The Armour Archive

I've moved this away from Sir Gemini's thread:

Duke Logan said:
Quote:

if there is anyone out there that has never boxed and has a friend that has never boxed that would like to help me end the silly debate over book fighting vs actual fighting let me know. ii have five or six books on boxing that talk, in great detail, about body position, power generation, blocking, footwork, etc. i would be happy to loan them all to two willing guys to read all they want. then lets watch them try to box. until and unless they actually take what they learn and practice it full on they will never show any promise as fighters.

With respect, the analogy doesn't quite hold: It would be better to take two guys (twins preferably, with similar body structure), who have never fought before. One of them spars every day with no teacher. The other one spars everyday with no teacher, but is given a book on boxing techniques. After a year, pit them together. In that case, the guy with the book has better (although not certain) odds.

Of course, now that the SCA is old enough, it is often the case that the people who are only sparring do have teachers, but they were teachers who had taught themselves, or who had teachers who at some point taught themselves. Or, another option, they had teachers who didn't know how to box, but had judo experience. Then it gets tricky, and the winner is often determined by combat model that was used during training.
Quote:

i respect the art of wma from all that ive seen. the silly blow-hards that participate in it and call down sca sport combat as cheesy and unrealistic should simply stay away from the sca. i can tell you that its pretty realistic when you get some of your shit broken in our sport. pretty real combat if you ask me. cheesy? not any more than guys going over pre-determined dance moves based on a few pages in an instructural manual. they both have plenty to make fun of but whats the point?

If you will forgive the presumption, if I understand correctly, it is the attitude of some of the WMAers rather than the study itself that annoys you? Actually that is pretty understandable: I spend some time on Sword Forum. There are some very knowledgable and skilled people there, but there is also a lot of martial arts "my kung fu is strong; yours is weak" going on. The WMAer snears at the SCAer, and the SCAer gets offended and snears back: cycle continues ad nauseum.

I think that is a shame. The heavy fighters may be working with a flawed combat model -- hell, who isn't -- but as many have already pointed out, they have tons of practical experience. Last year at Pennsic, I had the honor of taking a class with Duke Paul. The friend who had arranged it seemed apologetic: He knows I am very much interested in authentic techniques. I was surprised. From what I have read, Duke Paul has forgotten more about body mechanics and power generation than I have ever known. No his specific technique might not help with the kind of fighting, but it often pointed out gaps in the studies that I have missed. In the class, I just shut off my brain -- depressingly easy -- and soaked in the information.

Now, when I study the Lichtenhaer or Meyer, I can say to myself, hmm: Duke Paul did this with his foot placement, but Meyer did this. Why? By spending time with someone with such knowledge and experience, I learned what questions I should ask when I studied WMA.

Conversely, I feel the german swordwork has improved my fighting skills. Techniques that seemed nuts when I learned them now come naturally, and are very effective in a fight. God knows I was surprised when I realized how useful zwerkhau (a horizontal false edge stike that also keeps you safe if you are out-timed) could be.

I guess my point is this: I love WMA, but I have yet to be convinced that their combat models for practice provides a suitably realistic means of practicing techniques (although some of the armoured fights come close, if they use unarmoured techniques). If nothing else, I have yet to see them used it for melees. Could be wrong, though. I love SCA heavy -- it is also a flawed combat model (again, they all are) -- but I get depressed when fighters snear at authentic, documentable, and researched techniques just because they are put off by the researchers. Worse, some fighters snear -- and I am not talking about anyone here that I know of -- because they can't be bothered to make the effort to study. There is just so much to learn if we can keep an open mind.

Both WMA and SCA have value. Some of what the SCA does will not work with real swords and we have some odd rules and conventions (some based on safety perceptions and some based on nothing other than tradition). Some of what WMA groups do cannot be done full speed, full force without breaking or killing somebody, so it is hard to know if you are doing it correctly as doing it competitively and successfully results in death or injury. Some of what we limit in the SCA would work fine in real combat but we don't allow it do prevent death or injury.

In an ideal world, people would have the time, money and harness to particpate in both WMA (to get the best historically based theory via education and hands on training in historical techniques) and SCA (to within admittedly limited safey parameters, practice combat at a high level of force and speed, while wearing knightly harness from a given medieval period).

With more and more WMA groups emphasizing combat in armour with contact, sometimes even with rebated swords, the ability to experience some elements of combat are no longer purely the province of the SCA.

I'd rather see less threads on why any one group is better than the other and more on what each has to offer in terms of education, competitive combat, historical practice & theory and in getting a feel for what actual tournament or battlefield combat was like in the middle ages.

Even LARP combat with boffers has some value. It may only vaguely resemble historical combat, but it gets kids and adults interested in combat, armour, chivalry and gives them a safe and cheap introduction that can lead to WMA or SCA involvement.

*Edited to correct my statement about LARP, originally hit send too fast.

I would have to say that the study of WMA and the SCA are very compatible as long as you keep in mind the limitations of each. I am an SCA heavy fighter and I am also a member of Schola St. George and studying the Fiore style. I have noticed very quickly a number of things that cross over between the two. The SCA fighting has given me a good basis to build on and a better starting understanding of body and sword mechanics as I started my Fiore study. Additionally the Fiore work has greatly improved my stance and footwork on the SCA field and I am adapting many of the skills and stances to SCA combat. Yes there are times I have to remind myself that I can't grab my opponents longsword and take it away on the SCA field but that hasn't been an issue so far.

I will say though that the times when my friends and I armor up in our fairly accurate 14th century kits (good by most SCA standards but not quite LH yet) and do our Fiore work with rattan weapons it can be really fun as we can do full force blows while practicing the Fiore techniques.

Old debate even in the Eastern Martial arts field, training vs. sparring vs. real combat.

I will add that the SCA style has a few major downfalls:

1) No blade orientation. You have to practice with a real sword to gain that, a thick line on a cuddle is no where near the same. Even a wood waster will not teach you how to cut properly; you need a sharp sword and a target.

2) Lack of knowledge on how arms work against armor. That is what most of the book learning of the manuscripts are all about. If the SCA favorite of short sword and big shield was so great it would have lasted thought the plate armor era and not been replaced by polearms.

WMA groups are new and are evolving, one day they will have full sparing and then a better comparison can be made until then its useless dick waving. In the end some fighters are just so good at fighting style does not make a difference, a for instance is the death of Lord Warwick in 1471, the man was in full armor, well trained, and a war veteran. Two archers caught him without a weapon looking for a horse; they knocked him down and stabbed him in the face through his visor with daggers.

James B. wrote:Even a wood waster will not teach you how to cut properly; you need a sharp sword and a target.

Die, milk jug, DIE!

Swinging an effective, targetted cut with a sharp one-handed sword is much more difficult than it seems.

1) No blade orientation. You have to practice with a real sword to gain that, a thick line on a cuddle is no where near the same. Even a wood waster will not teach you how to cut properly; you need a sharp sword and a target.

2) Lack of knowledge on how arms work against armor. That is what most of the book learning of the manuscripts are all about. If the SCA favorite of short sword and big shield was so great it would have lasted thought the plate armor era and not been replaced by polearms.

Let me add to that: The lack of even basic grappling rather radically changes the game. Just by allowing grabs, holds and pushes, you will find that you can make the fight much more realistic (and fun, fun, fun!). I haven't found a way to make throws and full locks safe yet. That's a tough one. You learn to love your dagger, I'll tell you that much.

When in Rome.....

Myself, I prefer to be good at fighting. Then bending that to fit the rules of the place I'm playing.

But then, I've always been lucky when it comes to killin folks.

Myself, I prefer to be good at fighting. Then bending that to fit the rules of the place I'm playing.

That has always been my preference as well, although I have done a poor job of achieving the goal, I think.

Part of the problem is that -- unless you have access to a large population of disposable people -- it is very hard to train realistically for fighting with a weapon. You have to choose some form of modeling combat (and how I am sure folks are starting to hate that phrase); you have to find a way for training to fight without actually killing someone. There are a few choices:

1) heavy protection/ unrealistic weapons/strong power
2) light protection/ Soft weapons/ medium power
3) little to no protection/hard weapons/restrained (or "controlled" if you are in the WMA community) power.

Each style of modelling combat has pluses and minuses. For reasons I have yet to understand, people often choose only one. The result is a "sportification" of the combat model, as people alter their skills to become good at their particular model.

As for myself, I believe strongly in cross training: I fight several versions version of SCA heavy fighting, I fight with no armour using Lancelot Chan's "realistic sparring weapons," and I use wooden and metal weapons to practice form work in a dojo. I have enjoyed the results so far.

On the other hand, as I said in the other thread, the SCA excels at giving people a chance to apply the fundamental principles of combat in an intensely competitive environment. What's funny, to me, is that WMA does a better job, in my experience, of teaching those fundamentals while SCA, again in my experience, does a better job of practicing those fundamentals. I'm glad I have access to both venues.

jester wrote:On the other hand, as I said in the other thread, the SCA excels at giving people a chance to apply the fundamental principles of combat in an intensely competitive environment. What's funny, to me, is that WMA does a better job, in my experience, of teaching those fundamentals while SCA, again in my experience, does a better job of practicing those fundamentals. I'm glad I have access to both venues.

Sing that from the rooftops.

The discussion I hear more than any other, from every WMA group (I read what might be considered an excessive number of forums and email lists and talk to a LOT of people) is "How can we make our sparring/bouting/at-speed-with-intent practice more realistic?" It gets talked about constantly because most of these folks know that is an area where we're lacking. Discussions about safety equipment, weapon simulators, acceptable force levels, etc. go on all the time. It will improve - slowly, maybe, but it will improve. Until then I use every possible avenue: SCA armored combat, cut and thrust, rapier, a variety of simulators at varying force/safety equipment levels, etc. Whatever works, man. This isn't a competition.

Hey Jay - I love nothing more than when somebdy gets close enough for me to grab them and pull a dagger

I'm glad I have access to both venues.

That's the sort of thing that I love to hear.

Hey Jay - I love nothing more than when somebdy gets close enough for me to grab them and pull a dagger

Oh yeah. Of course, the cycle of violence continues. We have a fellow now who has the nifty knack of grabbing you and then pulling _your_ dagger. It's really embarrassing to get gacked and then have to ask for your own knife back.

Kevin wrote:

James B. wrote:Even a wood waster will not teach you how to cut properly; you need a sharp sword and a target.

Die, milk jug, DIE!

Swinging an effective, targetted cut with a sharp one-handed sword is much more difficult than it seems.

I agree that this is true, otoh, it is more difficult to maintain something approaching edge alignment with a roughly oval sticklike object than with alovely airfoil shaped swordblade.

Granted the precision it takes to get that sword edge to do its work is difficult (certainly haven't mastered it myself). I just don't think that being used to swinging an SCA "sword" is a detriment. Of course, if I had spent a fraction of the time swinging my steel that I have spent swinging rattan I would have mastered the edge by now - so perhaps in the sense that the rattan takes time away from the steel it's a detriment.

Gavin

"the death of Lord Warwick in 1471, the man was in full armor, well trained, and a war veteran. Two archers caught him without a weapon looking for a horse; they knocked him down and stabbed him in the face through his visor with daggers."

Damn churls.

John
Jehan de Pelham, esquire and servant of Sir Vitus
www.mron.org

" On the other hand, as I said in the other thread, the SCA excels at giving people a chance to apply the fundamental principles of combat in an intensely competitive environment. What's funny, to me, is that WMA does a better job, in my experience, of teaching those fundamentals while SCA, again in my experience, does a better job of practicing those fundamentals. I'm glad I have access to both venues."

Yeah, we're going to try some stuff out when I get back, and there ought to be some interesting hastiludes at Crossroads in Time.

John
Jehan de Pelham, esquire and servant of Sir Vitus
www.mron.org

Noe wrote:

Hey Jay - I love nothing more than when somebdy gets close enough for me to grab them and pull a dagger

Oh yeah. Of course, the cycle of violence continues. We have a fellow now who has the nifty knack of grabbing you and then pulling _your_ dagger. It's really embarrassing to get gacked and then have to ask for your own knife back.

Just pull his too. Then you both get to ask for each other's back. Seen this happen quite a lot when pole weapons carry daggers (in SCA). Funniest thing I saw were two guys "grappling" with a glaive, and one keeps trying to reach around and draw his dagger. It had dropped about 2 min earlier and a marshall grabbed it, and wasnt sure who to give it back too. Her face was classic (as well as his, when she gave it back after he died).

OswynHaddock wrote:

Noe wrote:

Hey Jay - I love nothing more than when somebdy gets close enough for me to grab them and pull a dagger

Oh yeah. Of course, the cycle of violence continues. We have a fellow now who has the nifty knack of grabbing you and then pulling _your_ dagger. It's really embarrassing to get gacked and then have to ask for your own knife back.

Just pull his too. Then you both get to ask for each other's back. Seen this happen quite a lot when pole weapons carry daggers (in SCA). Funniest thing I saw were two guys "grappling" with a glaive, and one keeps trying to reach around and draw his dagger. It had dropped about 2 min earlier and a marshall grabbed it, and wasnt sure who to give it back too. Her face was classic (as well as his, when she gave it back after he died).

A lanyard, perhaps?

I'd have to say that WMA and SCA are not incompatible.

I don't think there is any rule that says you can't participate in both.

I send my rapier students off to fight in SCA tournaments to test their technique. I send my palaestra students off to fight in pancrase tournaments to test their technique, and I'm going back to heavy fighting to...well, to have fun and not be serious, really.

But there is nothing stopping any WMA school from training with steel, doing drills and slow work with steel, doing contact work with protection and steel OR grabbing a chunk of rattan and SCA armour and going for it. Any WMA school can incorporate all of the SCA body of knowledge AND expand on it. No reason all the local knights can't come out to my school on fight night, fight my students and each other, and do so with grappling. Actually we are trying to promote that, as I can't think of anything more fun...

The grumpier gist on the other thread seemed to imply one approach was better than the other. Meh.
Natural athletes and naturally gifted people always have an advantage. People who train extremely hard at *any* combat sport have an advantage in *any* combat sport competition over those who don't train hard.
People with a competitive mindset tend to win competitions over people with a scholarly mindset.
Some people like hockey, some like football, most like soccer. None of them is more of a sport than the other, but people have their preferences for what *they* like to do.
The SCA has more of a history of aggressive competition that the WMA community...but it doesn't have a monopoly on aggressive competition.

Dipping my toe in here as a mostly newbie to both fields.

I like them both, a lot. I love going to my WMA class on Saturday's and I can't wait to get my armor done so I can get some learnin' on the SCA field.

I got started with boffers because that was what I could afford (well really I got started fighting with sticks and dowels against my brother in the backyard) and moved on from there. With my group it was really good excercise because we basically beat the hell out of each other (as much as can be done with PVC and foam weapons) and I had a blast.

All the 'dick waving' is just sad. Do what you want to do, train how you want, and have fun, and let others have theirs.

My two shillings fwiw,
Joe

Jehan de Pelham wrote:" On the other hand, as I said in the other thread, the SCA excels at giving people a chance to apply the fundamental principles of combat in an intensely competitive environment. What's funny, to me, is that WMA does a better job, in my experience, of teaching those fundamentals while SCA, again in my experience, does a better job of practicing those fundamentals. I'm glad I have access to both venues."

Yeah, we're going to try some stuff out when I get back, and there ought to be some interesting hastiludes at Crossroads in Time.

John
Jehan de Pelham, esquire and servant of Sir Vitus
www.mron.org

I am very much looking forward to this, albeit not the bruises I expect to receive. My wife has purchased a pavillion and declared that we will be attending, btw. So I'm drawing up the plan.

James B. wrote:
WMA groups are new and are evolving, one day they will have full sparing and then a better comparison can be made until then its useless dick waving.

well then, i guess you won't have much to talk about or wave around ooooooooooo

James B. wrote:Old debate even in the Eastern Martial arts field, training vs. sparring vs. real combat.


WMA groups are new and are evolving, one day they will have full sparing and then a better comparison can be made until then its useless dick waving.

I guess maybe I don't know your definition of "full sparring" but I think this is a common misconception held by folks outside or on the fringes of the historical fencing scene. Virtually all the serious historical fencers I know of do some form of free play. It's not choreographed, or scripted in any way, it's sparring, or "bouting" or whatever they like to call it. In my own study group, we always spar every time we train. We do this in a number of different ways, with varrying degrees of contact, up to and including full speed, full contact, "hit me as hard as you want me to hit you." For hard contact, full speed simulation of blossfechten, we use specially made padded weapons. They're not soft, floppy "boffers", they're carefully made padded simulators that approximate the weight and balance of real weapons. A solid blow to an unprotected area hurts, but isn't likely to cause any serious injury. Within ARMA, we value intense free play with realistic weapon simulators above all other training. We spend a lot of time on drills and excercises, but I honestly feel most people learn more in five minutes of sparring than five hours of drills.

Likewise, I really like the hard hitting, fast moving aspects of SCA combat and the fact that it focuses on actually fighting rather than slow, soft, forms or set practice routines. I don't care for the weapons used, the rules, or the role playing aspects of SCA combat, but I can certainly respect the hard contact, full speed fighting. This is something that is common to both SCA and ARMA style fighting, rather than somehting that differentiates between the two. Anyone who doesn't do full speed, hard contact sparring with a non-cooperative opponent isn't really learning to fight IMO.

Jehan de Pelham wrote:"the death of Lord Warwick in 1471, the man was in full armor, well trained, and a war veteran. Two archers caught him without a weapon looking for a horse; they knocked him down and stabbed him in the face through his visor with daggers."

Damn churls.

John
Jehan de Pelham, esquire and servant of Sir Vitus
www.mron.org

And what is a man of coat armor doing running about a battlefield unarmed? Hello? Darwin calling...

of course they're not in compatable.


You can box and wrestle

you can shoot and use a knife

you can do WMA and SCA

You can't use every technique effectivel under every set of rules, just like any other combat sport.


Most of the people who think one or the other sucks have only done one.



Cross training is cross training, fighting is fighting.

M S Anderson wrote: Anyone who doesn't do full speed, hard contact sparring with a non-cooperative opponent isn't really learning to fight IMO.

Frickin' right *g*. I've worked long and hard to incorporate this into my practice, and continue to refine how we can do it better. It's getting there.

Murdock wrote: Cross training is cross training, fighting is fighting.

I knew it wasn't just me

it isnt just you jon.

regards
logan

Jon Barber wrote:

M S Anderson wrote: Anyone who doesn't do full speed, hard contact sparring with a non-cooperative opponent isn't really learning to fight IMO.

Frickin' right *g*. I've worked long and hard to incorporate this into my practice, and continue to refine how we can do it better. It's getting there.

Murdock wrote: Cross training is cross training, fighting is fighting.

I knew it wasn't just me

it isnt just you jon.

regards
logan

Jon Barber wrote:

M S Anderson wrote: Anyone who doesn't do full speed, hard contact sparring with a non-cooperative opponent isn't really learning to fight IMO.

Frickin' right *g*. I've worked long and hard to incorporate this into my practice, and continue to refine how we can do it better. It's getting there.

Murdock wrote: Cross training is cross training, fighting is fighting.

I knew it wasn't just me

Alcyoneus wrote:

Jehan de Pelham wrote:"the death of Lord Warwick in 1471, the man was in full armor, well trained, and a war veteran. Two archers caught him without a weapon looking for a horse; they knocked him down and stabbed him in the face through his visor with daggers."

Damn churls.

John
Jehan de Pelham, esquire and servant of Sir Vitus
www.mron.org

And what is a man of coat armor doing running about a battlefield unarmed? Hello? Darwin calling...

Exigencies of battle.. He was without a horse as well. I doubt very much he entered the field on foot and unarmed.

Gavin

Jester: "On the other hand, as I said in the other thread, the SCA excels at giving people a chance to apply the fundamental principles of combat in an intensely competitive environment. What's funny, to me, is that WMA does a better job, in my experience, of teaching those fundamentals while SCA, again in my experience, does a better job of practicing those fundamentals. I'm glad I have access to both venues."

JdP: "Yeah, we're going to try some stuff out when I get back, and there ought to be some interesting hastiludes at Crossroads in Time."

Jester: "I am very much looking forward to this, albeit not the bruises I expect to receive. My wife has purchased a pavillion and declared that we will be attending, btw. So I'm drawing up the plan."

Awesome. Simply awesome.

And yes, cross training.

John
Jehan de Pelham, esquire and servant of Sir Vitus
www.mron.org

Matt

My apologies I should have said one day all WMA groups will have harness combat, right now more people even in groups that fight in harness study unarmored sword combat more than armored combat. It takes time to build up a harness in the SCA with loose rules, seems to take WMA guys longer.

Noe wrote:

1) No blade orientation. You have to practice with a real sword to gain that, a thick line on a cuddle is no where near the same. Even a wood waster will not teach you how to cut properly; you need a sharp sword and a target.

I agree with that. At least one SCA knight I know incorporated steel sword work into his squires' training regimen. He said that it made a difference in their fighting, since they all wanted rattan batons that balanced like real steel.

2) Lack of knowledge on how arms work against armor. That is what most of the book learning of the manuscripts are all about.

The manuscripts deal with a specific pair of weapons-- poll-axe and longsword-- against plate armor during a 60-year period towards the tail end of the age where armored knights were a relevant feature on the battlefield. They don't address the 300-350 years of the European martial tradition that preceded the manuscripts, where the armor, weapons and techniques were vastly different.

If the SCA favorite of short sword and big shield was so great it would have lasted thought the plate armor era and not been replaced by polearms.

The "SCA favorite" of sword and war-shield was the industry standard for most of the 300 years preceding the general wear of plate armor. If you look at the basic "assumed armor" standard of the SCA, the only rigid protection is an iron cap and a shield. All other defenses are flexible (mail) which can be defeated by a single-hand sword under limited, optimal conditions. Lots of SCA combatants love the look (and/or the extra protection) of plate armor, but under the rules, that armor is purely cosmetic. You may look like Geoff Charnay, but you're really fighting in Billy Marshal's gear. Keeping that in mind helps when considering the incongruity of plate-clad combatants registering any effect at all from blows from a single-handed sword, as they have to do in SCA combat. In the SCA, it is 1100 AD, regardless of what you're wearing.

Let me add to that: The lack of even basic grappling rather radically changes the game. Just by allowing grabs, holds and pushes, you will find that you can make the fight much more realistic (and fun, fun, fun!). I haven't found a way to make throws and full locks safe yet. That's a tough one. You learn to love your dagger, I'll tell you that much.

The grappling thing is another technique that belongs with the later periods addressed by the manuscripts. In the 1066-1300 period, you see it depicted in manuscript illuminations, but it is relatively uncommon. The reason behind this is pretty clear (to me, anyways): the only rigid protection on your body is your shield, and the part of your melon that pokes up past its upper edge. The rest of your armor is "fail-safe" gear, where you still might be wounded or killed if you got caught stunned and flat-footed, and a knockout blow struck you there. To grapple, you lose your primary defense from the get-go, or you give up your offensive capability to have a hand free to grab, or you had to disentangle yourself from your shield to free up that hand to grab, which sort of telegraphs your intentions. It seems to me, anyways, that the lack of grappling in SCA fighting is appropriate to the period around 1100 AD.

Something I'd like to try is seeing if the WMA grappling stuff is applicable in free-form combat with weapons. For almost 20 years, people have been trying to grapple with me and bring me to the ground to kill me for real. Only one managed it, and our stay on the ground was brief-- I am completely not interested in grappling, and avoid attempts to by my opponents to do it.

It would be fun, and instructive, Maybe one of these days I can try it.

M.

Saint-Sever wrote:The "SCA favorite" of sword and war-shield was the industry standard for most of the 300 years preceding the general wear of plate armor. If you look at the basic "assumed armor" standard of the SCA, the only rigid protection is an iron cap and a shield. All other defenses are flexible (mail) which can be defeated by a single-hand sword under limited, optimal conditions. Lots of SCA combatants love the look (and/or the extra protection) of plate armor, but under the rules, that armor is purely cosmetic. You may look like Geoff Charnay, but you're really fighting in Billy Marshal's gear. Keeping that in mind helps when considering the incongruity of plate-clad combatants registering any effect at all from blows from a single-handed sword, as they have to do in SCA combat. In the SCA, it is 1100 AD, regardless of what you're wearing.

Ah but on the ground the spear was popular too, on horseback the spear/lance is the first weapon also. Axes and pole weapons were also well represented among the common fighter in earlier eras. In the era the rules are made for spears and axes are depicted more than swords for men on foot and swords were very expensive weapons to own. Also cavalry was the main body of a fighting force not ground troops.

Plus if you are wearing maille cuts may have the force to break some links and maybe bones but swords likely never sheared open maille unless it was fairly damaged.

James B. wrote:Matt

My apologies I should have said one day all WMA groups will have harness combat, right now more people even in groups that fight in harness study unarmored sword combat more than armored combat. It takes time to build up a harness in the SCA with loose rules, seems to take WMA guys longer.

No worries James, I didn't take it as a slight or insult. And you're right, very few in the historical fencing crowd seem willing to go to the expense and hassle of obtaining a full harness, and fewer still actually do any real bouting in armour. I have done some, but I and a few others are certainly the exceptions rather than the norm. But still, harness fighting isn't the be all-end all of fighting, it's only one aspect of historical combat. Fiore, for example, apparently felt that it wasn't such a big deal compared to fighting without armour:

"I, Fiore, told my students who had to fight in the barriers that fighting in the barriers is much and much less dangerous than fighting with cut and thrust swords in zuparello darmare (in only arming clothes) because to the one who plays with sharp swords, failing just one cover gives him death. While the one who fights in the barriers and is well armoured, can be given a lot of hits, but still he can win the battle".

This IMO is why the majority of most fectbuchs (with a few notable exceptions) cover a lot more unarmoured combat. it's much more risky, so perhaps requires a lot more training in order to win or even survive without serious injury.

[quote="Saint-Sever
Something I'd like to try is seeing if the WMA grappling stuff is applicable in free-form combat with weapons. For almost 20 years, people have been trying to grapple with me and bring me to the ground to kill me for real. Only one managed it, and our stay on the ground was brief-- I am completely not interested in grappling, and avoid attempts to by my opponents to do it.

It would be fun, and instructive, Maybe one of these days I can try it.

M.[/quote]

Well, the fact that virtually every master who wrote a book covered grappling techniqes with weapons makes me think it's "applicable."

That doesn't mean you always want to do it, but a well-rounded fencer knows how and how to defend against it. Personally, if I have a longsword, I'd rather just gack you from 3 feet away, but I practice ringen am schwert anyway. Just like in the UFC, Chuck Liddell wants to fight stand-up cause that's what he's good at, but he knows how to grapple and defend takedowns and submissions just in case things don't go his way. If it's part of the game, it's best to know it to be able to defend against it.

James B. wrote:Ah but on the ground the spear was popular too, on horseback the spear/lance is the first weapon also. Axes and pole weapons were also well represented among the common fighter in earlier eras. In the era the rules are made for spears and axes are depicted more than swords for men on foot and swords were very expensive weapons to own. Also cavalry was the main body of a fighting force not ground troops.

Sorry, I should have been more precise. You're absolutely correct-- the primary weapon of the miles of 1100 was the lance, since he was primarily a cavalryman. The predominant secondary weapon, employed when the lance broke or wasn't the best tool for the job, was the sword.

Knights from this earlier period of 1066-1100, especially ones of the Norman variety, fought dismounted whenever the situation dictated or an advantage could be seized. Their focus seemed to be on military effectiveness rather than maintaining a class difference, which might have had something to do with the rank-and-file knight not being universally considered as a member of the aristocracy at this time. I'm sure that when fighting afoot, they employed the usual run of weapons employed in that period, as you mentioned. I'm also pretty sure that the consideration I mentioned-- primary defense being a shield and iron cap, all other armor less effective vs. violent impacts-- came into play as well: if you elected to employ a weapon that precluded using a shield, you were really hanging your ass out on the line. I guess it would have been a pro/con sort of debate. "If I use the Dane axe, I slay with a stroke and everyone thinks I am a major badass that doesn't think about getting hurt in a fight. On the other hand, if I screw up and catch one, I might really get by ass hurt. Hm."

Plus if you are wearing maille cuts may have the force to break some links and maybe bones but swords likely never sheared open maille unless it was fairly damaged.

I'm still not convinced of this.

I don't think mail was routinely sheared thru like calico, but there is a universal depiction of this happening in MS illuminations for a couple of hundred years, in every part of Europe. Additionally, written descriptions of this occuring also exist, as well as some archeological evidence-- the Visby book cites examples of mail having been cut thru repeatedly, and apparantly with bad effect on the wearers, since their their remains were dug up from the grave pits. 1361 is a little late for the "well, in 1100..." argument, but it was mail, and it was cut, and not just in one example, according to them. (They don't have any damned pictures of it, or any info on where on the body the damage occurred, what types of garments, etc. I've looked, maybe it's buried in there somewhere, but I haven't seen it. Dammit.)

My thinking is that the primary defense, as I've stated, was the shield and helmet, which were rigid, and would defeat point, edge and impact alike. Mail was worn against anything that managed to get past the primary defenses, and that would have caused a horrible wound on an unarmored man, but would not cut or pierce mail, because it was not of the "knockout blow" variety. Enough of these "hard, but not quite hard enough" blows, and your opponent was pretty much beaten down, and would be standing almost defenseless against a "fight-stopping" blow that would have the potential to defeat the mail.

MS illuminations (IMO) tend to bear this theory of mine out: depictions of sword cuts defeating armor almost always show an over-the-head blow, one that uses the same play of shoulder, back, belly and thigh muscles that swing a sledge hammer or chop wood, rather than just the arm or shoulder alone. The impact point of the blow is usually the top of the head, the shoulder, the upper arm or the upper thigh-- the places where such a blow might be expected to land on a similarly mounted opponent.

...sweet jesus. have I restarted the AA Can Swords Chop Thru Mail argument?

M

Saint

If you look through the Grappling sections of alot of WMA stuff you'll find it remakably similar to the soft empty hands techniques in PPCT as well as some of the Hard empty hand techs in some of the full on throws.

There are some of the weapon grab counters then end up in almost indetical positions.

from what i've seen they didn't wanna go to the ground per say as much as sling the other guy down and "hit him with a planet" to take the fight out of him. Now it doesn't show them disengage and draw a weapon to gain tactical superiority, but it could easily be the next page. The mauals esp Fiore, to me focus on arm locks, joint locks and throws, not ground fighting persay. Fiore's "Abrazare" even translates "to the arms".

If you get a chance to go over any of it with our mutual "famous" friend, you'll find it real similar to PPCT and SSGT systems you may be familiar with. Fiore also has some nifty baton stuff, i wann give that a shot and compare it with the Asp system as well as PPCT's.

In my lilited studies i have found the similarity of how armed men have fought down through the ages very very cool.

I've got the helmet bout 75% refitted, it's looking good. I'll post pics when i get it done.