Page 2 of 2
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:35 am
by St. George
There are two questions to the "force level":
1) Will the blow cut through the "armor standard" of the SCA
2) If not, is that blow hard enough to incapacitate someone anyway?
The following quotes are from the handbook:
[u]When judging the effect of blows, all fighters are presumed to be fully armored.
All “fully armoredâ€
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 8:53 am
by Signo
Maybe I'm interpreting you wrong Duke, but if the fight was for real, you would aim to different places than we do. "We*" would aim for articulations and joints, we would thrust between lames. Instead we purposely hit our opponent differently, and safely. I think this is a consideration that is often omitted.
* Even if I never practiced the SCA, those are the same aspect we face.
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:31 am
by Vitus von Atzinger
Let's examine the armour standard for a second. Properly hardened leather leg and arm defences can be cut. Is it easy? Nope.
But Paul B., Gavin or Bedford (or Duke Alaric BTW) smashing you in the ribs while you are wearing a chain hauberk and gambeson? You are in serious trouble. Go ahead and try it. Go ahead. You won't die..you will just go to the hospital.
An open-faced iron helmet with nasal? The face thrust is deadly. Face cuts are deadly (read Joinville). Cuts to the neck and collarbone below the helmet line? You have serious problems. Cuts behind the cuisse? Potentially fatal.
We are talking about Conquest-era here as the armour standard. The golden age of chivalry was the "Age of Mail" as so many scholars have called it.
Rattan is fun because it lets you get away with alot of iffy technique. That's the fun part.
Again, the guys who have learned perfect body mechanics and edge placement through SCA combat would be deadly in combat during the Age of Mail.
Some Dukes hit flat alot...just as many don't. Some NEVER hit flat. These guys are truly dangerous on the medieval scale of things.
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:47 am
by Conrad the Mad
well said.
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 11:15 am
by Kilkenny
Signo wrote:Maybe I'm interpreting you wrong Duke, but if the fight was for real, you would aim to different places than we do. "We*" would aim for articulations and joints, we would thrust between lames. Instead we purposely hit our opponent differently, and safely. I think this is a consideration that is often omitted.
* Even if I never practiced the SCA, those are the same aspect we face.
Signo, I might choose different targets. I might just hit the guy in his bare head hard enough to have to pull my sword out of his hip.
What I *would not do* is try to use "just enough force" to do the job.
This is the heart of my point. In a real fight, you're not going to hit the other fellow as though he were your friend that you were trying not to hurt.
At least, if you want to come out of the fight in one piece, you're not.
I'm a bit surprised at how much difficulty people are having stepping outside of "training mode" to reach the actual subject I'm trying to address.
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 11:25 am
by Signo
I would not compare professionals and hobbist with 700 years of void between.
I'm more prone to think that an "average" medieval knight could slice most part of us modern reenactors or scadians (is this the term?). It is just silly to compare such different worlds, or to believe that some of us could be so proficient to defeat a REAL fighter.
Do you really think that hit hard and fast is enough? What about al the techniques that he master and we barely know the existence?
What about the daily training from childhood to adult age, the support of masters and real warfare?
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 11:25 am
by DukeAvery
Great thread. I would argue if I saw something that needed disputing.
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 11:33 am
by Signo
Kilkenny wrote:Signo wrote:Maybe I'm interpreting you wrong Duke, but if the fight was for real, you would aim to different places than we do. "We*" would aim for articulations and joints, we would thrust between lames. Instead we purposely hit our opponent differently, and safely. I think this is a consideration that is often omitted.
* Even if I never practiced the SCA, those are the same aspect we face.
Signo, I might choose different targets. I might just hit the guy in his bare head hard enough to have to pull my sword out of his hip.
What I *would not do* is try to use "just enough force" to do the job.
This is the heart of my point. In a real fight, you're not going to hit the other fellow as though he were your friend that you were trying not to hurt.
At least, if you want to come out of the fight in one piece, you're not.
I'm a bit surprised at how much difficulty people are having stepping outside of "training mode" to reach the actual subject I'm trying to address.
I understand you explanation, I just think this is just one of several ways to achieve the job. Personally, in an lightly or unarmoured duel, I would choose another aproach, and I think many of us would use different aproach to the problem.
For an armoured duel there is halfswording.
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 11:57 am
by DukeAvery
More interestingly, it offers significant new avenues of inquiry into what constitutes a martial art.
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:20 pm
by J.G.Elmslie
Signo wrote:I would not compare professionals and hobbist with 700 years of void between.
I'm more prone to think that an "average" medieval knight could slice most part of us modern reenactors or scadians (is this the term?). It is just silly to compare such different worlds, or to believe that some of us could be so proficient to defeat a REAL fighter.
Do you really think that hit hard and fast is enough? What about al the techniques that he master and we barely know the existence?
What about the daily training from childhood to adult age, the support of masters and real warfare?
an inherent difference is that SCA is a martial sport, and thus has rules.
real martial arts do not have rules.
a real fighter, transported from 1400, would not hesitate to step in closer, hook a leg around your ankle, send you onto the ground, and plunge a dagger into your unarmoured armpit, or visor. they would'nt hesitate to grapple your sword, wrench it out of your grasp, slam a pommel in your face to stun you. they would'nt even pause to reconsider trapping your sword hand, stepping round, and wrenching your arm right out of its socket. a kick in the balls does'nt even bother to be considered - if it's there, you're getting an armoured poleyn in the cods full force.. all those sort of things which are'nt even touched upon in sport combat, and are not used fully in martial arts
why? because the only rule of real warfare is "your opponent is left incapable of killing you. by any means". SCA and WMA practice alike are no more analogous to real combat, as range shooting is to street battles in Iraq in 2003.
no sport can have that degree of brutality, no martial art practiced for reenactment or hobby can be wound up to 11 to expereience what it was really like, simply because the techniques used are
lethal. Murder is not a hobby.
to compare a modern sport combatant with the professionals of the period 6-7 centuries past is like comparing you or I sitting in a car, with a grand prix driver in thier car, because we're both driving.
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:22 pm
by Christian H. Tobler
Hi Gavin,
Kilkenny wrote:What I *would not do* is try to use "just enough force" to do the job.
While I agree, I'd say you don't 100% though. If you strike with maximum commitment, it's very hard to change trajectories on the fly, say if your opponent strikes roughly simultaneously and you must now provide cover. In the unarmoured scenario, it's not "I hit him harder than he hit me", it's "to strike and not be struck".
And there are no light strikes to an unarmoured head; I have personal experience with this (kids, don't try this at home!
). I was once helping another instructor demonstrate a technique and he accidentally hit me, right above my right eye (close shave, yes). This was a blunt single-handed sword, struck using, perhaps, 1/4 power. I bled like a stuck pig and I was senseless for 3 seconds. In a real fight, several more blows would've rained down on me in that time. That's assuming the first didn't outright kill me, struck hard and with a sharp.
The 'real' fight without harness requires control, but for different reasons. It's not about not hurting the guy, but rather preserving your options, at least while you're in wide measure. Once you've closed and are past his point, I agree you can deliver all the goods you want.
Cheers,
CHT
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:26 pm
by Giraut
Our ancestors didn't use round sticks.
They used swords. With razor sharp edges.
No need to use as much force as possible.
No need for baseball-swings, no need for using a sword like a mace.
Every school of fencing / swordsmanship in the world teaches their pupils to use as little power as possible. The first thing you learn is to get the power out of your moves und to learn the proper way of hitting without too much power. SCA is the only system that does it the other way round and teaches to use as much power as possible. I'm not really sure, if all the other systems and traditions in the world are wrong and only SCA is right.
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:27 pm
by DukeAvery
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_arts
Martial arts or fighting arts[1] are systems of codified practices and traditions of training for combat. While they may be studied for various reasons, martial arts share a single objective: to physically defeat other persons and to defend oneself or others from physical threat. In addition, some martial arts are linked to beliefs such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, Confucianism or Shinto while others follow a particular code of honor. Many arts are also practiced competitively, most commonly as combat sports, but may also take the form of dance.
...
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 1:40 pm
by Wat of Sarum
Giraut wrote:
Every school of fencing / swordsmanship in the world teaches their pupils to use as little power as possible.
Giraut, would you say all these other schools are teaching fencing with the intent of defeating an armoured opponent or and unarmoured opponent? The distinctions would seem large to me, and very pertinent to the conversation.
Second, would you consider Olympic fencing to be teaching to use as little power as possible? I am uneducated, but the explosiveness and speed of the lunges seem to be all about power, combined of course with accuracy.
Respectfully,
Wat
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 2:07 pm
by Signo
I agree with Christian Tobler, I could not have explained better what I had in mind.
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 2:27 pm
by audax
Signo wrote:I would not compare professionals and hobbist with 700 years of void between.
I'm more prone to think that an "average" medieval knight could slice most part of us modern reenactors or scadians (is this the term?). It is just silly to compare such different worlds, or to believe that some of us could be so proficient to defeat a REAL fighter.
Do you really think that hit hard and fast is enough? What about al the techniques that he master and we barely know the existence?
What about the daily training from childhood to adult age, the support of masters and real warfare?
Signo, many of us are real fighters. With real life experience of fighting people who were trying to really kill us.
Just because I do SCA for fun doesn't mean I've never fought in earnest.
And yes I mean in warfare and on the streets where there are no rules about what and where I can hit.
Before you spew this crap, how about not making assumptions, hmm?
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 2:44 pm
by Signo
If your fighting mean shooting people and blowing things , kudos, but doesn't apply. If you used to stab people with a dagger, then kudos to you, it apply.
How many people do you have killed in hand to hand combat? If at least one, then I can give you the title of "fighter with direct experience" otherwise not.
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 2:48 pm
by Signo
Other than trowing free crap on my feet what was the purpose of your comment? Are you one of those that think that could have ass slapped the black prince when he was 16? With the power of rattan and SCA?
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 2:53 pm
by Leo Medii
Signo wrote:Other than trowing free crap on my feet what was the purpose of your comment? Are you one of those that think that could have ass slapped the black prince when he was 16? With the power of rattan and SCA?
I think I would stomp the snot out of some real medieval people. But, I
am them, just damn big and strong compared to most of them.
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 2:53 pm
by Maeryk
What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men.
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:02 pm
by audax
Signo wrote:Other than trowing free crap on my feet what was the purpose of your comment? Are you one of those that think that could have ass slapped the black prince when he was 16? With the power of rattan and SCA?
God, Signo, do you have to be such a fool? Really?
Did I say anything at all about ass slapping the Black Prince? What kind of idiotic crap is that?
I have fought hand to hand on the streets and in the military using real weapons and I managed to walk away in one piece, which is the real goal of anyone who has been in actual combat. I managed to keep my troops alive during some really hairy situations. Sometimes I used firearms, sometimes I used blades and sometimes I used nothing but my hands. If that is not real life experience to you, you are a complete fuckwit unworthy of any further conversation.
Whether or not I've killed someone is none of your business and certainly nothing I'm going to discuss over the Internet, for a number of reasons.
The point of my comment is that you in your comment make huge assumptions about the life experiences of members of the SCA just because we use rattan and aren't really trying to kill each other in our sport. The one does not preclude the other.
Get it?
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:04 pm
by Kilkenny
Signo wrote:I would not compare professionals and hobbist with 700 years of void between.
I'm more prone to think that an "average" medieval knight could slice most part of us modern reenactors or scadians (is this the term?). It is just silly to compare such different worlds, or to believe that some of us could be so proficient to defeat a REAL fighter.
Do you really think that hit hard and fast is enough? What about al the techniques that he master and we barely know the existence?
What about the daily training from childhood to adult age, the support of masters and real warfare?
Is this directed at my topic ? Serious question, since I don't believe I've suggested, in the least, any comparison of our competence today in their skills when the arts we're attempting to rediscover were live.
I'm addressing modern students and the matter of a divergence of opinion as to what should be studied and how that, at times and in some cases, produces a major division between two camps (rattan and steel) that is counter productive for all concerned.
SCA fighters use more force than should be used with steel against friends. I absolutely believe and accept that. The repeated assertion that SCA fighters use more force than should be used with steel in earnest, is, I believe, a fallacy. Inherent in the fallacy is a belief some people hold that SCA fighters are not in control because of the force we're using.
Consider the following hypothetical situation:
Two fencers meet for a bout. They are of equal skill in all regards. One fencer is younger and has better reaction time, the other (obviously) older and with slower reaction time. The older fencer will have his work cut out for him to win, simply because of the difference in reaction time.
Now, consider two different fencers, again of equal skill in all regards. This time they are also evenly matched in their reflexes. But one of them is quite significantly stronger. Is it not the case that the stronger person will have the advantage here ? Remember that strength is the only difference between the two, otherwise all things are equal.
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:05 pm
by mordreth
Saritor wrote:Kilkenny wrote:I'm addressing the legitimacy of both working at lower levels of force, as the steel users need to in order not to break their toys and working at higher levels of force as the rattan users are able to without hurting their toys.
Like I stated above, your applications of the force are going to be different, if you're trying to simulate a real cut, and the change in the way you apply the force is going to change the blow itself.
Part of rattan combat, for example, also relies on the rebound of the sword strike channeled in to momentum for the next shot, regardless of what you strike with it. With steel, wearing armor or otherwise, you're dealing with more of a change of direction/deflection of the blade, or even Silver's "lying spent".
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not just a difference in the level of force used, but also a difference in the application of the force you're able to bring to bear.
If you add a layer of rags in between your wooden shield, and the edging the rattan sword "sticks" to the shield.
Kind of funny the first time an opponent doesn't get the dead cat bounce back on his sword
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:11 pm
by mordreth
Suzerain wrote:Signo wrote:I would not compare professionals and hobbist with 700 years of void between.
I'm more prone to think that an "average" medieval knight could slice most part of us modern reenactors or scadians (is this the term?). It is just silly to compare such different worlds, or to believe that some of us could be so proficient to defeat a REAL fighter.
Do you really think that hit hard and fast is enough? What about al the techniques that he master and we barely know the existence?
What about the daily training from childhood to adult age, the support of masters and real warfare?
an inherent difference is that SCA is a martial sport, and thus has rules.
real martial arts do not have rules.
a real fighter, transported from 1400, would not hesitate to step in closer, hook a leg around your ankle, send you onto the ground, and plunge a dagger into your unarmoured armpit, or visor. they would'nt hesitate to grapple your sword, wrench it out of your grasp, slam a pommel in your face to stun you. they would'nt even pause to reconsider trapping your sword hand, stepping round, and wrenching your arm right out of its socket. a kick in the balls does'nt even bother to be considered - if it's there, you're getting an armoured poleyn in the cods full force.. all those sort of things which are'nt even touched upon in sport combat, and are not used fully in martial arts
why? because the only rule of real warfare is "your opponent is left incapable of killing you. by any means". SCA and WMA practice alike are no more analogous to real combat, as range shooting is to street battles in Iraq in 2003.
no sport can have that degree of brutality, no martial art practiced for reenactment or hobby can be wound up to 11 to expereience what it was really like, simply because the techniques used are
lethal. Murder is not a hobby.
to compare a modern sport combatant with the professionals of the period 6-7 centuries past is like comparing you or I sitting in a car, with a grand prix driver in thier car, because we're both driving.
years ago at a demo a member of the crowd asked how close we were to a real fight, a friend of mine answered that we were close but his first attack would be to the ankle, instep, or big toe - the real fight to start once his opponent is limping.
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:52 pm
by Signo
Ok Kilkenny, understood your point, Fiore dei Liberi indicate which characteristics make a good fencer, obviosly the one that integrate them better is the most probable winner. Now I can't find them on his book, but if I remember, there are strength, reflexes, courage and at leat another.
Audax, ok, you field experience is infinite more than mine (0) but there was not need to be harsh. Can your experience bring some constructive point to the topic? What is your opinion? Strong or fast? What are the priority in a real situation? To end it faster or to end it safer?
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 4:04 pm
by audax
Signo wrote:Ok Kilkenny, understood your point, Fiore dei Liberi indicate which characteristics make a good fencer, obviosly the one that integrate them better is the most probable winner. Now I can't find them on his book, but if I remember, there are strength, reflexes, courage and at leat another.
Audax, ok, you field experience is infinite more than mine (0) but there was not need to be harsh. Can your experience bring some constructive point to the topic? What is your opinion? Strong or fast? What are the priority in a real situation? To end it faster or to end it safer?
IN real life over fast is better than anything else. The longer you are engaged the more likely you are to get hurt or killed. HIt hard, hit fast as many times as necessary to end it without taking damage. Arm yourself if you can, make use of anything in your environment to give yourself the advantage.
The most important thing is to walk away alive and with minimal injury.
I aplogize for harshing on you.
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 4:13 pm
by mordreth
audax wrote:Signo wrote:Ok Kilkenny, understood your point, Fiore dei Liberi indicate which characteristics make a good fencer, obviosly the one that integrate them better is the most probable winner. Now I can't find them on his book, but if I remember, there are strength, reflexes, courage and at leat another.
Audax, ok, you field experience is infinite more than mine (0) but there was not need to be harsh. Can your experience bring some constructive point to the topic? What is your opinion? Strong or fast? What are the priority in a real situation? To end it faster or to end it safer?
IN real life over fast is better than anything else. The longer you are engaged the more likely you are to get hurt or killed. HIt hard, hit fast as many times as necessary to end it without taking damage. Arm yourself if you can, make use of anything in your environment to give yourself the advantage.
The most important thing is to walk away alive and with minimal injury.
I aplogize for harshing on you.
wham and scram.
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 6:05 pm
by LucasMaxwell
I think there is even ground here people, gavin is indicating he would wack somebody as hard as he can while maintaining control. It is just after a few years of throwing stick that control with force is mostly likely bumped up a notch. And that blade is going to be coming in fast and hard.
At the same time we know the medieval sword is not a cudgel and is devastating either by edge or by thrust and doesn’t need to be brought down with all the force you can muster to be deadly. In fact spending anytime with sharp replicas will teach you how truly scary the power is of these blades.
I have said before and will say it again (all be with different examples), neither points are proof against each other.
There will be times you need to hit hard, there will be times your cut is probe that will move into another or a thrust.
There will be no conclusive answer to this question, as the question is not specific enough.