The Armour Archive

The weekend before last I was fighting in a tourney, standing over the man I'd legged.

I was about to utilize a technique that involves jamming the tip of my sword downwards into the corner of the foe's shield to displace it, and rolling my wrist over to finish him with a flat snap.

Then it dawned on me ...I recently stopped using a thrusting tip as part of a training resolution.

Then again, the technique isn't really *thrusting*, it's just, ehh, moving the dude's shield with my sword. Tip.

It's murky...

At the time I just used a different move to finish the fight, since I wasn't sure.

But it may come up again where I'll want to use this.

What do you guys think?

From the Marshal's Handbook -

1. Only weapons approved for thrusting may be used for that purpose. Feinting as if to thrust with a weapon not approved for that purpose is prohibited. Before any bout where a thrusting weapon is used, the opponent and marshals shall be informed that such a weapon is on the field, and the thrusting tip shall be shown to the opponent.

Seems to me this means if you don't have a legal point on the weapon, you can't use the point in what could be an offensive manner.


.

IV. THE USE OF WEAPONS AND SHIELDS
A. Weapons shall be used in accordance with their design. For example, spears may only be used for thrusting, axes for striking along the edge of the blade, etc..
1. Only weapons approved for thrusting may be used for that purpose. Feinting as if to thrust with a weapon not approved for that purpose is prohibited. Before any bout where a thrusting weapon is used, the opponent and marshals shall be informed that such a weapon is on the field, and the thrusting tip shall be shown to the opponent.

So, thrusting with a no thrusty sword, even if it is a feint is illegal.

Good question. It is legal to push a shield with items other than a legal striking surface, such as a polearm haft, basket hilt, or shield.

Weapon to shield, weapon to weapon and shield to shield contact is almost always legal, except for blatant safety problems such as running charges or excessive force.

placing the sword, tip or otherwise, against the shield and then pushing is not a thrust. at least thats how i see it as our rules define what a thrust is.

regards
logan

See? One question, 2 1/2 different options.


.

yes, according to this particularly silly rule. there is nothing dangerous about a feint like that. at least no more dangerous than throwing your hilt forward, like a jab, to elicit a reaction from your opponent.

regards
logan

InsaneIrish wrote:

IV. THE USE OF WEAPONS AND SHIELDS
A. Weapons shall be used in accordance with their design. For example, spears may only be used for thrusting, axes for striking along the edge of the blade, etc..
1. Only weapons approved for thrusting may be used for that purpose. Feinting as if to thrust with a weapon not approved for that purpose is prohibited. Before any bout where a thrusting weapon is used, the opponent and marshals shall be informed that such a weapon is on the field, and the thrusting tip shall be shown to the opponent.

So, thrusting with a no thrusty sword, even if it is a feint is illegal.

<Shrug>

Like I said, that's one option. Others might read it differently.

I'm sure someone else will come up with another interpretation, then the SEM will chime in and everyone will get pissed.

S.O.P.

.

While technically not illegal the way you intending the shot to be thrown, it probably kind of looks that way to those watching. Also the way I'm reading your description, it sounds like the area of the shield you're moving with your tip could turn your shot into a full on illegal thrust if your opponent moves his shield a bit. I'd avoid the move without a thrusting tip.

I wouldn't do it. I think the rules are clear enough, and there is no guarantee that you wouldn't accidentally thrust your opponent.

That said, why not just put a thrusting tip back on your sword?

depending on how its done, either way the technique (which ive done for many years) doesnt really travel far enough to make contact even if the guy suddenly moves his shield out of the way. if you watch the "feast of st martin" on my site dated 10/10 you will see the way i do it.

regards
logan

Malcolm MacLachlan wrote:While technically not illegal the way you intending the shot to be thrown, it probably kind of looks that way to those watching. Also the way I'm reading your description, it sounds like the area of the shield you're moving with your tip could turn your shot into a full on illegal thrust if your opponent moves his shield a bit. I'd avoid the move without a thrusting tip.

Swords are generally pointy. Even if you don't use or believe in using thrusts, your sword should be capable of making the threat. It's one of those rule things that creates a "sport fight" artifact, when your opponent knows before the engagement that he need not be concerned by thrusts, just as he need not worry about defending his shins.

I'd call it legal. You're not thrusting him, or feinting... you're using a part of your weapon to displace a shield. I can slam their shield with my shield or haft... but I can't slam their body with them. I see it as the same thing.

dukelogan wrote:yes, according to this particularly silly rule. there is nothing dangerous about a feint like that. at least no more dangerous than throwing your hilt forward, like a jab, to elicit a reaction from your opponent.

UNless, of course, you screw up your feint and actually strike your opponent with a non-padded tip.

It may be legal, but it's not cool. I'd suggest putting the tip back on and just training yourself not to use it if you feel the need to not thrust. That way at least the tool is there.

olaf haraldson wrote:I'd call it legal. You're not thrusting him, or feinting... you're using a part of your weapon to displace a shield. I can slam their shield with my shield or haft... but I can't slam their body with them. I see it as the same thing.

Here is the rub. YOU don't get to determine what looks like a feint or not. Your opponent does.

If you shove the end of your sword into a corner of my shield, it will more than likely LOOK like a thrust. Even if your intention was to move my shield and not hit me.


Now, all that being said, the easy remedy is put a low pro thrusty on your sword. If you are training to NOT use a thrusty fine. Don't use it. But, it will be there for manuvers like the thrust and rotate.

No doubt it can be done safely, but as the OP stated "jamming the tip of my sword downwards into the corner of the foe's shield to displace it" it sounds like a hard strike with the tip of a sword to punch a shield and move it. It could easily turn into a overly hard illegal thrust if a shield is moved, he falls forward etc. Stranger things have happened.
Also how does it look to those watching and the opponent himself? Does it look like a thrust to the populace? Could his opponent see it as a thrust and possibly react accordingly?

dukelogan wrote:depending on how its done, either way the technique (which ive done for many years) doesnt really travel far enough to make contact even if the guy suddenly moves his shield out of the way. if you watch the "feast of st martin" on my site dated 10/10 you will see the way i do it.

regards
logan

If you thrust at a guys shield, and he moves it out of the way so that you hit him... he deserves to get hit.

Broadway wrote:If you thrust at a guys shield, and he moves it out of the way so that you hit him... he deserves to get hit.

Noooo they don't, not with an illegal strike.
Especially if they wouldn't be anticipating a thrust as their opponent has no thrusting tip.

If you kick your opponents shield with your foot to move it out of the way and they don't see it coming, move their shield and get a hard foot to the junk, did they deserve that because they moved their shield?

Forgive my ignorance, I'm not an SCAer, but why would you fight without a sword capable of thrusting?

Broadway wrote:If you thrust at a guys shield, and he moves it out of the way so that you hit him... he deserves to get hit.

If you thrust at a guys shield with a weapon specifically not allowed to thrust, you deserve to have your card pulled.

It's cheese anyhow, taking advantage of the fact that there's no chance of your rattan stick embedding in the wood of his shield. If you did that with a real sword at a real shield, you'd run the risk of your tip embedding into the shield, then where would you be?

(no, it wouldn't happen every time, but it would happen eventually.)

zachos wrote:Forgive my ignorance, I'm not an SCAer, but why would you fight without a sword capable of thrusting?

1. Thrusting tips change the balance of the sword slightly.

2. Sometimes tip shots will not be taken if there is a thrusting tip on it because of padding.

3. Some people feel thrusting is a crutch, and/or they want to focus exclusively on their edge work.

yeah i can see that being read like a thrust at the shield. i just assumed he was talking about how i do it which is to place the tip on the shield, a little shove to displace, then throw the shot. i dont strike the shield, only push it. i think the rules are pretty clear that thrusting, even at the shield, without the padded tip isnt legal. pushing, however, is.

regards
logan

Malcolm MacLachlan wrote:No doubt it can be done safely, but as the OP stated "jamming the tip of my sword downwards into the corner of the foe's shield to displace it" it sounds like a hard strike with the tip of a sword to punch a shield and move it. It could easily turn into a overly hard illegal thrust if a shield is moved, he falls forward etc. Stranger things have happened.
Also how does it look to those watching and the opponent himself? Does it look like a thrust to the populace? Could his opponent see it as a thrust and possibly react accordingly?

dukelogan wrote:depending on how its done, either way the technique (which ive done for many years) doesnt really travel far enough to make contact even if the guy suddenly moves his shield out of the way. if you watch the "feast of st martin" on my site dated 10/10 you will see the way i do it.

regards
logan

Would you use a real sword like a crowbar?

Merely a comment on the fact that you're supposed to be putting your shield between your opponents sword and your body, not removing it from that space...

No need to wax philosophical on the subject.

Malcolm MacLachlan wrote:

Broadway wrote:If you thrust at a guys shield, and he moves it out of the way so that you hit him... he deserves to get hit.

Noooo they don't, not with an illegal strike.
Especially if they wouldn't be anticipating a thrust as their opponent has no thrusting tip.

If you kick your opponents shield with your foot to move it out of the way and they don't see it coming, move their shield and get a hard foot to the junk, did they deserve that because they moved their shield?

Yeah, Logan has it right. Since he was the one who taught me the move, I do it the same way. It's not a feint, and it's not a thrust.

It's definitely not, in my opinion, a blatant safety hazard. Given the way this is done I can't imagine harm resulting from it, I just don't want to be in violation of the rules.

Having read all of this input, the route I'm going to take is to continue to use the technique, and if anyone takes issue with it, will offer them a re-fight.

After all that means I'll get another chance to hit them with a stick

And it'll be a moot point for Crown this year, since for THAT tourney all bets are off, the thrusting tip goes back on, and I use every legal trick in my repertoire.

my money is on thrusting not being allowed for crown.

regards
logan

Dietrich von Stroheim wrote:Yeah, Logan has it right. Since he was the one who taught me the move, I do it the same way. It's not a feint, and it's not a thrust.

It's definitely not, in my opinion, a blatant safety hazard. Given the way this is done I can't imagine harm resulting from it, I just don't want to be in violation of the rules.

Having read all of this input, the route I'm going to take is to continue to use the technique, and if anyone takes issue with it, will offer them a re-fight.

After all that means I'll get another chance to hit them with a stick

And it'll be a moot point for Crown this year, since for THAT tourney all bets are off, the thrusting tip goes back on, and I use every legal trick in my repertoire.

dukelogan wrote:my money is on thrusting not being allowed for crown.

regards
logan

I'd actually be fine with that. But why would you bet on that being the case?

Look at whose crown it is. I agree with Logan.

Hey...he could be sick of no thrusting after 9 or 10 crowns and decide to vary it up a bit...

(I'm not going to vegas and dropping any money on the question though)

its too often used as a crutch and too often leads to sloppy fighting. crown should be a showcase of skill and while a tiny percentage of guys throw skillful thrusts the majority do not.

now those are my own opinions but i would not be surprised if hrh feels any different. he has disallowed them in the past and i bet he does so again. but thats just a guess.

regards
logan

Dietrich von Stroheim wrote:

dukelogan wrote:my money is on thrusting not being allowed for crown.

regards
logan

I'd actually be fine with that. But why would you bet on that being the case?

A good fighter should be able to block a poorly delivered thrust.

of course. doesnt keep the fight from being sloppy and unskilled.

regards
logan

Baron Alcyoneus wrote:A good fighter should be able to block a poorly delivered thrust.

its too often used as a crutch and too often leads to sloppy fighting.

Odd thing that the most dangerous blow from a sword is a thrust.

Telling a lot about how we fight in the SCA.

sad thing is that our rules dumb down the effort required to best someone to the point some feel mere contact or even light contact is all that is needed. this, done under some false notion of safety, provides the crutch that causes so many fighters to look like crazed monkeys imitating a sewing machine on the field.

oops, meant to say: if we required all thrusts be stout only those with great skill would use the. or at least few of the unskilled would do so until they practiced enough and gained skill.

regards
logan

Leo Medii wrote:

its too often used as a crutch and too often leads to sloppy fighting.

Odd thing that the most dangerous blow from a sword is a thrust.

Telling a lot about how we fight in the SCA.

Baron Alcyoneus wrote:Would you use a real sword like a crowbar?

Comedy gold, that's it right there.