The Armour Archive

the top and sides of a helm are considered proof against thrusts so its not illegal at all to duck into a thrust.

we havent had any notable injury counts from people turning their heads to avoid a face thrust so the "safety" argument fails.

the wording states helm (full), not helmet (small, cap). either way why dont those who presume a skull cap also take a much lighter sword strike if its below the brow then?

i think i got all the things i wanted to respond to....... for now.....

regards
logan

Hahah, good one Logan, that premade Westie vs Other dude argument busted me up.

When I make my way out towards Estrella kingdoms I will, of course, play by whatever the local rules are, and if that includes thrusts to the side of the head, then cool I'll give it a try.

I never realized that y'all consider the 'assumed helm' to just be a skull cap. I read helm and thought, umm...helm. Silly me?

I'm still not sure I buy that argument though because like Logan said you take sword blows to the side of the head just as if it was armored.

What made the most sense to me was Sigifrith's explanation, which I took to mean 'It's a sport, these are just the rules we play with, sod the armor standard', rather than assuming a skullcap...or sillier, pretending a speartip would bust through an iron helm and skull.

And in closing...yes, mandatory shield elbows are retarded

dukelogan wrote:the top and sides of a helm are considered proof against thrusts so its not illegal at all to duck into a thrust.

I think us western kingdoms just think its wierd. But then you guys didn't allow face thrusts for years too, and you all have that "light light, excessive" thing going..

You know the West was the First Kingdom, so they are always right ...

-J

what?!!

for the record ive never once heard the "light light excessive" thing. not once. i always thought that was a western thing to be honest. in atlantia you would only hear "light light ooooffff.....".

but i really have never once heard that. i have had folks, from kingdoms i wont mention, tell me i hit them too hard so they werent taking it. oh boy, the next shot(s) usually ended up hurting me too. but only my joints and weapons.

regards
logan

FrauHirsch wrote:

dukelogan wrote:the top and sides of a helm are considered proof against thrusts so its not illegal at all to duck into a thrust.

I think us western kingdoms just think its wierd. But then you guys didn't allow face thrusts for years too, and you all have that "light light, excessive" thing going..

You know the West was the First Kingdom, so they are always right ...

-J

I've only heard the "Light light excessive" complaint about Pennsic and Gulf Wars. Its not from out this way..

ahhh. so now we have to wonder if it ever happens. ive never really seen any complaints at pennsic in the last 20 that ive attended. ive also never been to a gulf wars (15 total) that wasnt filled with complaints and whining. in all fairness they have been getting a little better over the last few years though.

regards
logan

FrauHirsch wrote:I've only heard the "Light light excessive" complaint about Pennsic and Gulf Wars. Its not from out this way..

dukelogan wrote: hit them too hard so they werent taking it.

What? Your shot was too good so i am not taking it? what the shit?

its happened to me three times over the years and ive heard, first hand, four or five other guys yell "thats too fucking hard!" and keep fighting. one i heard someone say that to someone else at pennsic, the rest were at gulf wars.

regards
logan

Agnarr wrote:

dukelogan wrote: hit them too hard so they werent taking it.

What? Your shot was too good so i am not taking it? what the shit?

Duke Marcus, while it is certainly true that the helmet in question most likely suffered from metal fatigue, no straps were blown, metal did not connect with skin and its weight were well within the standards. Since the injury suffered were to the neck, I believe that the various dents in the helmet did not lessen it's protection for this type of trauma. But I am not a Medical Doctor.

Duke Logan, I respectfully disagree with your comparison between welltrained martial artists gloved hands and untrained SCA spearmen.
First, the MMA's are prepared and ready, end have trained their bodies to withstand exactly that kind of trauma and it is usually delivered from the front. Sperthrusts in the SCA are usually to the front, but quite often they come in from an angle, and surprises the recipient who is not prepared. Added to this is the weight of the spear. Is this a true risk or a percieved one? well, I percieve one with my ontrained eye, but again I am not a MD.
Turning the side of the head increases the (by me) percieved risk, and is something I personally would label "target substitution".

Helms, Helmets and realism.
AFAIK helm is merely short for helmet, but that is beside the point. The point here is whether we are fighting with some sort of realistic recreation of a steel weapon fight in mind, and if we do that would explain why we act out wounds to the limbs.
Or are we doing a behourd, clubbing each other into submission? Accepting blows to a greathelm from a onehanded sword suggests that this is the case.
I personally percieve our system as training in a courtyard, preparing for war.
But I would love to see a definition of what we're really trying to recreate apart from fencing with sticks.

I believe that our rules are there to provide us with a fun and relatively safe environment to pursue our martial sport in.

So the question is:
How relatively safe do we want Heavy Combat to be?

Respectfully
Arngrim

dukelogan wrote:the wording states helm (full), not helmet (small, cap). either way why dont those who presume a skull cap also take a much lighter sword strike if its below the brow then?

i think i got all the things i wanted to respond to....... for now.....

regards
logan

Dude we do. We take very light shots to the head compared to what it would take to kill a man in a full helm with a sword.

Dietrich von Stroheim wrote:I'm still not sure I buy that argument though because like Logan said you take sword blows to the side of the head just as if it was armored.

Armored with padding and mail yes. Not plate. Enough to stop a slash but not enough to defeat a crushing blow. A "telling" blow. We take those as fight enders. We always have. It's the damned armor standard. Always has been regardless of whatever dumb words the handbook currently suggests. Logan of all people should not be holding up the marshals handbook and quoting it as gospel. Sorry your Grace but you know that is true and I just had to say it.

come on you know what im asking.

if you guys play as though the sides of the head are not covered and, therefore, vulnerable to a spear thrust to you also take shots to the sides and back of the head (below the brow line) that are much lighter than to the top? also, do you accept arrows to the sides and back of head as well?

either way the argument that "we are wearing skull caps" fails since you also take thrusts to the top of the head indicating that spears would peirce or defeat the skull cap. i think the line should be "we take spear thrusts to the top and sides because we beleive that a spear would defeat a helm". that would be more consistant although not nearly as beleivable as the sides and back (only) would be.


and, why wouldnt i hold up the marshals handbook? as poorly worded as it is and with as many silly rules as it contains it is the book i follow to the "t". and it says "helm" not "helmet" which i was merely pointing out when the armor standard was brought into the discussion.

again, i dont get the whole spear beats helm convention but i am wondering if arrows do as well and, if not, why.

regards
logan

Count Johnathan wrote:

dukelogan wrote:the wording states helm (full), not helmet (small, cap). either way why dont those who presume a skull cap also take a much lighter sword strike if its below the brow then?

i think i got all the things i wanted to respond to....... for now.....

regards
logan

Dude we do. We take very light shots to the head compared to what it would take to kill a man in a full helm with a sword.

Dietrich von Stroheim wrote:I'm still not sure I buy that argument though because like Logan said you take sword blows to the side of the head just as if it was armored.

Armored with padding and mail yes. Not plate. Enough to stop a slash but not enough to defeat a crushing blow. A "telling" blow. We take those as fight enders. We always have. It's the damned armor standard. Always has been regardless of whatever dumb words the handbook currently suggests. Logan of all people should not be holding up the marshals handbook and quoting it as gospel. Sorry your Grace but you know that is true and I just had to say it.

Duke Logan,

There have been many threads here on the archive discussing the "light light excessive" problems at Pennsic and GW over the years.

While it may not have been in your personal experience, I have also heard it from people from various western kingdoms who have traveled out to those wars. They have all been baffled by the concept.

I'm not saying everyone does it, but it has been brought up enough to become notable as a regional phenomenon.

-J

dukelogan wrote:come on you know what im asking.

if you guys play as though the sides of the head are not covered and, therefore, vulnerable to a spear thrust to you also take shots to the sides and back of the head (below the brow line) that are much lighter than to the top? also, do you accept arrows to the sides and back of head as well?

We don't. We play "YOU HIT ME IN THE HEAD".

For many years (up to the late 90s early 00s) the East Kingdom and Aethelmark didn't even explicitly HAVE the rule that thrusts to the side/top head were no good (the only Atlantian handbook I saw DID specify this... but I don't know/remember the date it was written). Even this this was always the practice there.

I think these handbooks have been updated recently.

Arrows do count to the whole head EXCEPT in the West where "plate" is proof (includes helms/closed faces of helms/metal plates on the body/limb overlapping or >4" square).

again, i dont get the whole spear beats helm convention

I may be mistaken, but I believe you ALSO don't get the "broadsword defeats mail" convention. But we all use it.

It's the "justification" of the convention that's stupid, not the practice.

I actually think it goes part-in-parcel with "light" face thrusts. You would NOT take a "East Kingdom" face thrust if it hit you in the top of the helm... it would be too light! But you would take a West Kingdom/Antir etc. thrust on the brow because it's HARD.

How are you supposed to deal with a 3" thrusting tip shot that hits you partially in the face and partially "outside"? Does it have to have a certain fraction of the tip area strike the face area? Or is it only the precise center of the tip that matters? What if you get hit with a thrust right at the jawline? Or an inch below (where your non-medieval bargrill would be impeding the the tip from hitting you in the neck?

oh no worries, i was simply talking about me (my favorite subject by the way) and what i have expierenced. not doubting you at all. it could be that i really do just hit so hard folks stagger off and fall down. maybe dark apprentice is right!!

regards
logan

FrauHirsch wrote:Duke Logan,

There have been many threads here on the archive discussing the "light light excessive" problems at Pennsic and GW over the years.

While it may not have been in your personal experience, I have also heard it from people from various western kingdoms who have traveled out to those wars. They have all been baffled by the concept.

I'm not saying everyone does it, but it has been brought up enough to become notable as a regional phenomenon.

-J

dukelogan wrote:the top and sides of a helm are considered proof against thrusts so its not illegal at all to duck into a thrust.

we havent had any notable injury counts from people turning their heads to avoid a face thrust so the "safety" argument fails.

the wording states helm (full), not helmet (small, cap). either way why dont those who presume a skull cap also take a much lighter sword strike if its below the brow then?

i think i got all the things i wanted to respond to....... for now.....

regards
logan

I'm all good either way, cause I likely won't be living out east anytime soon.

However, explain how the above practice is any different from lifting your shin into the way of a leg blow?

I know, the next comment will be "But it is Illegal to strike the shin but it legal to strike the side/top of a helm...it is just considered ineffective."

To my way of thinking there is very little difference and it is a very fine line.

Either way they are both just rules in the sport we play. :shrug:

Sigifrith Hauknefr wrote:

All of our regs are supposed to be about safety, right?

Rule VI. (Not "SEM Logan" rule 6... the one in the book about chivalry)

Ya but then they defined rule 6 just below the list of rule to mean not fightig with the intent of hurting anyone. Thats it

ive never said anything about swords and maille. must have me confused with some other sexy beast of a man!!

and, if any part of the 3" tip hits me in the face (as defined being the brow to the sideburns to the collarbone) then i accept it as a face thrust and so long as its hard enough i take it as a defeat. otherwise my helm would have done its job (if we fashion our sport at all towards real combat) and protected me.

i really dont care how we play so long as it requires skill to best someone. that is why i really dislike light blows. when i make it out west i will have to adjust to the head thrusts coming from all angles, the dfb, dead on the ground, all that stuff. it wont matter im sure as i feel certain the fighting will be hard and without whining.

regards
logan

Sigifrith Hauknefr wrote:

dukelogan wrote:come on you know what im asking.

if you guys play as though the sides of the head are not covered and, therefore, vulnerable to a spear thrust to you also take shots to the sides and back of the head (below the brow line) that are much lighter than to the top? also, do you accept arrows to the sides and back of head as well?

We don't. We play "YOU HIT ME IN THE HEAD".

For many years (up to the late 90s early 00s) the East Kingdom and Aethelmark didn't even explicitly HAVE the rule that thrusts to the side/top head were no good (the only Atlantian handbook I saw DID specify this... but I don't know/remember the date it was written). Even this this was always the practice there.

I think these handbooks have been updated recently.

Arrows do count to the whole head EXCEPT in the West where "plate" is proof (includes helms/closed faces of helms/metal plates on the body/limb overlapping or >4" square).

again, i dont get the whole spear beats helm convention

I may be mistaken, but I believe you ALSO don't get the "broadsword defeats mail" convention. But we all use it.

It's the "justification" of the convention that's stupid, not the practice.

I actually think it goes part-in-parcel with "light" face thrusts. You would NOT take a "East Kingdom" face thrust if it hit you in the top of the helm... it would be too light! But you would take a West Kingdom/Antir etc. thrust on the brow because it's HARD.

How are you supposed to deal with a 3" thrusting tip shot that hits you partially in the face and partially "outside"? Does it have to have a certain fraction of the tip area strike the face area? Or is it only the precise center of the tip that matters? What if you get hit with a thrust right at the jawline? Or an inch below (where your non-medieval bargrill would be impeding the the tip from hitting you in the neck?

the helm is proof against thrusts, just like a shield is proof against thrusts or strikes. think of it like blocking with something that cant be defeated by the weapon and i think you will get it. lifting your shin doesnt work anyway since you still have to take the leg if the blow is hard enough.

regards
logan

Ewan wrote:

dukelogan wrote:the top and sides of a helm are considered proof against thrusts so its not illegal at all to duck into a thrust.

we havent had any notable injury counts from people turning their heads to avoid a face thrust so the "safety" argument fails.

the wording states helm (full), not helmet (small, cap). either way why dont those who presume a skull cap also take a much lighter sword strike if its below the brow then?

i think i got all the things i wanted to respond to....... for now.....

regards
logan

I'm all good either way, cause I likely won't be living out east anytime soon.

However, explain how the above practice is any different from lifting your shin into the way of a leg blow?

I know, the next comment will be "But it is Illegal to strike the shin but it legal to strike the side/top of a helm...it is just considered ineffective."

To my way of thinking there is very little difference and it is a very fine line.

Either way they are both just rules in the sport we play. :shrug:

A helm vs helmet for the period of the assumed armour standard is the same. The only place I have seen an artificial definition of a Norman "helm" having sides and a wrap plate is in SCA armour. Otherwise a Norman helm would be what some are calling a skullcap.

dukelogan wrote:ive never said anything about swords and maille. must have me confused with some other sexy beast of a man!!

I am pretty sure you have said that "we don't hit anyone hard enough to hurt them with a real sword through mail"

and, if any part of the 3" tip hits me in the face (as defined being the brow to the sideburns to the collarbone) then i accept it as a face thrust and so long as its hard enough i take it as a defeat.

I understand that it's resolvable in some manner - and "works", etc. But you must agree that the above interpretation while consistent with the rule book, does not directly follow. And can be interpreted differently.

dukelogan wrote:oh no worries, i was simply talking about me (my favorite subject by the way) and what i have expierenced. not doubting you at all. it could be that i really do just hit so hard folks stagger off and fall down. maybe dark apprentice is right!!

regards
logan

And that is likely the case

just to clarify, the only thing ive said close to that is that most of the shots most folks throw i do not think would damage us. ive also added that im fine with that and while i wouldnt mind if we went to that level of force (or more accuratly to full submission fighting) but would not encourage it as only 1 in 50 fighters would still take the field. i like what we do, and the way we do it, for the most part.

regards
logan

Sigifrith Hauknefr wrote:

dukelogan wrote:ive never said anything about swords and maille. must have me confused with some other sexy beast of a man!!

I am pretty sure you have said that "we don't hit anyone hard enough to hurt them with a real sword through mail"

and, if any part of the 3" tip hits me in the face (as defined being the brow to the sideburns to the collarbone) then i accept it as a face thrust and so long as its hard enough i take it as a defeat.

I understand that it's resolvable in some manner - and "works", etc. But you must agree that the above interpretation while consistent with the rule book, does not directly follow. And can be interpreted differently.

Arngrim wrote:SNIP
Sperthrusts in the SCA are usually to the front, but quite often they come in from an angle, and surprises the recipient who is not prepared. Added to this is the weight of the spear. Is this a true risk or a percieved one? well, I percieve one with my ontrained eye, but again I am not a MD.
Turning the side of the head increases the (by me) percieved risk, and is something I personally would label "target substitution".
SNIP

Bold mine.
I see this particular "target substitution" as being perfectly realistic actually. If I were in an actual battle, with real weapons, where there was no such thing as an "illegal target area" or one considered "proof from attack" (referring, of course, to hands and shins and the like) then there would be no point in raising my knee to take a shot to my shin instead of my thigh, as I would no more wish to have my leg amputated at the shin than at the thigh. Either would pretty much ruin your whole day. No net gain.

But in the same actual battle, with real weapons, if an opponent were aiming a weapon at your head (sword, spear, whatever) and you had time to either turn or duck so that the blow struck your helm instead of your unarmored face (presuming an open faced helm of some sort) then wouldn't you do that? Wouldn't anybody? Depending on the weapon, and the type of blow, it still might not end up being enough to save you, but it'd be worth a shot. I think anybody with half a grain of sense would at least try it and hope for the best.

Mac Thamhais wrote:I see this particular "target substitution" as being perfectly realistic actually. If I were in an actual battle, with real weapons, where there was no such thing as an "illegal target area" or one considered "proof from attack" (referring, of course, to hands and shins and the like) then there would be no point in raising my knee to take a shot to my shin instead of my thigh, as I would no more wish to have my leg amputated at the shin than at the thigh. Either would pretty much ruin your whole day. No net gain.

But in the same actual battle, with real weapons, if an opponent were aiming a weapon at your head (sword, spear, whatever) and you had time to either turn or duck so that the blow struck your helm instead of your unarmored face (presuming an open faced helm of some sort) then wouldn't you do that? Wouldn't anybody? Depending on the weapon, and the type of blow, it still might not end up being enough to save you, but it'd be worth a shot. I think anybody with half a grain of sense would at least try it and hope for the best.

If we are trying to simulate deadly combat, then turning andtwisting so that weapons strike armour and not unpotected areas makes perfect sense. But I don't believe that that is what we are doing. And even if I did, I don't think that our system simulates deadly combat wether we want it to or not.

Personally, I'd rather take that swordblow on the top of my head than that spearthrust to the side of said helmet in deadly combat.

I guess my point is:
Before we know what we are trying to simulate, discussing it's realistic value is moot.

Arngrim wrote:If we are trying to simulate deadly combat, then turning and twisting so that weapons strike armour and not unpotected areas makes perfect sense. But I don't believe that that is what we are doing. And even if I did, I don't think that our system simulates deadly combat wether we want it to or not.

I guess my point is:
Before we know what we are trying to simulate, discussing it's realistic value is moot.

I'm not sure that I agree (in fact, I'm pretty sure I don't) but that's a point that has been debated to no end here on the archive. Numerous people have gone to great length, providing 'evidence' that we are replicating deadly combat, while others have provided 'evidence' just as convincing that we are replicating non-deadly combat.

Which one works for you seems to be a matter of personal choice. Personally, I see singles combat as simulating non-deadly combat while melees (especially where combat archery, dead from behind and so forth are used) represent combat of a more lethal nature.