Real Plate and Mail Tourney

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 10:48 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by knoch:
Why are you allowing Bar grill helms?

From Knoch<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Remember that it was *very* common for people to fight in tournaments without visors. For just one source (with multiple examples, see:
http://www.thehaca.com/essays/Lalaing.htm

Grills simply allow us to simulate that practice. In addition, they can certainly be documented.

The important thing, however, is making the wearer *pay the price* for his choice. Any blow of reasonable force (and not just a touch; anyone can continue to fight with a light cut on his face, and may not even notice it in the heat of the bout) should equate to an automatic loss.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

Gaston de Clermont · Post by **Gaston de Clermont** » Thu Jan 31, 2002 5:51 pm

Syr Rhys,
I certainly agree with having the wearer pay the price or gaining the benefit for really whatever they wear whenever it's practical.

The Lalaing story is the only reference I've run across of late period tourneys without face plates. The vast majority of Lalaing's opponents do wear face plates, and everyone from any account I've read wears something over their face for the joust. I get the feeling that Lalaing's practice of going without face protection was just an extra act of daring from a blithering tourney stud, and somewhat unusual. What other sources can you point us to to prove fighting without faceplates was very common?
Gaston

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Sat Feb 02, 2002 8:47 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Clermont:
The Lalaing story is the only reference I've run across of late period tourneys without face plates. The vast majority of Lalaing's opponents do wear face plates, and everyone from any account I've read wears something over their face for the joust. I get the feeling that Lalaing's practice of going without face protection was just an extra act of daring from a blithering tourney stud, and somewhat unusual. What other sources can you point us to to prove fighting without faceplates was very common?
Gaston<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry it's taken me so long to reply, but I didn't see your question.

On the contrary, there are many references to this practice in the literature; it wasn't an act of bravado, it was an attempt to improve his chances of winning by increasing his vision... just like SCAdians. Imagine that. Just as another set of examples, consider the armored pictures in the 1459 and 1467 versions of Talhoffer; all of them show the combatants fighting with an open visor. Similarly, a number of the armored combatants in Fiore are shown to be fighting without a visor. Fiore starts with techniuqes to be used against an open face, then moves on to techniques against a closed visor afterward.

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Sun Feb 03, 2002 2:44 pm

Would my 1361 AD Wisby suit count? It's at:

http://photos.yahoo.com/miaullis

The one with the stripes, NOT the tonlet (I haven't built it yet...but I'm pretty sure it would pass).

-Aaron

hjalmr · Post by **hjalmr** » Sun Feb 03, 2002 3:48 pm

Are you going to allow hockey gloves?

I only ask because even though I want some gauntlets -I probably will not have them by Pensic.

(^_^)

Asbjorn Johansen · Post by **Asbjorn Johansen** » Mon Feb 04, 2002 12:06 pm

Aaron,

Based on the pictures, it looks like you are ok, but the best way is to carefully examine you equipment versus the rules stated.

No hockey gloves unless the are very well disguised. I've seen one or two pairs of small hockey gloves covered such that the reminded me of the mail mittens worn in the 13th century.

I wouldn't be suprised if there are enough folks so you can borrow a pair of gauntlets.

Asbjorn

Theodore · Post by **Theodore** » Mon Feb 04, 2002 1:37 pm

For all those worried about their persona and kit not fitting into these tourneys there is a simple solution. Host a tourney for that time period as part of the Historic Combat Series. It's not my cup of tea, but a dark ages (pre hasting maybe) tourney for the vikings, saxons, and others would be a nice addition to the HCS. Maybe a Samari only tourney could be added with japanese armour and weapons only and maybe some special tourney rules. Instead of complaining that a specific format does not fit you, create another format. I prefer Western Europe during the hundred years war, that does not mean I expect it to be the only game in town. Pennsic is big enough that we could have dozens of specialty tourneys and battles and still draw sufficient crowds.

Theodore

Templar Bob/De Tyre · Post by **Templar Bob/De Tyre** » Mon Feb 04, 2002 1:56 pm

I think that riveted hauberk, coif and chausses (Circa 1250), crested visored sugarloaf and metal scale curass should fit the bill nicely. I want the "pretty-man" prize, dammit!

------------------
Robert Coleman, Jr.

The Noble Companie and Order of St. Maurice
Those who beat their swords into plowshares end up plowing for those who don't.

Remember: In Living History/Reinactment,Real Life is the Great Leveler of Man.

Gaston de Clermont · Post by **Gaston de Clermont** » Mon Feb 04, 2002 2:16 pm

The visors do indeed appear to be open in the introduction portion of the 1459 edition here:
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Talhoffer1443-1459Editions.htm
But these seem to only be demonstrating the major wards. Even when there are two fighters pictured, they're not engaged. In subsequent plates where there's sword to sword contact, or they're in fighting range their visors are closed.
In Fiore http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Liberi.htm the combattants wear a type of bevor that appears to cover most of the face from the throat up over the nose. The opening for vision is two inches tall at most.

Since these are manuals do they really depict fighting in a tournament, a war, or simply training? The large section in Fiore showing sword techniques using unarmoured combatants might be taken to imply they really fought with two handed swords in their street clothes, as has been implied regarding I33. Do we really believe this to be the case for either?

Gaston

SyrRhys · Post by **SyrRhys** » Mon Feb 04, 2002 7:48 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Clermont:
The visors do indeed appear to be open in the introduction portion of the 1459 edition here:
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Talhoffer1443-1459Editions.htm
But these seem to only be demonstrating the major wards. Even when there are two fighters pictured, they're not engaged. In subsequent plates where there's sword to sword contact, or they're in fighting range their visors are closed.
In Fiore http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Liberi.htm the combattants wear a type of bevor that appears to cover most of the face from the throat up over the nose. The opening for vision is two inches tall at most.

Since these are manuals do they really depict fighting in a tournament, a war, or simply training? The large section in Fiore showing sword techniques using unarmoured combatants might be taken to imply they really fought with two handed swords in their street clothes, as has been implied regarding I33. Do we really believe this to be the case for either?

Gaston<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, I think it's perfectly clear that these manuals represent life or death combat, i.e., judicial combat or war, not tournament. Second, all of the plates in the 1467 version of Talhoffer that show armored combat (plates 68-73) show them fighting with their visors up; you can clearly see all of the combatant's faces except for the chin. It's a bit more than 2 inches. In the 1459 Talhoffer it's true that the latter armored combatants (with pollaxes) only have their visors raised a little bit (your 2 inches), but the earlier plates showing spear and longsword fighting in armor clearly show the visors to be raised completely *in combat*, not just in guards. The same is true for the armored longsword section in Fiore (carta 25a-26b); only the chin is covered (except for the technique that shows lifting the visor to stab the face). Some of the pollaxe techniques show combatants with a grilled visor, and some have the open visor depicted in the longsword section. Finally, all of the horseback combat is shown sans visor (except the first combatant in the top-left hand corner of carta 34a).

------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field: Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"

[This message has been edited by SyrRhys (edited 02-04-2002).]

James B. · Post by **James B.** » Tue Feb 05, 2002 3:25 pm

What about sweat pants and tennis shoes. That kills me the most about SCA fighters. They take all this time to make or buy armor and the wear sweat pants and tennis shoes. It looks stupid.

Murdock · Post by **Murdock** » Tue Feb 05, 2002 3:43 pm

Most people in Nikes tend to _not_ "take all this time to make or buy armor".

They are the guys in blue plastic.

I don't think we'll have much of an issue with tennis shoes at this particular list.

Asbjorn Johansen · Post by **Asbjorn Johansen** » Tue Feb 26, 2002 7:04 pm

Aelric · Post by **Aelric** » Tue Feb 26, 2002 9:45 pm

How about Al maille? My shirt weighs 16 lbs.

Aelric

Vladimir · Post by **Vladimir** » Wed Feb 27, 2002 3:35 am

From a weight perspective, Stephan's riveted bernies weigh only 18 pounds. But then, yours is aluminum, so I dunno.

Asbjorn Johansen · Post by **Asbjorn Johansen** » Wed Mar 27, 2002 1:04 pm

Is aluminum acceptable under the standard (and for that matter titanium)?

At first blush, Iâ€™d be inclined to say no, the emphasis is on using materials that are as close to period steel and wrought iron armour as possible. Modern steels are closer in the authenticity spectrum than any other materials that available to us, so I would prefer to stick with them.

You could argue off of performance characteristics i.e. aluminum is around the weight of what a period tempered steel harness would weigh, titanium is probably even lighter, but you get into that slippery slope of substituting a more modern material for a somewhat more period one. Slide to far downwards, and you can end up in exposed plastic hellâ€¦

But titanium and aluminum are both metals and if properly finished not as glaringly modern as many other materialsâ€¦

Either one would be acceptable as a completely covered reinforcement piece for mail, but what about aluminum mail, which to my eye looks terribly modern unless its been blackenedâ€¦

Iâ€™m not sureâ€¦ I donâ€™t want to see some of the aluminum plate or mail Iâ€™ve seen, in most cases it just screams modernity, that said as plates in a brigandine or COP it might be acceptableâ€¦

Any thoughts folks, keep in mind the idea of this tourney is to emphasize period materials in the harness and to give a fair playing field for those who have chosen to wear steel (maybe I just answered my own question)

Rhys, Vitius, Theodore, Murdock, anyone, any thoughtsâ€¦

Asbjorn

Klaus the Red · Post by **Klaus the Red** » Wed Mar 27, 2002 5:21 pm

Let he who is without sin cast the first shoe. In defense of SCA fighters who wear athletic shoes or combat boots with otherwise good-looking harness, let me say that we're doing it for safety and comfort, not to ruin the illusion for anyone. Period-style shoes tend to be less than optimal in the support and traction departments. Since many of the injuries serious enough to sideline a fighter result from twisted ankles and lost footing, that's an area where compromise in authenticity is just good sense. Having said that... if I ever find a pair of reasonably priced turnshoes with Vibram soles- or a pair of decent sabatons for less than $75- I'm on 'em like ass wraps on a rookie.
FYI, at the woods battle last year, Sir Geoffrey fitz Galen turned out in his usual impeccable kit (late-14th c. steel, red velvet-covered brig, Pembridge helm), with soccer cleats. Go figure.

Klaus

Brennus · Post by **Brennus** » Wed Mar 27, 2002 9:03 pm

how about my harness ?http://brennus.stormloader.com/helm.html

------------------
sic locus dignum, sic dignus placitum http://brennus.stormloader.com/interkin.html

Murdock · Post by **Murdock** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 10:32 am

I'd say if it's metal and looks good then let it go as far as the aluminum question.

Asbjorn Johansen · Post by **Asbjorn Johansen** » Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:10 pm

Still debating the non steel metals bit, any other thoughts?

What do folks think about requiring all mundane items i.e. shoes and sports gear to at least be covered? Anyone want to volunteer to bring some cloth spats to cover the shoes of the guy who had beautiful 16th century plate and a pair of Nikes?

Asbjorn

Murdock · Post by **Murdock** » Fri Mar 29, 2002 12:02 am

Tennis shoes bug me far more than polished aluminum.

No tennis shoes.

I fought at the pas at Magnafair with a broken ankel in a brace in my period shoes, and yes it hurt like hell.

Actually that was really stupid, but they have the tight strappy ankels and provide better support than the east german boots everyone seems to wear.