Page 2 of 10
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:48 am
by Nissan Maxima
I tried it with a brave guy in my area named Tadesco. it was fun for me, but my nervous system is too primitive to do it. I can control my initial strike, but not my riposte after parry, so I hit too hard.
It is cool though, and I continue to watch its development with interest and a little jealosy.
Re: Cut and Thrust - Total BS or What?
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:53 am
by LOGOS
raito wrote:Logos, we discussed this very point at All Souls last fall (one of the specific reasons I travelled there, besides your Crown being in attendance, was to see the first C&T tournament). I disagree with your statements on the matter. I do not think that it is a good idea, or ought to be allowed, to strike someone harder just because they are wearing extra protective gear.
Your Grace,
I'm not sure that's exactly what I said, but if so, that is certainly not I what I meant and I apologize for the confusion. I believe most of my comments were about an mutually agreed armor as worn bout that looked pretty brutal from the outside, but actually was as safe or safe than most rattan combat (at least from my perspective a couple of feet away). This is the only bout of this nature I have witnessed and was an exception mainly for demonstration. It is true that sometimes human nature takes over and we aren't as careful throwing the blows when we see a nice safe steel helmet in the line of the attack. It's unfortunate part of human nature and a part of training we continue to work on. We find the historical part (and taking arm shots as kills) reduces some of this problem. I also agree that some of the longsword need some discussion and more training.
Thus we see the dilema. C&T is meant to be unarmored, but there are some (I am not one of them) who want it to be armored with rebated steel. While I think this may be possible eventually, we are far far from that point. There are calibration issues across the kingdoms, but of course, we know there are none in rattan or rapier combat.
Of course, as far as I know, no one in C&T has received an injury as serious as broken collar bone.
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:36 am
by Blackoak
I don't do C&T, but I have done some rebated steel through the Yomsvikings & VikingsNA. You need no where near the force with steel that you do with rattan for an effective blow, so I think there is more chance of injury from a new person than someone who knows what they are doing. I think it can fit with the right rules set in and the firm assertion that if you are an ass you loose your authorization for C&T.
Gleann Abhann does not have it, but we do have Sir Brian from Darkwood Armoury.
Uric
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:53 am
by DukeAvery
Kilkenny wrote:DukeAvery wrote:Well, I appreciate the even responses but those that equate rattan with wood and declare 'steel is the new white bread' are naive.
My sense of ethics requires that I make the effort to help (the editorial) you obtain the martial sca status you seek but, the of out of hand dismissals of my points allows me to withdraw from the discussion in good conscience.
With hands empty of large brushes I wish you all the best of luck. I will check it out further with an open mind.
Regards,
Avery
I have absolutely no idea what it is you are referencing with this comment.
You've failed to respond to the OP, not answered any of his questions at all and at the same time appear to have simply brushed them aside.
Whatever point were you trying to make ?
And, in terms of context for that point, would you mind answering the questions asked ?
What you say of me can be said of you Sir. As for your "requests", I politely decline.
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:19 am
by Magnus Ulfgarsson
Have you seen C&T? Lately? Yes
Is it permitted in your area? If so, is there a requirement for historical study or at peer pressure for it? Yes and Probably.
Have you actually done C&T? No
Have you studied any WMA? Outside of the SCA? No
*long winded*
My concern really lies in it to my knowledge being a touch sport, though that may be up to debate in different Kingdoms. I think the rules as they stand now are similair to rapier in it's supposed to be touch. I have heard some people are trying to make it more than touch, that peeks my interest.
I am wondering if the allowed blow strength leads to people winning fights who are extremely quick with the wrist, but land a sword blow that even sharpened would fail miserably.
I may also be talking out of my buttox once more, but the 2 handed sword stuff looks silly and unrealistic. The blades bending all over the place just in mid swing, and seem a lot lighter than makes sense. Specifically in regards to 2 handed weapons the leaning on the side of historical accuracy in steel seems to be countered by a weapon that doesn't make sense. (maybe it does make sense and my limited knowledge is just that, limited).
I'm also curious as to how safely wars can be fought in cut and thrust if they're approved/done/etc. And by safely I mean what rule restrictions will be needed to make them safe. Don't run with scissors.
Lastly I have a personal preference to banging and crashing and getting smoked. That's just how I operate. I do promise my cut & thrust friends that I'll try it soon though. I see the most promise in C&T in sword and shield tournament fighting.
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:20 am
by Lemarchand
Duke Avery:
Thank you for clarifying on the divisions of martial combat as you listed them. I had my suspicions, but appreciate the clarification. The only change that I would make would be to move the jousting and other equine combat to either martial art or martial skill depending on your POV. The reason I say this is that currently Heavy combat is the only means of attaining Royal Peerage in the SCA. IMHO however I would love to see both Rapier and Mounted combat eventually acheive their own peerage, but that is another argument for another time and another thread.
Jean-Robert Lemarchand
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:21 am
by Tibbie Croser
Duke Avery, is your response about Kilkenny's posts in Johno's thread? It doesn't seem to make sense in the context of *this* particular thread.
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:25 am
by zippy
Have you seen C&T? Lately?
Yes and Yes. we have a couple white scarves promoting it
Is it permitted in your area? If so, is there a requirement for historical study or at peer pressure for it?
Yes and yes but our guys are more interesting in promoting and educating than harping on people for their period style
Have you actually done C&T?
Yes, and I'll do more of it.
Have you studied any WMA? Outside of the SCA?
Yes and Yes
My problems stem from the historical style aspect. If we try to use only historical styles then that limits people in an area to practicing only the styles known by their trainers. Another point is fighting unorthodox opponents is referenced in a couple manuals, so by that argument not having a specific style to fight is a documented style.
So let them fight the educated will further educate themselves and the ignorant will more than likely always remain so.
have fun
zip
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:29 am
by Kilkenny
DukeAvery wrote:Kilkenny wrote:DukeAvery wrote:Well, I appreciate the even responses but those that equate rattan with wood and declare 'steel is the new white bread' are naive.
My sense of ethics requires that I make the effort to help (the editorial) you obtain the martial sca status you seek but, the of out of hand dismissals of my points allows me to withdraw from the discussion in good conscience.
With hands empty of large brushes I wish you all the best of luck. I will check it out further with an open mind.
Regards,
Avery
I have absolutely no idea what it is you are referencing with this comment.
You've failed to respond to the OP, not answered any of his questions at all and at the same time appear to have simply brushed them aside.
Whatever point were you trying to make ?
And, in terms of context for that point, would you mind answering the questions asked ?
What you say of me can be said of you Sir. As for your "requests", I politely decline.
I don't know what to say
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:35 am
by DukeAvery
Kilkenny wrote:DukeAvery wrote:Kilkenny wrote:DukeAvery wrote:Well, I appreciate the even responses but those that equate rattan with wood and declare 'steel is the new white bread' are naive.
My sense of ethics requires that I make the effort to help (the editorial) you obtain the martial sca status you seek but, the of out of hand dismissals of my points allows me to withdraw from the discussion in good conscience.
With hands empty of large brushes I wish you all the best of luck. I will check it out further with an open mind.
Regards,
Avery
I have absolutely no idea what it is you are referencing with this comment.
You've failed to respond to the OP, not answered any of his questions at all and at the same time appear to have simply brushed them aside.
Whatever point were you trying to make ?
And, in terms of context for that point, would you mind answering the questions asked ?
What you say of me can be said of you Sir. As for your "requests", I politely decline.
I don't know what to say
Your Grace,
You have accused me of not answering the OP's question (C&T - BS or what?), and yet I have (started to) do just that by examining all martial activities via a system of classification that continues to provide me new insights.
Going further I would discuss that all martial arts appear to be based on 'practiced martial skills', and that all practice begins with study. We may then turn to a study of martial communities and what effect that has on my classifications.
If that isn't on topic I apologize. As Issabella says, we dig our own holes around here.
Regards,
Avery
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:07 pm
by zippy
Message
DukeAvery
PostPosted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 4:35 pm Post subject:
Kilkenny wrote:
DukeAvery wrote:
Kilkenny wrote:
DukeAvery wrote:
Well, I appreciate the even responses but those that equate rattan with wood and declare 'steel is the new white bread' are naive.
My sense of ethics requires that I make the effort to help (the editorial) you obtain the martial sca status you seek but, the of out of hand dismissals of my points allows me to withdraw from the discussion in good conscience.
With hands empty of large brushes I wish you all the best of luck. I will check it out further with an open mind.
Regards,
Avery
I have absolutely no idea what it is you are referencing with this comment.
You've failed to respond to the OP, not answered any of his questions at all and at the same time appear to have simply brushed them aside.
Whatever point were you trying to make ?
And, in terms of context for that point, would you mind answering the questions asked ?
What you say of me can be said of you Sir. As for your "requests", I politely decline.
I don't know what to say Rolling Eyes
Your Grace,
You have accused me of not answering the OP's question (C&T - BS or what?), and yet I have (started to) do just that by examining all martial activities via a system of classification that continues to provide me new insights.
Going further I would discuss that all martial arts appear to be based on 'practiced martial skills', and that all practice begins with study. We may then turn to a study of martial communities and what effect that has on my classifications.
If that isn't on topic I apologize. As Issabella says, we dig our own holes around here.
Regards,
Avery
i have lost track of what you two were discussing or arguing
please continue your debate privately
or continue with answering or addressing specific questions
just a friendly request no disrespect intended
i would like to hear more on this subject
and feel this is a distraction
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:41 pm
by J.G.Elmslie
Flittie wrote:Duke Avery, the only one who seemed to equate wood with rattan was Suzerain, and he's *not* in the SCA. Why would you take his opinions as representing anyone else in the thread or anyone in the SCA?
my apologies, my comment along the lines of, "large, heavey wooden, or rattan," was intended to differentiate that they are'nt the same, hence the comma.
that should've been read as "a large heavy metal bar, a large heavy wooden, or a large heavy rattan"
as each has distinct and different properties.
ah, the joy of miscommunication.
My experience of using rattan is rather limited, it's something I've only really encountered in the context of SCA practicioners - we rather prefer to use Ash, like they used to, in the form of wasters.
Re: Cut and Thrust - Total BS or What?
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:03 pm
by jester
LOGOS wrote:I have seen two major criticisms about C&T:
1. It's too dangerous to hit people with steel
2. People don't hit hard enough
Have you seen C&T? Lately?
No and no.
Is it permitted in your area? If so, is there a requirement for historical study or at peer pressure for it?
Yes and I don't know.
Have you actually done C&T?
No.
Have you studied any WMA? Outside of the SCA?
Yes and yes.
The force issue is interesting because it assumes a single standard. This is a common mistake in discussing any sort of combat activities in the SCA. The fact is that there are lots of historical standards that might be applied and by not being upfront about which standard we are using in a given situation we are cheating ourselves of some educational opportunities. Hitting people with metal/wood/plastic/etc.. can be dangerous. In rattan combat we armor up and we *still* demand a level of control from participants in order to ensure their safety. C&T is no different. As for not hitting hard enough... Folks can just tell their opponent they'd prefer a stouter blow. Again, not really all that different. So long as we all have a common-ish idea of what we're trying to do at a specific event we can have a meeting of the minds and get on with having fun.
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:06 pm
by Saritor
zippy wrote:My problems stem from the historical style aspect. If we try to use only historical styles then that limits people in an area to practicing only the styles known by their trainers. Another point is fighting unorthodox opponents is referenced in a couple manuals, so by that argument not having a specific style to fight is a documented style.
So let them fight the educated will further educate themselves and the ignorant will more than likely always remain so.
I'm not sure how Mid does it, but as I do the rules rewrite for the Outlands, I'm looking at a few different things.
Really, what it all boils down to is this: You have to authorize using a period style. I don't care whether or not you fight with the style, but I want everyone to be on the same "page" for consistency in authorization.
The footwork will all be generic, since it has to be compiled from a few different sources, and there'll be a few interpretations of styles in there -- german & Italian longsword, and German & Italian "sword"/"rappier" (the extra 'p' not being accidental). when you do an auth, the marshal may ask you to demonstrate a few different strikes from whichever of the sources/interpretations you want to use.
Once it's established that everyone's on the same page, go research what you want, and fight how you want. Or don't research, and just fight. Whatever...it's all good.
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:09 pm
by Steve S.
What is "Cut and Thrust"? Is this just plain old "rapier" combat, or is this something else?
Steve
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:12 pm
by Derian le Breton
Steve -SoFC- wrote:What is "Cut and Thrust"? Is this just plain old "rapier" combat, or is this something else?
The following site was the first result of a google search for "sca cut and thrust":
http://www.cutandthrust.org/
Looks like it has lots of info, including links to local rule sets.
-Derian.
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:14 pm
by Amanda M
Saritor wrote:zippy wrote:My problems stem from the historical style aspect. If we try to use only historical styles then that limits people in an area to practicing only the styles known by their trainers. Another point is fighting unorthodox opponents is referenced in a couple manuals, so by that argument not having a specific style to fight is a documented style.
So let them fight the educated will further educate themselves and the ignorant will more than likely always remain so.
I'm not sure how Mid does it, but as I do the rules rewrite for the Outlands, I'm looking at a few different things.
Really, what it all boils down to is this: You have to authorize using a period style. I don't care whether or not you fight with the style, but I want everyone to be on the same "page" for consistency in authorization.
The footwork will all be generic, since it has to be compiled from a few different sources, and there'll be a few interpretations of styles in there -- german & Italian longsword, and German & Italian "sword"/"rappier" (the extra 'p' not being accidental). when you do an auth, the marshal may ask you to demonstrate a few different strikes from whichever of the sources/interpretations you want to use.
Once it's established that everyone's on the same page, go research what you want, and fight how you want. Or don't research, and just fight. Whatever...it's all good.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:20 pm
by J.G.Elmslie
Derian le Breton wrote:Steve -SoFC- wrote:What is "Cut and Thrust"? Is this just plain old "rapier" combat, or is this something else?
The following site was the first result of a google search for "sca cut and thrust":
http://www.cutandthrust.org/Looks like it has lots of info, including links to local rule sets.
-Derian.
it also starts out with an opening from dear old George "I dont like Italians. I'm not xenophobic, that's a ****ing foreign word" Silver....
which is about as incongrous a quotation, in reference to rapier combat, as I can possibly imagine... given Silver's (lengthy) diatribes about who wrong the devillish, italiante practicioners of the rapier were....
Frankly, I'm afraid any documentation about rapiers for a practice, where the opening reference is from silver, my gut instinct is that whoever's been cut and pasting off other sources really needs to do more research. I could of course be very wrong - and expect so. but the choice of reference seems odd to me.
several people on this thread seem to have been making reference to longsword, and similar type combats as "cut and thrust". plenty have also made reference to rapier type combat.
frankly, from what I'm seeing as an outsider, what needs to be done first is that people get terminologies defined, so everyone's talking the same language, so whatever is being discussed can be covered cleanly.
as it is, reading these threads is, to be honest, a train wreck of contradictory meanings and language, and you're not going to get very far with discussing it, while there's a martial arts tower of babel going on.
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:24 pm
by Steve S.
The following site was the first result of a google search for "sca cut and thrust":
http://www.cutandthrust.org/Looks like it has lots of info, including links to local rule sets.
Interesting. I have never heard of this. I'm in Meridies. Not surprisingly, the web site says this style of combat is not practiced here.
It sounds like rapier fighting to me, only now allowing "percussive" force (though not "hacking"). It's either Rapier Plus or Rebated Steel Light, I don't know which.
Steve
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:26 pm
by Amanda M
I don't know if I can describe it properly but when you watch two people who know what they're doing, it's definitely not rapier.
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:32 pm
by Munz
I think Avery is answering the question "total BS or what" but not necessarily answering the individual breakdown questions. In a very esoteric way he's asking what is the long term point of this "new" form. Is it safe? What will it become down the road, is this going to become a new peerage? Etc. While the original post was something akin to a questionnaire, His Grace approached it on a larger scale. At least that's how it reads to me.
I think in a broad answer it is good for the SCA. Especially if it brings more research and historical flavor to the field. I'm not overly interested in Rapier combat but C&T looks cool. I'm willing to go through the process here in Caid where you need to be authorized in rapier for 1 year before you can get into C&T. To me this is what SCA rapier should be.
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:33 pm
by Count Johnathan
Steve -SoFC- wrote:The following site was the first result of a google search for "sca cut and thrust":
http://www.cutandthrust.org/Looks like it has lots of info, including links to local rule sets.
Interesting. I have never heard of this. I'm in Meridies. Not surprisingly, the web site says this style of combat is not practiced here.
It sounds like rapier fighting to me, only now allowing "percussive" force (though not "hacking"). It's either Rapier Plus or Rebated Steel Light, I don't know which.
Steve
Definately not rapier. This is a sidesword or "cut and thrust" sword hence my opinion that it is actually using very real weaponry blunted or otherwise and why I oppose it's use in the SCA.
<a href="http://s105.photobucket.com/albums/m214/johno1count/?action=view¤t=sidesword.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m214/johno1count/sidesword.jpg" border="0" alt="sidesword"></a>
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:33 pm
by Saritor
Isabella E wrote:I don't know if I can describe it properly but when you watch two people who know what they're doing, it's definitely not rapier.
Unless they're using rapiers and delivering cuts like they should be.
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:36 pm
by Kilkenny
Suzerain wrote:frankly, from what I'm seeing as an outsider, what needs to be done first is that people get terminologies defined, so everyone's talking the same language, so whatever is being discussed can be covered cleanly.
as it is, reading these threads is, to be honest, a train wreck of contradictory meanings and language, and you're not going to get very far with discussing it, while there's a martial arts tower of babel going on.
You certainly have a point. However, Cut and Thrust within the context of the SCA, which is the context in which it is being used here, is a reasonably well defined thing. It isn't so much a style of sword - long sword v rapier v small sword, etc. as it is a category of actions. SCA Rapier is pointwork with very limited edgeplay, C&T explicitly provides for much more use of the edge and (imo, at least) also allows for more force than is permitted within SCA Rapier.
In this case the term "SCA Rapier" is used to describe a category of combat, rather than use of a particular weapon.
Those who are more familiar with C&T are invited to expand, correct any errors or misconceptions on my part, and so forth.
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:37 pm
by InsaneIrish
Isabella E wrote:I don't know if I can describe it properly but when you watch two people who know what they're doing, it's definitely not rapier.
The first set of boubts here look pretty good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rfWRnLS ... re=related
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:37 pm
by Marco-borromei
Saritor wrote:I'm not sure how Mid does it,
Until recently, I was the Mid's deputy for C&T. We require a historical form at authorization. Here's the guidlines I wrote on how an authorization for a historical form would work:
6. How do C&T Authorizations work?
6.1. Authorization in C&T Rapier in the Midrealm is constrained by Midrealm Rapier Rules 3.0 Marshaling Concerns: Section 1.5M
5M. Candidates for cut and thrust authorization must demonstrate particularly fine control of calibration, as well as some basic scholarship in at least one pre-17th century historical sword art. At minimum, a candidate for cut and thrust authorization should be able to demonstrate several guards and/or cuts, including the names or English translations thereof, from at least one documented system of combat.
6.2. The Authorization Process for C&T requires the candidate to:
6.2.1. have studied and practiced a documented historical combat system
6.2.2. answer questions on that system
6.2.3. demonstrate that system’s use in free play
6.2.4. demonstrate fine control and calibration in free play
6.2.5. adhere to all rules in the Midrealm Rapier Rules 3.0
6.2.6. adhere to all procedures in this document
6.3. Initial authorization may not be case of swords. All participants are required to authorize in either single sword, sword and parry item, or sword and dagger before authorizing with two swords.
6.4. If the participant is already authorized in advanced forms of Light or Heavy Rapier, initial C&T authorization will carry over existing advanced authorizations.
6.5. Candidates for authorization should limit their authorization testing to cover one specific system regardless of what they have been studying.
6.6. Authorization is tied to the form, not the historical system [i.e. authorization in C&T single sword allows the participant to use single handed sword ala Silver, Marozzo, Meyer, etc. as well as longsword ala Lichtenauer, Fiore, etc.], but participants are expected to limit their free play to techniques which they can employ with fine control and calibration.
6.7. Sample authorization questions:
6.7.1. Have you read the Midrealm C&T rules and procedures?
6.7.2. Are you aware that this is a contact martial art and you may be injured?
6.7.3. Who is the C&T marshal with whom you’ve been working?
6.7.4. What can you tell me about the system you’ve been studying?
6.7.5. What named guards have you learned?
6.7.6. What named cuts or attacks have you learned?
6.7.7. What is this system’s theory of engagement?
6.7.8. How does this system treat measure and tempo?
6.7.9. What parts of this system are you aware of but have not studied?
6.7.10. What techniques in this system are illegal under Midrealm C&T Rapier rules?
6.7.11. How would you respond to [repeat this question naming several different techniques, including some illegal techniques]?
6.7.12. If a person you do not know approaches you wanting to engage in free play C&T, what would you do?
6.7.13. If you are approached by a person questioning the legality or validity of C&T combat or techniques, what would you do?
6.7.14. Do you have any questions about the Midrealm C&T rules and procedures?
Caveat - LOGOS may run things differently now. I was always a nitpicky detail addicted arsehat. :)
Marco
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:42 pm
by Tibbie Croser
Johno, that's a fine-looking sword. Where is the picture from?
Is that a sword that's actually on the list of blades legal for C&T? I think, in the June 2006 version of the Society approved blade list, most of the C&T blades were rapiers.
Johno, have you contacted the Society Earl Marshal and Society Rapier Marshal with your concerns? The SRM might be able to tell you about the blade approval process.
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:49 pm
by Saritor
Johno wrote:Definately not rapier. This is a sidesword or "cut and thrust" sword hence my opinion that it is actually using very real weaponry blunted or otherwise and why I oppose it's use in the SCA.
Hrm. That may have been the case during the initial experiments (I wasn't there, and haven't asked Roger, Jon or Gwylym about it, really), but there's a pretty wide range of weapon simulators for C&T-legal weapons, one- or two-handed.
Here's some of the weapons I've used (and/or own):
http://www.darkwoodarmory.com/images/sw ... eringI.jpg
http://www.darkwoodarmory.com/images/basEnglishI.jpg
http://www.darkwoodarmory.com/images/longsword.jpg
http://therionarms.com/reenact/therionarms_c389.html
They're made specifically to be practice weapons, and mount blades that are meant only for practice. They're not really blunted-down versions of sharp blades -- especially the Hanwei. It's stamped out exactly like that.
Same with the three Darkwood blades. Scott sells 'em blunted, and has an entirely different line/model number for sword blanks for the sharpened versions.
As with rapier starting with collegiate weapons that, at best, reflected those of the 19th century, we've come a long way in simulators in a very short period of time.
I really need to figure out how to get in on Marco's experiment for the pole weapons, though. After my KRM recovers from the mild heart attack, I'm pretty sure he'd let me experiment with one.
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:54 pm
by Count Johnathan
Flittie wrote:Johno, that's a fine-looking sword. Where is the picture from?
Is that a sword that's actually on the list of blades legal for C&T? I think, in the June 2006 version of the Society approved blade list, most of the C&T blades were rapiers.
Johno, have you contacted the Society Earl Marshal and Society Rapier Marshal with your concerns? The SRM might be able to tell you about the blade approval process.
Random internet search. I am certain that is
not an approved blade as it appears to be sharpened and the point of the blade is not rounded. However my opposition to it appears to not be typical so there is little sense in me contacting the SEM about it.
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 2:02 pm
by Amanda M
What Ryan and Wallace were showing me was very different. No rapiers, with very different methods of attack. They used mostly percussive cuts. And if I remember correctly Wallace was using mortuary style sword and Ryan had a saber, unlike the video that was posted. You couldn't mistake it for rapier fighting at all because it looked completely different.
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 2:16 pm
by Steve S.
I think in a broad answer it is good for the SCA. Especially if it brings more research and historical flavor to the field. I'm not overly interested in Rapier combat but C&T looks cool. I'm willing to go through the process here in Caid where you need to be authorized in rapier for 1 year before you can get into C&T. To me this is what SCA rapier should be.
What I am sensing is that this is a sort of back-door way of bringing rebated steel combat into the SCA.
Definately not rapier. This is a sidesword or "cut and thrust" sword hence my opinion that it is actually using very real weaponry blunted or otherwise and why I oppose it's use in the SCA.
My sense is strengthened.
I think rebated steel combat is a fine thing. Lots of groups do it.
Steve
Re: Cut and Thrust - Total BS or What?
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 2:25 pm
by raito
LOGOS wrote:I'm not sure that's exactly what I said, but if so, that is certainly not I what I meant and I apologize for the confusion. I believe most of my comments were about an mutually agreed armor as worn bout that looked pretty brutal from the outside, but actually was as safe or safe than most rattan combat (at least from my perspective a couple of feet away). This is the only bout of this nature I have witnessed and was an exception mainly for demonstration.
I can see my confustion now, as we were speaking of different things. While I was further from the bout you speak of (seeing it only on video), it was never my impression that it was not safe, in an sort of absolute sense, but that the blows delivered certainly appeared to be quite a bit harder than I would expect to be landed on persons wearing minimum rapier tosro protection (both combatants in breastplates). It did not appear to be within the rules as written in Northshield (the bout did not occur here). It sounded to me as though your explanation was that the harder than expected force level was OK because they were in breastplates (those things sure do ring when you hit them! but I was also looking at body mechanics, etc.) If it was such that that bout was a demonstration of possibilities, rather than strictly within the rules as I understand them, then some people have taken that bout in entirely the wrong way.
It is true that sometimes human nature takes over and we aren't as careful throwing the blows when we see a nice safe steel helmet in the line of the attack. It's unfortunate part of human nature and a part of training we continue to work on. We find the historical part (and taking arm shots as kills) reduces some of this problem. I also agree that some of the longsword need some discussion and more training.
Both the hand injuries I spoke of occurred during longsword combat. My primary dilemma with the longswords (and they were not whippy in the slightest -- these were not rapier blades on extended handles) is that thy may be incompatible with lighter weapons given the force used.
Thus we see the dilema. C&T is meant to be unarmored, but there are some (I am not one of them) who want it to be armored with rebated steel. While I think this may be possible eventually, we are far far from that point. There are calibration issues across the kingdoms, but of course, we know there are none in rattan or rapier combat.
Of course, as far as I know, no one in C&T has received an injury as serious as broken collar bone.
As I say, I would not mind armored with rebated steel. I've done a bit of it, and it's a lot of fun, and some different that rattan combat. But C&T is not that. I'd also like to state that I support C&T, and I'll be doing it as soon as practical.
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 2:26 pm
by Marco-borromei
Saritor wrote:I really need to figure out how to get in on Marco's experiment for the pole weapons, though. After my KRM recovers from the mild heart attack, I'm pretty sure he'd let me experiment with one.
There is NO experiment yet. The SEM and DSEMR/SRM/[whatever the correct designation for Sir Thomas is] are discussing society wide standards for such a weapon experiment.
If you are interested in NON-SCA use of my polearm simulators, email me at
marco@marco-borromei.com. I do not often get to read the PM's here on AA, so please email directly.
This currently has NOTHING to do with SCA C&T, so so pelase ocntact me offline with any related questions.
Marco
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 2:28 pm
by Broadway
I was watching this video... is there a rule that says you have to telegraph all your shots, and swing way out away from your body?
They look like they're fighting submerged in molassas.
Re: Cut and Thrust - Total BS or What?
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 2:30 pm
by LOGOS
raito wrote:
As I say, I would not mind armored with rebated steel. I've done a bit of it, and it's a lot of fun, and some different that rattan combat. But C&T is not that. I'd also like to state that I support C&T, and I'll be doing it as soon as practical.
I look forward to doing some with you.
