Hey, you dont need that Spear!

[bogey2230]

I have returned to the SCA and a new Kingdom and have lost touch in some areas of melee fighting. Years ago in fighting a melee or a War, my friends and I to take a "break" in the fighting would sit down behind haybails or the shield wall and grab at spears as they would go over head. We would not touch the tip just the shaft and take the spear away. It was a nice little breather and we got to do some good for our side. Has this been made illegal in any Kingdom? What do think about the tactic?

[Vitus von Atzinger]

It is churlish.

[Animal]

It's pussy. If you arent fighting like a man step to the side and let men fight.

[Maeryk]

DO it from within the sheild wall, not hiding behidn a hay bale!

Stand weaponless second row in, wear gauntlets, and grab the things as they come through your shields!

Discover rapidly which spearman wear lanyards and which dont!



Maeryk

[Trevor]

It does strike me as being a bit...dishonest.

I like to wrestle over weapons, disarm someone and kill them with their own weapon. It's a blast!

But keep it in the open field-doing it from behind a shieldwall or a haybale has no honorable fun in it.

[Jehan de Pelham]

The only hazard in the doing of these things which are said, is that someone may connect your name with the doing of it, and then you will always be known as a lazy, cowardly villein instead of a man at arms who does his devoir.

But other than that, it seems rude.

Jehan de Pelham, squire of Sir Vitus

[Dmitriy]

It's legal (don't bend the spear over the bale or castle wall, though).

I've done that sort of thing -- but usually it's when everyone has 9 footers and the other side has this one guy who insists on using a 12. I will take his spear to get everyone on an equal footing, gladly. I don't hide when I do it -- I just grab when the owner tries to spear me.

[Cadugan Bolt-Catcher]

having never done or seen it, it does sound a bit like a wussy's way out, but also, if you can't keep a grip on your own spear- then maybe you need a little object lesson

[D. Sebastian]

If I saw that going on on my side I'd tell you to stop.

If I say that happening on the otherside of the bale, I'd grab "boomstick" (aka the Great-Ball-Bat) and wrap away the problem.

You're basicaly engaging without seeing your opponent IMHO. Thats not the spirit of what we're doing.

[edited to add]
The above referres to you being behing haybales where you are basically entrenched and only exposing your hands (which shouldn't be struck).

As per doing it from the shield wall, I'd say thats a different matter.
* What do you do when the enemy charge happens to be where you are and you're unarmed?

[Asbjorn Johansen]

According to my reading of the Society level rules, it’s a legal practice (your kingdom rules may not allow it). If you approach SCA combat as a modern sport your action is fine. However if you approach it as an attempt to recreate foot combat I’m not so sure.

I don’t find many historical examples that indicate disarming an opponent is an action that would be looked upon negatively. In fact in some formal single combats in Europe disarming an opponent was a way to win. However I have seen few descriptions which match the particular way you plan to attempt to disarm your opponents. I think this is because of some of the artifice of SCA combat. Because your hands are considered to be both invulnerable and an illegal target, I feel you have a significant advantage over someone who would have tried this historically. As such, while legal I don’t think the action is appropriate for most SCA combats as described, because the practice is both ahistoric and takes advantage of modern conventions of the SCA rules. However if you were to find evidence for the practice or fight in a setting that allowed for the targeting of hands (not currently available in the SCA but there are other fighting groups out there) I think it would be more appropriate.

Now if you simply charged up, ripped the spear from an opponents hands, and while using it in a legal manner proceeded to resoundingly defeat him with it, I think this would have met with great approval by most knights in the time period we study.

[Ceddie]

Now if you simply charged up, ripped the spear from an opponents hands, and while using it in a legal manner proceeded to resoundingly defeat him with it, I think this would have met with great approval by most knights in the time period we study.

I had a squire brother who use to do just that at wars: charge spear or glavesmen, grab their weapon, kill them then hand it back to them. It worked about 1/2 the time. The other half was bad for him. When it workes, it was a thing of beauty, the look on someones face when you ram their own buttspike into their gut and the still have their hands on the weapon is something you never forget.

[Skutai]

If you can disarm an opponent while still remaining armed yourself, then more power to you. Some things you should understand though:

1. Making yourself intentionally unarmed, in my book, should be forbidden. It goes against the spirit of the rule that "a fighter shall not deliberately strike a helpless opponent." If you are unarmed, how can I strike you and still fight in a chivalrous manner?

2. If you disarm an opponent then they become helpless and cannot be struck.


Personally I never willfully disarm an opponent. I want their best. It makes their defeat sweeter.

[Ceddie]

If you can disarm an opponent while still remaining armed yourself, then more power to you. Some things you should understand though:

1. Making yourself intentionally unarmed, in my book, should be forbidden. It goes against the spirit of the rule that "a fighter shall not deliberately strike a helpless opponent." If you are unarmed, how can I strike you and still fight in a chivalrous manner?

2. If you disarm an opponent then they become helpless and cannot be struck.


Personally I never willfully disarm an opponent. I want their best. It makes their defeat sweeter.

Not having a weapon (in a melee) doesn't make you helpless, it limits your effectiveness, there is a difference.

[Skutai]

I'm not a marshall, so can only speak for my own opinion, but I respectfully disagree.

From the marshall's handbook:

Any fighter who obtains an unfair advantage by repeatedly becoming "helpless" (e.g. by falling down or losing his or her weapon) may, after being duly warned by the marshals on the field, be forced to yield the fight...


I see spear grabbing by unarmed fighters occasionally, and it's been allowed for years, so I know I'm fighting against custom. But if you approach me unarmed I can't, in good conscience, strike you. I believe you have a responsibility to arm yourself or get off the field.

[Maeryk]

From the marshall's handbook:

Any fighter who obtains an unfair advantage by repeatedly becoming "helpless" (e.g. by falling down or losing his or her weapon) may, after being duly warned by the marshals on the field, be forced to yield the fight...

Dude.. in a melee if you throw your sword at me, I can beat you like a harpseal legally.

You are confusing melee and tournament.

You drop it in tournament, you are allowed to hold to pick it up. You drop it in melee.. you are a target.

Maeryk

[Skutai]

You must have a different version of the Marshall's Handbook. Mine doesn't have a seperate "Behavior on the field" section for melees and tournaments. It's true that what you say is the custom, and I've stated my understanding of that fact already.

[Maeryk]

You must have a different version of the Marshall's Handbook. Mine doesn't have a seperate "Behavior on the field" section for melees and tournaments. It's true that what you say is the custom, and I've stated my understanding of that fact already.

That is because you are not reading it correctly.

In a tournament loss of your weapon renders you helpless.

In a melee loss of your weapon DOES NOT render you helpless.

Theffore the "often renders themselves helpless" applies in tournament to dropping yoru weapon AND/OR falling, and in melees only to falling intentionally.

See?

Maeryk

[Skutai]

In a tournament loss of your weapon renders you helpless.

In a melee loss of your weapon DOES NOT render you helpless.

You've said that twice now. Can you point to a specific rule that makes that distinction? I'm not saying it's not there, but I haven't found it.

[Ceddie]

Let's say we meet in a melee (I use sword and shield ) and you and yours press my line. An arrow from God knows where takes my sword arm but I still have my shield and I keep it between you and my spearman, am I helpless? I've made the choice to not arm myself.

[Skutai]

You haven't intentionally thrown your weapon away, but been hit by a telling blow. That seems very much different from engaging the enemy with no weapon whatsoever, and seeking to similarly disarm your opponents. Again, opinion.

[Maeryk]

CM5. A fighter who has lost his weapon during a melee is not considered helpless, and a "hold" will not be called.

From EAst Kingdom combat conventions.. (YMMV)

http://www.eastkingdom.org/Law/earlmarshal.html

Maeryk

[Skutai]

I'm not in the East.

Anyway, to cut to the chase, the Marshall's handbook does lay out, explicitly, that helplessness in contingent on circumstances outside the fighter's control. So, an intentionally unarmed opponent is not technically helpless. Searching the PDF for the word answered that question.

I'm still against it, in the spirit of the contest.

[Ceddie]

You haven't intentionally thrown your weapon away, but been hit by a telling blow. That seems very much different from engaging the enemy with no weapon whatsoever, and seeking to similarly disarm your opponents. Again, opinion.

I can see where your coming from, I don't agree with it but I can accept that we differ in our opinions

[Animal]

If you put aside the split hairs, it's still pussy. If I saw someone doing that in a melee I was in I'd crash the wall just to whoop his ass. Just sayin.

[Ewan]

If you put aside the split hairs, it's still pussy. If I saw someone doing that in a melee I was in I'd crash the wall just to whoop his ass. Just sayin.

heee heee

Just as Jehan has his place in reminding us of our duties so does the inimitable Animal. They simply use different methods.

[jester]

If you can disarm an opponent while still remaining armed yourself, then more power to you. Some things you should understand though:

1. Making yourself intentionally unarmed, in my book, should be forbidden. It goes against the spirit of the rule that "a fighter shall not deliberately strike a helpless opponent." If you are unarmed, how can I strike you and still fight in a chivalrous manner?

2. If you disarm an opponent then they become helpless and cannot be struck.


Personally I never willfully disarm an opponent. I want their best. It makes their defeat sweeter.

Here you go Skutai:

From the Atlantian Conventions of Combat
3.6.1.9.2.4 In a melee, a weaponless fighter may be attacked.

As to disarming... If you disarm your opponent then you have demonstrated superior skill, in my book, regardless of who ends up 'winning' the encounter. Also, disarming your opponent shows a certain style.

[Asbjorn Johansen]

I'm still against it, in the spirit of the contest.

Be aware that you may be adding a modern interpretation of the spirit of the contest.

I can find no evidence that striking a disarmed opponent (assuming a fair contest) was consistently frowned upon in the time period of study – unless it was a specific rule agreed to beforehand. In fact I think that the act of doing so might bring renown.

[Maeryk]

Hey, Animal.. how do you feel about people who overzealously use the shield hook on their polearm on a shield wielded by a _large_ person who manages to yank the pole out of their hands?

How bout crappy spearman whose hafts end up two rows back into the enemy line and they are fumbling for their recovery?

Seriously.

Maeryk

[Uneg]

In a tournament loss of your weapon renders you helpless.

In a melee loss of your weapon DOES NOT render you helpless.

It looks like Atlantia differs a little bit, there.

3.6.1.12.7 A defenseless combatant may not be struck. In single combat, defenseless is defined as having no weapons in hand. In melees, defenseless is having no weapons and no shield in hand.

Of course this seems at first glance to be in direct opposition to where it says:

3.6.1.9.2.4 In a melee, a weaponless fighter may be attacked.

However, the second rule listed is under "Calling a Hold" and is probably designed as a guideline to marshals, whereas the first rule listed here is under "3.6.1.12 Engagement. " and stipulates "These rules apply to melee combat only.".

[Uneg]

Hey, Animal.. how do you feel about people who overzealously use the shield hook on their polearm on a shield wielded by a _large_ person who manages to yank the pole out of their hands?

How bout crappy spearman whose hafts end up two rows back into the enemy line and they are fumbling for their recovery?

Seriously.

Maeryk

Well, both of those are slightly different cases, now aren't they?

In the first case, the poleman is in direct conflict with someone and loses his weapon. In the second, he's overextended and dropped his weapon (if I'm reading that correctly).

In neither case is it someone who has chosen to "sit down behind haybails (sic) or the shield wall and grab at spears".

If you lose your weapon to an honorable opponent (or due to your own fumbling), then so be it. But to have your weapon taken by someone not actively participating in the combat?

Want to rest? Go sit on the sidelines. Don't half-play. Just my opinion.

[Maeryk]

Well, both of those are slightly different cases, now aren't they?

Thats why I asked. I wondered if those in opposition make a distinction between someone, say, in the line itself grabbing spears and yanking, vs someone "hiding" and doing it, or if its just the act of the grab and yank thats the issue.

Maeryk

[Uneg]

Well, both of those are slightly different cases, now aren't they?

Thats why I asked. I wondered if those in opposition make a distinction between someone, say, in the line itself grabbing spears and yanking, vs someone "hiding" and doing it, or if its just the act of the grab and yank thats the issue.

Maeryk

Ah. Sorry, I misunderstood!

[Animal]

No, the grab and yank isnt the thing that I have a problem with at all. I've taken spears from people in melees before. Its the 'hiding behind a wall' for the express purpose of doing that that is pussy.
I realize it's as open to personal interpretation as anything else but that's just how it hits me.

[Maeryk]

No, the grab and yank isnt the thing that I have a problem with at all. I've taken spears from people in melees before. Its the 'hiding behind a wall' for the express purpose of doing that that is pussy.
I realize it's as open to personal interpretation as anything else but that's just how it hits me.

Yup. I agree. Same way I feel about people in scenario battles who are firing "wildly" through windows or doorways they shouldnt be able to see through, or throwign scorpions over the wall at the castle battles.

If you dont have eye contact or at least the ABILITY to have eye contact, you shouldnt be doing it.

Maeryk

[D. Sebastian]

I'm with Animal's post above (hence my edit in my own post).


Its one thing to expose yourself to attack in an atempt to grab a weapon**
Its quite another to put yourself in a position where you can't see your opponent and try to take their weapon. THAT is against the spirit of our combat. You cannot in anyway justify that engagemet.



(**I understand grabbing a polearm to kill the opponent - then he leaves the field with his property. When you take someones spear, what guarentee do you give them that they will get their property back at all? What guarentee do they have that they will get it back in the condition it was in before it was taken? When you take something from someone without permission, there's a word for that in Civilian and Federal Law. If it was me who got my spear taken, I can't afford to loose a $30 piece of fiberglass, so now I'm taken out of the game and have to go get my property back. Is that right?)