The Armour Archive

This is from the corporate level book in the section on one handed weapons.

6. Swords shall have a hand guard, such as a basket hilt, quillions, or equivalent.

That would render both of these sword styles illegal.
http://www.russianswords.com/sword051A.jpg
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f181/ ... G_3773.jpg

Now I would consider gauntlets to fulfill the spirit and intent of the rule, but according to this, your sword still needs quillions even if you have a gauntlet on.

Why does a sword need quillions or basket hilt and an axe or mace does not?

My GUESS is that it was written that way to keep people from just coming on to the field with a taped up stick and looking like crap.

Uric

Blackoak wrote:My GUESS is that it was written that way to keep people from just coming on to the field with a taped up stick and looking like crap.

Uric

LOL! The rules have never cared if you looked like crap.

Probably to keep people from getting hurt in someone's bubblewrapped mind.

6. Swords shall have a hand guard, such as a basket hilt, quillions, or equivalent.

I would argue that a guantlet *is* a "hand guard". Using a wrist strap/lanyard/trigger (required) would affix said hand guard to the sword, making it legal.

And besides, if you got a jerk marshal, you can always run it up the flagpole (rule #5).

But that would mean that the rule considers quillions the equivalent of gauntlets. We both know they are not.

What some have done that I've seen is to make (usually from tape) about a quarter inch 'guard'.

they are for our game, since we don't target the hands.

blackbow

Vladimir wrote:But that would mean that the rule considers quillions the equivalent of gauntlets. We both know they are not.

We require 1/2" here, I think. It helps people know whether they are holding onto the hilt or blade, and these same people (that DO exist ) don't notice which side of the blade they are hitting with.

That rule has literally been around for decades. It was around when I was new twenty years ago, and the general reason for it, I was told, was that it was a hold over from "The Old Tsuba days" which we kept because swords generally look less good without it.

I have, a few times, just wrapped a piece of strapping leather around the top of the guard, and nailed it down. Usually more than one time.

It works. It's easy.

f

It works, it's easy... but sometimes, the steel equivalent had no guard. My seax, for instance...

freiman the minstrel wrote:
It works. It's easy.

Long ago a famous Duke came to my town to fight in a tourney.

I saw that he had a "sword" with no guard of any kind on it.

Respect for famous Duke went through the floor.

"Ooooh he's so fast."

A guy with almost no armour on with a taped-up drinking straw?

Whatever! Luckily he left us to go study "serious" WMArts.

Then Cuan came to my town and I felt better.

freiman the minstrel wrote:That rule has literally been around for decades. It was around when I was new twenty years ago, and the general reason for it, I was told, was that it was a hold over from "The Old Tsuba days" which we kept because swords generally look less good without it.

I have, a few times, just wrapped a piece of strapping leather around the top of the guard, and nailed it down. Usually more than one time.

It works. It's easy.

f

Try 30+ years. Its been on the books since I started in 1980. Back then there were almost no basket hilts. Almost everything was a cross-hilt made of split rattan taped across the sword. Things were simpler then...

Vladimir wrote:But that would mean that the rule considers quillions the equivalent of gauntlets. We both know they are not.

I don't think quillions are equivalent to gauntlets. I do however think that gauntlets are equivalent to quillions, at least in the realm of the term "hand guard."

Like the logic statement: "All x's are y's, but not all y's are x's." All gauntlets are hand guards/quillions, but not all hand guards are gauntlets.

-Ramius

I agree. If you are wearing gauntlets and a sword with no guard you should be fine. I see no problem with it. I just think the wording is off.

Hand protection is already covered by another rule where they discuss basket hilts and gauntlets. But, for this one, if hand guard = gauntlet that would mean...

Swords shall have a gauntlet, such as a basket hilt, quillions, or equivalent.

Here hand guard = gauntlet = basket hilt = quillions.

The reason I'm being so nitpicky is that I have just made a shaped seax 26 inches long, a sword by SCA standards. I don't want some picky marshal to bounce it because it doesn't have a guard built in even though I'm wearing gauntlets.

Carry a picture of a real seax tell him "It's a this!"

If that doesn't satisfy him, carry about a foot of garden hose and some twine, tie it on get past inspection then, when performing your salutes, apologize, loudly for the goofy crap tied to your sword.

I think I'll wrap a couple layers of electrical tape around the top of the handle.

There is no rule stating the minimum size for a guard, except for it going into a bar grill.

My best bet might be to claim it isn't a sword, its a big honkin' knife. No rule about guards on knives.

I've never known a time without that rule. To find out why it was written might require a seance, as the author passed on some years ago.

Despite Maeryk's smartass response, it is my belief that the rule is absolutely intended to address appearance, rather than being a safety measure.

Why do I believe this ? Well.. I had the chance to talk with Edwin Bersark before he passed on. It was his opinion that we had made a mistake in not permitting the targeting of hands. Since the man believed we should be allowed to hit one another in the hands, I really doubt that he would have pushed for guards on swords as a safety measure.

Now, it's also possible that I'm wrong, and Edwin wasn't responsible for the rule.. but I believe it goes back to his tenure as Marshal of the Society.

Now, were I an inspecting marshal and someone came to me with their nice little seax and their good quality gauntlets, I would merrily consider the gauntlets "equivalent" to the guard and let them go play.

Maeryk wrote:LOL! The rules have never cared if you looked like crap.

Maybe in <i>your</i> kingdom.

Kingdom of Caid Armoured Combat Handbook wrote:H. Appearance on the Field
1. All participants on the field should appear as a reasonable example of a warrior or person from the SCA’s period of study. Exceptions should be made to err on the side of safety, and in keeping with the spirit and intentions of the educational goals of the SCA, while allowing for modern world needs and constraints of the individual.

2. Unacceptable items include uncovered carpet armor, undisguised sports gear, "blue jeans", military type fatigues, obviously-modern footwear, undisguised hockey gloves and all other undisguised equipment clearly "modern" in nature. This also includes items displaying visible commercial logos and bumper stickers.

-Derian.

That rule has been in place in Caid since about 1982ish.

freiman the minstrel wrote:That rule has literally been around for decades.

Vlasta wrote:Its been on the books since I started in 1980. Back then there were almost no basket hilts. Almost everything was a cross-hilt made of split rattan taped across the sword. Things were simpler then...

It was in place when I started fighting in 1974 (AS IX). As you say, basket hilts were long in the future. Cross guards were almost universal, except for a few who used Japanese style tsubas. Some made sabre-type bow guards of rattan (I had one such) or cut from rubber tires, or heavily-taped heater hose (I had one such.)

One time my cross-guard slid down the blade part of my sword, transforming it into a hammer. But it wasn't legal because the guard was made of hardwood, not rattan.

Bad rule. Is it from the welding glove days?
I doubt it would be strictly enforced anywhere.

Kingdom of Caid Armoured Combat Handbook wrote:H. Appearance on the Field
1. All participants on the field should appear as a reasonable example of a warrior or person from the SCA’s period of study. Exceptions should be made to err on the side of safety, and in keeping with the spirit and intentions of the educational goals of the SCA, while allowing for modern world needs and constraints of the individual.

2. Unacceptable items include uncovered carpet armor, undisguised sports gear, "blue jeans", military type fatigues, obviously-modern footwear, undisguised hockey gloves and all other undisguised equipment clearly "modern" in nature. This also includes items displaying visible commercial logos and bumper stickers.

Isn't that the new rule (For Aethelmearc at least) regarding appearances? The one that carries the caveat "Don't be a dick"?

Some made sabre-type bow guards of rattan (I had one such) or cut from rubber tires, or heavily-taped heater hose

I totally never thought of that! What are the material requirements for such a sabre guard? Metal like crossguards have to be, and sized so they don't enter helmets?

Isn't that the new rule (For Aethelmearc at least) regarding appearances?

Yes, basically. It's not a new rule. They're just enforcing it more strictly.

Kilkenny wrote:I've never known a time without that rule. To find out why it was written might require a seance, as the author passed on some years ago.

Despite Maeryk's smartass response, it is my belief that the rule is absolutely intended to address appearance, rather than being a safety measure.

Why do I believe this ? Well.. I had the chance to talk with Edwin Bersark before he passed on. It was his opinion that we had made a mistake in not permitting the targeting of hands. Since the man believed we should be allowed to hit one another in the hands, I really doubt that he would have pushed for guards on swords as a safety measure.

Now, it's also possible that I'm wrong, and Edwin wasn't responsible for the rule.. but I believe it goes back to his tenure as Marshal of the Society.

Now, were I an inspecting marshal and someone came to me with their nice little seax and their good quality gauntlets, I would merrily consider the gauntlets "equivalent" to the guard and let them go play.

It could have been written by Earl Kevin Perigryn. He was the West Kingdom Martial for many many years, wrote (I think) the first Martial's Handbook, and was very influential in setting up the martialate in the SCA. IIRC the rule was written before rigid hand protection was a requirement.