
).
