The Armour Archive

See, this is why I love dialogue. I've been running around all these years thinking that we're not allowed to make weapon to body contact with anything other than the striking/cutting/thrusting portion of the weapon. Then a knight in my kingdom points out that cross-checking someone with the haft of a polearm is perfectly legal. So I check the rules at the Society level and.... he's right.

So, if I understand this correctly, I am not allowed to punch someone. But if I'm holding a 7' stick of rattan in my hand I can cross check them to the face?

NOTE: NOT A KNIGHT. I mixed up my Belas.

hmm....sounds like another unfortunate omission.

more interkingdom anthropology: we (AEthelmearc) call it 'hafting' and you'll be reprimanded if you do it. we treat it the same as shield-punching someone.

now the Ansteorrans i've played with allow body/shield contact as long as it's 'placed', rather than 'punched'. this suits me fine and i had fun playing that way.

of course some call both hafting and shield/body contact grappling, which is forbidden.

It depends. In some Kingdoms that may be fine. In Others it won't be kosher at all. I personally wouldn't have an issue with it also long as the shaft of the rattan was 1 1/4 inches and had no metal in it. But if you made a habit of slapping folks around with the haft I might have to watch your fights a little closer and also talk to you about technigue. Its like weapons grabbing. Its a fine line to walk. On a side not I fought a Calanteri this weekend with a poleax in a pole ax fight. He wantd to fight the running fight. In exhange I ran up on his shot took a shaft to the head and sholder instead of getting hit with an axe head and finished the bout with my tip. The point being I intensitionally soaked up a couple blows from the haft. None of had an isue with it but he wasn't trying to thow mw with the haft either.

Well, you can hit a hafted weapon on the haft with any part of your body, and you can, I believe do the same to a shield.

Jester,

Sorry Cross checking as all true fans know is a two minute minor sin bin violation.
Now if you cross check Me. i'll smile at you, and continue throwing wraps at you.

Ok, here's the deal. If you swing a 2 handed weapon at someone and it hits with the haft, I doubt you'll have any trouble. But if you cross check, IE, strike with the part of the stick between your hands, which is OBVIOUSLY ***NOT*** intended to be a killing blow, and you punch somoene in the face with that, I'd suggest you should be brought before a court of chivalry.

Now, in melee, if you're running with a pole and you use it close to your body to brace for an impact, I don't see trouble with that.

Ok, so I understand that the consensus/tradition in some places is that we don't do this, but are there actually any rules against it?

I agree with Morgan. It's not so black and white.

jester wrote:Ok, so I understand that the consensus/tradition in some places is that we don't do this, but are there actually any rules against it?

Jester I think I know where your going with this. I think this is one of those do you want there to be a rule cases? If so It probably won't be to anyones advantage

Cross checking against a shield is legal.

I was taught that intentionally hafting someone was rude and un-chivalrous.

Cross checking to someone's head sounds like it could result in some serious neck injury.

Nissan Maxima wrote:Well, you can hit a hafted weapon on the haft with any part of your body, and you can, I believe do the same to a shield.

mmmm....
I don't think so.
You can't have shield to body or body to shield contact.

Striking surface to opponent and shield to shield (or weapon to shield) contact only.

where's the dern rule...

Lord Magnus the Black wrote:

jester wrote:Ok, so I understand that the consensus/tradition in some places is that we don't do this, but are there actually any rules against it?

Jester I think I know where your going with this. I think this is one of those do you want there to be a rule cases? If so It probably won't be to anyones advantage

As God is my witness I'm not going anywhere with this. I'm not trying to make a point. I'm not trying to advance any sort of agenda. Also, just because something is permitted doesn't mean that it's a good idea. I really am just curious. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that there is no rule against cross-checking/hafting when pushing/punching our opponent is forbidden as being too dangerous. It seems inconsistent and I am wondering if I am missing something that forbids cross-checking/hafting? Wouldn't be the first time.

Morgan wrote:... But if you cross check, IE, strike with the part of the stick between your hands, which is OBVIOUSLY ***NOT*** intended to be a killing blow, and you punch somoene in the face with that, I'd suggest you should be brought before a court of chivalry....

Why?

pushing/punching our opponent is forbidden

Cross checking would fall under the catagory of pushing.
No?

You are not striking a blow, as being hit with the haft is not a "good" shot.
Therefore, its pushing.



The danger is cross checking with a greatsword (1/2 swording) as that would be "legal", but very very dangerous.

I apoligize as I misunderstood your intentions. My personal oppion is I think this falls under the the lets not fight like we are really fightinng because someone might get hurt rule. It would be like slaping someone with a sfat of a rattan spear. Its not a striking surface and while techanilly not illeagle is deffinatly against the spirit of the rule set. If this became an issue you at best would cause another rule to be written @ worst you end up with an injury and possiblely a pulled card. If there is no rule perhaps there simply hasn't been a reason to have one. Perhaps it is left intentinally vauge. What I mean by that last remark is that it illegal to shield punch some one. Hafting is consiered bad form but not illegal. The reason is perhaps that hafting is harder to prevent as often an opponet will move out of the range of the head after the blow has begun and the defender gets hit with the haft. This is not the fault of the attacker and therofre should not be seen as at fault. My personal oppion that is that perhaps maybe why there is no rule. now if one where to start hit folks in the hace with the haft to know them off balance and then follow upith a swift blow from a stiking surface this would no doubt be likley used in period but yet be illeagl in many fighting groups inclusing the SCA if by nothing else the violation of the spirit of the rule. Now if we were fighting in my back yard GREAT cause I love that kind of thing. At an event well I wouldn't do it though.

As God is my witness I'm not going anywhere with this. I'm not trying to make a point. I'm not trying to advance any sort of agenda. Also, just because something is permitted doesn't mean that it's a good idea. I really am just curious. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that there is no rule against cross-checking/hafting when pushing/punching our opponent is forbidden as being too dangerous. It seems inconsistent and I am wondering if I am missing something that forbids cross-checking/hafting? Wouldn't be the first time.

[/quote]

Is it legal by the letter of the law?Maybe.
Shots to the groin are legal.
But start aiming there and you will make a lot of enemies real quick.
Keep in mind that if you start doing this most likely someone bigger and meaner and a whole lot better will do it back to you so be careful what you put in your bag-o-trix. The golden rule applies here.
If we were to write a rule or law that covered every conceivable incident that could happen in fighting it would take about the same amount of space as an encyclopedia .
we would still have incidents that weren't covered because no one concieved of them.
our rules act as a framework that we fill in with good sence,tradition,and the code of chivalry.

Before I answer, I'm not sure if you read the example closely, or I didn't explain it well... You do realize the amount of force that you can impart to a target with your hands about 18" apart on a stick, right? Take a sword, hold it shoulder width apart, and hit someone witht he sword that is between your hands. Next to zero flex, ungodly foot-pounds of force imparted to target. I think a 200 pounder could really do some serious damage to people this way.

Asbjorn Johansen wrote:

Morgan wrote:... But if you cross check, IE, strike with the part of the stick between your hands, which is OBVIOUSLY ***NOT*** intended to be a killing blow, and you punch somoene in the face with that, I'd suggest you should be brought before a court of chivalry....

Why?

Lord Magnus the Black wrote:Hafting is consiered bad form but not illegal.

Unintentional hafting is not illegal. If it happens so often that people begin to wonder if it is intentional, they will be looking to see if you should really be authorized. Well before that point, they should be trying to find out why you are doing something wrong.

D. Sebastian wrote:

pushing/punching our opponent is forbidden

Cross checking would fall under the catagory of pushing.
No?

You are not striking a blow, as being hit with the haft is not a "good" shot.
Therefore, its pushing.



The danger is cross checking with a greatsword (1/2 swording) as that would be "legal", but very very dangerous.

IKA, but in Ansteorra, a haft CAN be a good shot, although it is not required to be.

Asbjorn Johansen wrote:

Morgan wrote:... But if you cross check, IE, strike with the part of the stick between your hands, which is OBVIOUSLY ***NOT*** intended to be a killing blow, and you punch somoene in the face with that, I'd suggest you should be brought before a court of chivalry....

Why?

O.k. than crosscheck me in the face and I will shield punch you (kinda the same thing yes).
Basicly no good reason for me to punch with the corner of my shield.It would not be a good blow just hurt.Same with the cross check to the face.
Use the haft to brace against a shield or evan a body just don't strike that way.and all should be well.
ROC

Morgan wrote:Before I answer, I'm not sure if you read the example closely, or I didn't explain it well... You do realize the amount of force that you can impart to a target with your hands about 18" apart on a stick, right? Take a sword, hold it shoulder width apart, and hit someone witht he sword that is between your hands. Next to zero flex, ungodly foot-pounds of force imparted to target. I think a 200 pounder could really do some serious damage to people this way.

Asbjorn Johansen wrote:

Morgan wrote:... But if you cross check, IE, strike with the part of the stick between your hands, which is OBVIOUSLY ***NOT*** intended to be a killing blow, and you punch somoene in the face with that, I'd suggest you should be brought before a court of chivalry....

Why?

If its not against the rules, I don't feel that a court of chivalry is an appropriate response.

ROC wrote:

Asbjorn Johansen wrote:

Morgan wrote:... But if you cross check, IE, strike with the part of the stick between your hands, which is OBVIOUSLY ***NOT*** intended to be a killing blow, and you punch somoene in the face with that, I'd suggest you should be brought before a court of chivalry....

Why?

O.k. than crosscheck me in the face and I will shield punch you (kinda the same thing yes).
Basicly no good reason for me to punch with the corner of my shield.It would not be a good blow just hurt.Same with the cross check to the face.
Use the haft to brace against a shield or evan a body just don't strike that way.and all should be well.
ROC

Well there is a difference. As Jester has pointed out, a cross check is not against the Society Level rules as written, a shield punch is unless you have an approved shield.

On a personal level, if the rules allow it, I have no problem if you hit me with your shield, or sword or haft, or fist – as long as you do it with control. I've been cross checked with control. I've been hit with a sword that wasn't under control. I know which one did more damage to me.

I for one am in favour of being able to push and control your opponent with the haft of your weapon, your shield as well. So long as you are in control, I don't see a problem. I feel that this can be done without our matches devolving into wrestling matches. Unfortunately it would require a large paradigm shift in alot of kingdoms.

My Personal experience indicates place and push to be acceptable but crosschecking not.

Robert,
Pollaxe Junkie

A) It could matter how "cross check" is defined. If we define it as hockey does, where there is outward movement in a strike, then I think it should probably be illegal.

B) Illegal or not, a striking cross check to the face should still bring up a court of chivalry. Why? Because of intent. This is going to sound funny... I think we have too many rules. And there are 3 kinds of people with rules. There are those who want to write rules for everything. There are those who want to use common sense. There are those who think "It's not written down as illegal, so I'll do it." I'd rather be the 2nd than the first or third.

A striking cross check to the face is exceptionally difficult to control, particularily in melee. Common sense indicates that it's unwise. We need a rule for everything that is unwise?

Asbjorn Johansen wrote:If its not against the rules, I don't feel that a court of chivalry is an appropriate response.

Morgan wrote:A) It could matter how "cross check" is defined. If we define it as hockey does, where there is outward movement in a strike, then I think it should probably be illegal.

B) Illegal or not, a striking cross check to the face should still bring up a court of chivalry. Why? Because of intent. This is going to sound funny... I think we have too many rules. And there are 3 kinds of people with rules. There are those who want to write rules for everything. There are those who want to use common sense. There are those who think "It's not written down as illegal, so I'll do it." I'd rather be the 2nd than the first or third.

A striking cross check to the face is exceptionally difficult to control, particularily in melee. Common sense indicates that it's unwise. We need a rule for everything that is unwise?

Asbjorn Johansen wrote:If its not against the rules, I don't feel that a court of chivalry is an appropriate response.

OTOH Morgan, its also extremely difficult to get in a position to do so. When can I execute unblocked cross check to the face that I wouldn't also throw a cut instead?

And I'm not really agreeing here with the idea that the force from a cross check (no arc, and limited to 3 feet of movement max) is greater than a deranged-monkey-polearm-swing. I've been crossed-checked by some good sized guys, and the impact is probably less than that of a normal shot by fair.

JP

Nissan Maxima wrote:
Well, you can hit a hafted weapon on the haft with any part of your body, and you can, I believe do the same to a shield.



mmmm....
I don't think so.
You can't have shield to body or body to shield contact.

Striking surface to opponent and shield to shield (or weapon to shield) contact only.

I generally fight polearm or spear, occasionally two-hander. I see no legal issue with shouldering my opponant's shield. The catch is I initiate said contact, he didn't strike me. I also have stepped back and braced to take a charge on the haft, then pushed back.

Cross checking is kinda pointless but placing your haft on the persons body to control is useful. Polearms are one of the most diverse weapons to fight with and requires some contact using the haft.

I have seen a kind of cross check where the person is using a cross check to push the opponent off to gain ground to throw a shot.

Theoderic

Regardless of the level of difficulty, JP, to me it's a question of intent. And you prove my point for me in asking the question about the cut. EXACTLY. You throw the killing shot rather than cross check the guy in the fact. If you throw the cross check in the face rather than the killing shot, what is your intent? That's why I think that individual should be brought to a court of chivalry.

And please note, I don't believe that a court of chiv is necessarily a bad thing. It's there to discuss whether something was bad.

edit to correct typo

To sum up:

No one has found anything that indicates this is banned at the Society level.

No one has produced any information indicating this is banned within their Kingdom.

Ansteorra is comfortable with the idea. The Outlands is comfortable with the idea.

A fair number of individuals think this is a bad idea. A few less think it is just fine.

Morgan, I like your categories, but my personal experience has been that the people who are running things fall in category 1. I would also like to point out that I fall amongst the ranks of the folks who are uncomfortable with this. I'm going to have to try it out.

Final note: This is an interesting case of rules vs. tradition. I was told for years that you couldn't do this and believed it without checking the rules for myself (and I have read the rules A LOT over the past two years). It's intriguing to see how much of our fighting is governed by commonly held beliefs rather than rules.

There is nothing in the rules agains taking your pole arm and hooking your oponents head (haft on the back of his head, one hand on each side of his head) and then yanking toward you.

I don't recommend trying that either.


Seriously though,

Apply common sence and everything should work out.

Consider worst-case-scenerio happening and you endind up in Marshalls court explaining that "it wasn't agains the rules". If that is not a concern and your concious would be clear, by all means procede.

Strenuous men at arms, probably especially those of good will, will always push, shove, and use the full capability of their weapons in the search for the true measure of their fellows.

Whenever I have foughten with the Kingdom Earl Marshal of the Midrealm, and he is armed with some sort of long weapon like a bastard sword, or a poll axe, or some such, there has always been lots of incidental contact where he or I have used the non-striking surface of the weapon to maneuver ourselves or each other.

Now specifically talking about poll axes, especially those with correct head sizes, you are going to see frequent hafting with weapons like this, simply because they typically have blade sizes from eight to ten inches, rather than the 18" naginatas that are permitted under many Kingdoms' rules. My poll axe has padding down the haft shy of the head, about a foot to 18". Is this required? No. Is it polite? Yes. And it also serves as a bit of assistance for my hands should I be struck there while holding the poll axe.

There's a line not to cross, and the body of honor will keep us straight, if we are willing to accept reproof from our fellows and our betters. Those who insist on error, they only put themselves outside of the body of honor.

Jehan de Pelham, squire of Sir Vitus

ok I found two rules in the Trimarian combat laws that I think could be applied ,however loosely.
The first I found speaks to taking advantade of an opponents sence of saftey consciousness I am sure I could argue that till i am blue in the face and it could go either way.
But also there is a rule reguarding thrusts with weapons that prohibits the use of or even the feighting of thrusts with any weapon or part of a weapon not specificaly designed for thrusting I.E. it needs a thrusting tip which meets kingdom standards.
Now that rule I think could apply.
It all depends on what your kingdom defines as a thrust.
Most likely you would get pulled off the feild by a marshal and have to argue it in a marshals court.
I know if I saw you doing that and I was marshaling I would pull you off and sit on you hard.and if you were anything but repentent I would press for you losing you authorization.
if you did it to me or one of my guys when we fought I would take you aside and ask you what the hell you were thinking.and remind you if you break your freinds you can't play with them.
There are certain risks we all except when fighting lets try to keep them to a minimum.
By this logic I should be able to haft all the guys I want in the shins
Hey it may be an illeagl target area and a non striking surface but they don't have to take the shot,too bad I broke their shinbones though. this is precisly the type of battlefeild lawyerring we don't need.

I would submit we are not discussing and accidental hafting of our opponent, but as Jester mentioned intentionally cross-checking them.

Which I would define as; Hitting an opponent with the haft of the weapon while both hands are on the weapon and no part of the striking surface is in use, with the express intent of stopping an opponent or knocking them back or to the ground.

This _I believe_ to be illegal and here is why.

Society Marshal’s handbook, Section III Conventions of Combat, Subsection B. Behavior on the field,
6. Any behavior that takes deliberate advantage of an opponents chivalry or safety-consciousness, or that takes deliberate unfair advantage of an opponent, is prohibited.

Combined with –

Society Marshal’s handbook, Section IV The Use of Weapons and Shields,
A. Weapons shall be used in accordance with their design (i.e. Spears may only be used for thrusting, axes for striking along the edge of the blade, et cetera)
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……


So if your Cross checking you would be using a weapon for something it wasn’t designed for. And thus it would (as I read it) be illegal, for that reason and the fact that doing so would “take advantage of an opponent’s safety consciousnessâ€Â

[quote="Ulrich"]I would submit we are not discussing and accidental hafting of our opponent, but as Jester mentioned intentionally cross-checking them.

Which I would define as; Hitting an opponent with the haft of the weapon while both hands are on the weapon and no part of the striking surface is in use, with the express intent of stopping an opponent or knocking them back or to the ground.

This _I believe_ to be illegal and here is why.

Society Marshal’s handbook, Section III Conventions of Combat, Subsection B. Behavior on the field,
6. Any behavior that takes deliberate advantage of an opponents chivalry or safety-consciousness, or that takes deliberate unfair advantage of an opponent, is prohibited.

Combined with –

Society Marshal’s handbook, Section IV The Use of Weapons and Shields,
A. Weapons shall be used in accordance with their design (i.e. Spears may only be used for thrusting, axes for striking along the edge of the blade, et cetera)
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……


So if your Cross checking you would be using a weapon for something it wasn’t designed for. And thus it would (as I read it) be illegal, for that reason and the fact that doing so would “take advantage of an opponent’s safety consciousnessâ€Â

If anything, Ulrich may have come up with it, however, in the line about using a weapon in accordance with it's design. We have a prohibition against quarter staffing, and this type of cross check is a quarterstaff technique.