was: blows from behind? was: Engagement- hyjacked, now: DDFB

[blackbow]

"I have played with this convention in Markland and in SCA-style combat with friends. It works nicely."

I also have experience with DDFB in Markland and I don't think it worked nicely at all. More often than not it was a way for a teenager in next to no armor to run around picket-fencing people he had little chance of defeating face to face. That's not to say that an SCA version couldn't be made more palatable, but the Markland version as it stands is, in my opinion, shameful and part of the reason I left Markland for the SCA.

The delivery of a blow, from behind, to a fighter's front seems interesting, but to me the "honorable death" isn't the issue - it's that everyone on the field should fight honorably at all times. Here's my favorite passage from sca.org:

"The first, and most important rule, is that each and every fighter on the field has honor."

In my humble opinion that extends to how a fighter should act on the field. I don't think I could adhere to that basic rule if I snuck up behind someone and laid my best wrap across their abdomen. It's a sneak attack, pure and simple.

Why is it a sneak attack? If you went to the trouble to outmaneuver your opponent and he didn't do anything about it, why is that any different from a game of chess where you out-strategized him?

regards,

Jonathan Blackbow

[blackbow]

Now, would you call the Spartans dishonorable for failing to yield to the Persians?

M'Lord, I know not of the engagement you speak of, but, if the Persians made the honorable jesture to allow the Spartans a choice to yield or not, then no fault can be found with the Spartans.

Though, if I were commanding the group of Persians you speak of and they did not immediately attack from behind when the opportunity presented itself then I would demote any of the survivors to the role of army support staff.

While some may see the offer by the Perian unit to yield as honorable, when viewed within the larger scope of the battle at hand, my chief concern is the welfare and success of the entire army. I don't want any units under my command who are out there seeking to increase there personal honor.

Please understand that I speak these words under the assumption that we are discussing the actions of units in life or death battles. When the engagement is solely executed to show the honor and skill of the combatants, then I would fully support your assertian that it only brings honor when approaching a unit from behind to allow them to properly engage before attempting to subdue them.

Respectfully,
--Richard

Richard: Sebastian is speaking of the Battle of Thermopylae where the (lightly armed / armored) 40,000 (I think...or was it 250,000?) Persians beat their heads against 300 Spartans and 7000 (I think) Greeks for a few days before a collaborator showed the Persians a way to attack their formation from behind. The Greeks were ordered to retreat and the Spartans died to the last man. Amusingly enough, the Persians also had tons of archers that were (until the end) ineffective against the greeks/spartans.

Seems to me that if there's no way to engage an enemy formation from behind, then what's the point of ever trying to flank an enemy formation? How many times have we been told "charge, blow a hole through their lines, then turn and reform to engage." or "run hard right, take their flank, and keep rolling.

Are we Playing Nobles At War, or Nobles Playing At War? Or are we Playing Nobles At Tournament? I think that's what this question boils down to. Possibly this question could be avoided by announcing ahead of time whether the event being held is a War Scenario or a Tournament Scenario. If it's a War Scenario, then DDFB should be used for reasons of safety. If it's a Tournament Scenario, then it's up to the person being engaged whether he yields, or turns and gives combat. Because isn't that what would happen in Real Life? If it's a War, bloody hell if you're going to roll over and die just because somebody taps you on the shoulder. If it's a Tournament, then it's all about the tactical / strategic positioning anyway, and there's no shame in admitting that you were outmaneuvered. Whether you retire from the field or take a few of them with you is strictly up to you. Personally, when it becomes clear to me that my situation is hopeless, I retire from the field and save my energy for the next battle, because it's a game we're playing, and not a life or death situation. OTOH if there were ever a scenario set up where living or dying mattered (aka non-resurrection battles), I fight until I lose.

Regards,

Jonathan Blackbow

[Asbjorn Johansen]

Just a note on the honorable or not honorable, chivalric or not chivalric.

If you are interested in recreating the chivalric/honor concepts of pre 1600 Europe, I have not found evidence that the practice of hitting someone from behind when already engaged in combat, was widely frowned upon or looked down on in formal combats when fought on foot.

Has anyone found evidence that it was a widely held belief that hitting someone unawares (when already in combat, not ambush) was a negative behaviour. I’d be particularly interested in rules regarding grand melee, which might be the closest analog if you take the SCA group combat = tournament line of thought. Rules for single or line jousting on horseback may not be quite as applicable, but could be interesting.

Asbjorn

[osprey3883]

Hello,
In Atenveldt and Caid we have had DDFB as far back as i've been fighting. (around 6 years)
I place my spear on their shoulder with a slight tap to the helmet, let them know they are DDFB, and go on my way.
I personally would much prefer this to full calibration spear or mass weapon shots from the back field.

Maghnus

[D. Sebastian]

Can you say splitting hairs?

I could reply that "we do have blue plastic and Nikes" but I wont.

[dukelogan]

i finally understand the reason behind many of the pro ddfb crowd. its the easy kill. take that how you wish (and im sure someone will get bent over it) but if you disagree please try to be civil. when i fight people its a contest. i do it to see if i can overcome the odds against me. to me slipping a dagger in the ribs is cheap and easy and it robs my friends of the same test of skill that i strive for. pennsic, for example, is a huge undertaking for me. hours upon hours of prep, days of paking, thousands of dollars, two weeks out of doors (sorry im a big sissy), massive physical exertion , etc. but i do it to play host to my friends and to test my skill against other men in cote armor. to have a guy touch my back so that he can feel the thrill of a dagger in my back for one second and make me sit out is cheap. thats not the game i play but i understand its the game others play. im cool with that and thankful i dont live in that culture.

i still dont think that striking from behind would work and agree with someone elses concern about things like wraps thrown from behind getting really close to grappling.

regards
logan

[Mac Thamhais]

i finally understand the reason behind many of the pro ddfb crowd. its the easy kill.
to me slipping a dagger in the ribs is cheap and easy and it robs my friends of the same test of skill that i strive for. pennsic, for example, is a huge undertaking for me. hours upon hours of prep, days of paking, thousands of dollars, two weeks out of doors (sorry im a big sissy), massive physical exertion , etc. but i do it to play host to my friends and to test my skill against other men in cote armor.

regards
logan

That makes perfect sense to me. You feel that DDFB is bad because there is no test of skill involved. I submit that there is. The test of skill comes in watching your backfield and not allowing yourself to be outflanked in that manner, the test of skill comes in out manuevering opposing units so that you are in a position to use DDFB in the first place.

As the rules stand, many people do not exercise these skills because they do not fear being out flanked. They ignore the possibility because they know that even if they ARE caught from behind, they must be given the oppurtunity to turn and face their opponents just as if their opponents had come on them face to face.

In any case I would like to offer a suggestion. Obviously I am not in a position to make / dictate SCA rules or policies, but we currently play this game in such a way that some war scenarios involve combat archery while others do not. In some battles fighters can be ressurected multiple times and fight on while in others they can not. What if DDFB were run the same way? Announced in advance before the start of each scenario, and allowing each participant the choice of whether or not to participate and accept the situation as it is, or sit out and await the next scenario.

Duke Logan, would that seem an acceptable compromise to you?
EDIT: and if not, why?

[D. Sebastian]

No thanks!

[Richard de Scolay]

At least we're beginning to understand both sides of the argument.

This may have turned out to have been a worthwhile thread afterall.

[dukelogan]

i guess i would fight in a scenario if it had ddfb but i still see no reason for it. so it really wouldnt be a compromise that i would subscribe to.

the reason i would be against it is simply that i see no use nor reason to have it. we dont do it here and i can tell you first hand that when my unit starts to turn the flank on the bad guys they sure notice. that indicates that they full well know the threat and the price they will pay if they ignore us. the same goes on our side as i am often asked to reserve my unit specifically to counter flanking attempts.

either way, like battles in which i am forced to edure the imbalance of combat archery, i would still participate if ddfb was forced upon me. i would never use it and i would accept the results if someone used it on me. i dont make the rules either, i just follow them.

regards
logan