carlyle wrote:BB wrote:I personally don't see the sense in embracing one fallacy (pick your favorite; unpadded polearms, unbreakable shields) and condemning another fallacy (punching with an axe) merely because one personally chooses not to believe it possible.
Because at a certain point, you cross the line from "suspension of disbelief" into the realm of outright incredulity.
You seem to hang your argument on weapon and shield construction, which is bound largely by our concerns for safety and the limited materials we believe are acceptable. How a weapon is used, however, is entirely a matter of choice. The -fact- is that I can point to uncountable pictures, stories, and songs describing a medieval knight using a shield and sword. I have, in a very short review, given at least one example of an axe used two-handed. We can debate the degree of applicability, but at least we know that someone of that age at least thought of it. By contrast, there is not even -one- reference that I know of to using an axe single-handed as described, nor have you provided one.
In short, you seem bent on making the good the enemy of the best, excusing a completely undocumentable technique simply because other conventions are imperfect. But if you embrace the SCA ideal that, as individuals, we are -also- trying to represent, to the best of our ability, the archtypal warriors of our chosen ages; and yet you still -knowingly- engage in practices that are devoid of even a shred of proof, then is this really your best?
With regards,
Alfred of Carlyle
Alfred: short answer: I do not embrace that aspect of the SCA ideal. Nor do many people who purport to.
Are you similarly against katanas, or anyone who fights two weapon style at all, or unpadded polearms? or wrap shots? None of these techniques or weapons have any place in medieval europe either. Nor are they for safety's sake. ALL of them came about because somebody saw a way to gain an edge over the competition with them.
I hang my argument on the fallacies in the system. The
source of those fallacies is immaterial to me. I find your theory of representing to the best of our ability the archetypical warriors of our chosen ages to be a wishful one at best. While there are exceptions to the rule, the fact is that 99% of the people I see playing this game treat it as the sport it has become, and not a research into authenticity of any sort. The exceptions have either reached the goals they set for themselves and can afford to worry about something besides winning, or they are that rare breed of critter that truly does put authenticity above all else. Every single piece of equipment I own has been constructed or purchased for maximum mobility and minimum weight, as well as maximum offensive capability for that weight. Why? Because it's a sport, and I treat it as such. That aspect of this game is uncannily like NASCAR in that people constantly look for ways to improve their equipment to get an edge on the competition, and not because they're looking to make their gear more authentic. They're looking for ways to win, pure and simple.
If I were striving for
authenticity I would be wearing full plate and carrying a two handed sword. And rest assured that if the SCA ever goes to submission fighting that's exactly what I'd be doing. Until then, my equipment will reflect the
fact that SCA combat is a sport, with very little research into the authenticity behind it. Will I continue to applaud those who do the research and etc. into period styles? Certainly. Just as I applaud those who do the research into period styles of armoring, or weaponsmithing, or what have you. I have no intent of becoming a slave to their way of thought, however.
Moreover, we acknowledge that
fact (SCA as a sport combat) every time we see the "As Real Men Fought" scenario at Pennsic. Or the "period armor only" tournaments fought in past Gulf Wars. Or any of a dozen other things that could be cited here.
If you choose to call my viewpoint regarding the bearded axe "the good being the enemy of the best," so be it. I submit that it is no worse than any of the other things I have cited. And THAT is my point; not the one-handed bearded axe theory itself.
The upside of being the enemy of the best is that there are about a metric ton of people like me around who will always stand in awe of anybody who truly does take the time and effort to be as authentic as they can be. And, as I have stated, I am at least making an attempt to find documentation for the practice, which is more than I can say for unpadded polearms, wrap shots, etc etc etc.
Even if I DO manage to find any, though, as Justus pointed out, it will never satisfy large sections of the populace. Just as it would not satisfy large sections of the populace if I were to dress a pig carcass in chainmail and padding, hang it from a beam, and punch it with a bearded axe, and show the resultant damage. Given that attitude, I have no problem with continuing to argue for an as-yet-unproven fighting technique.
Regards,
Jonathan Blackbow
...)
