The Armour Archive

dukelogan wrote:unless there is a definition in the rules for "glove" then any glove will do. a latex examination glove is a glove.

logan

And would this 'fly' with the Atlantian appearance rule?

Why not be armored as the time frame we attempting to re-create?

I also have seen people poorly prepared for losing either sheild and sword arms, not having the elbow/hand protection needed immediately available, and it taking several (4 or 5) minutes to put the elbow and gauntlet on and get ready. It sucked.

Just sayin'

hand protection is exempt from materials, but not visually. so, as long as its not some neon color yes it would be fine. not that i buy into any glove providing protection inside a shield basket.

i keep hearing folks suggesting that having an elbow behind the shield helps with keeping a fight going when someone loses an arm. ive been around a pretty long time and i cannot recall it ever taking more than 60 seconds for someone to step to the side, grab an elbow, throw it on, grab something to armour their former sword hand and then go back to fight. but i guess some folks are slow in doing this and their opponents are in a terrible hurry.

of course someone would have to be wearing full gauntlets on both hands for this tranfer to happen without a pause. so less than 1% of fighters im guessing keep these folks in a hurry happy.

regards
logan

Hrolfr wrote:

dukelogan wrote:unless there is a definition in the rules for "glove" then any glove will do. a latex examination glove is a glove.

logan

And would this 'fly' with the Atlantian appearance rule?

Why not be armored as the time frame we attempting to re-create?

I also have seen people poorly prepared for losing either sheild and sword arms, not having the elbow/hand protection needed immediately available, and it taking several (4 or 5) minutes to put the elbow and gauntlet on and get ready. It sucked.

Just sayin'

Your Grace, why not be armored and prepared to fight always?

Just sayin'

dukelogan wrote:hand protection is exempt from materials, but not visually. so, as long as its not some neon color yes it would be fine. not that i buy into any glove providing protection inside a shield basket.

i keep hearing folks suggesting that having an elbow behind the shield helps with keeping a fight going when someone loses an arm. ive been around a pretty long time and i cannot recall it ever taking more than 60 seconds for someone to step to the side, grab an elbow, throw it on, grab something to armour their former sword hand and then go back to fight. but i guess some folks are slow in doing this and their opponents are in a terrible hurry.

of course someone would have to be wearing full gauntlets on both hands for this tranfer to happen without a pause. so less than 1% of fighters im guessing keep these folks in a hurry happy.

regards
logan

I suggest that all new fighters I teach have full gaunts.

I do help them with this.

As for 1%, in the Middle, I would say this estimation is way low (I am guessing 50% wear full SCA approved gauntlets)

most of us like cup/basket hilts on our swords. gauntlets, at least good ones, are expensive and do not perform as well as cup/basket hilts. so i dont think we will see the day when fighters are using gauntlets as being the majority.

in atlantia, at least, arms rarely get hit. not that they are not targetted they just dont get left out there often. in 20 years of fighting there, as ive said, ive never seen it take more than one minute for someone to slap on an elbow and grab something for their former sword hand. i would probably get annoyed if, as has been suggested by others, i had to wait five or more minutes for my opponent to properly arm his former shield arm/hand. i cant imgine how/why it would take that long either. so, at least for me, its never been an issue at all.

as to your question the only way to do that would be to wear an elbow and a gauntlet on the shield arm. for many of us the elbow is redundant and in the way and we prefer baskets for our hands. my shield, for example, is strapped to fit snug to my arm. if i used anything more than a marshal pacifier on that elbow i would have to redo the whole thing and would not have the same control. this applies to most of the fighters i know and have trained. the hand would be as big an issue as my handle is just high enough off of my shield for me to slip my hand under it. to have to make room for a gauntlet would move that handle over an inch away from its current position and the basket would have to come off (of course now i could wear nothing and my hand is considered safe ).

i dont plan on making all those changes just because a few people think giving me a minute to protect my former sword hand is more than they can tolerate. if it took me five minutes to do so i could understand it.

regards
logan

Hrolfr wrote:Your Grace, why not be armored and prepared to fight always?

Just sayin'

Hrolfr wrote:I suggest that all new fighters I teach have full gaunts.

I do help them with this.

As for 1%, in the Middle, I would say this estimation is way low (I am guessing 50% wear full SCA approved gauntlets)

It might be fair to say 50% of Middle fighters have full gauntlets, but I don't think that many use them on both hands every time they fight sword and shield.

Sir Omarad wrote:
What concern?
The rules did not say that until I put them out earlier this year after a successful experiment in Northshield.
This is relatively new.

The concern that I quoted; where Thomas asked twice about where they were posted....

Sorry if I came in those conversation late. We've only just had these new rules pointed out to us in Lochac.

* The Two Thrusting Tips Rule *

So, people are getting accidentally hit in the face with gauntlets or a basket hilt. Not sure what the issue is here besides having to take your helmet in to the workshop to have the scar ground out and polished. The end of a cross hilt shouldn't be able to penetrate your barwork or it fails the rules in the first place.

I can see how gauntlet-in-face is less risky from someone wielding an ordinary polearm. But plainly the buttspike on a 2H sword presently only slightly less risk of this issue than one on a 1H sword. There will still be a gauntlet near the buttspike under most conditions.

Lastly, banning thrusting tips on both ends does nothing to change this if someone decides to forgo a thrusting tip on the point and keep their buttspike.

So, my thought is this - why not rephrase the new rule about buttspikes as something like this:

"No hitting people with your crosshilt, basket hilt or gauntlet."

Because its rude and annoying. Thus putting it in the same category as anvilling, running into the ropes continually, or dropping your sword.

It covers both 1H and 2H weapons. No need to ban having a spike at both ends. And it leaves mardus and whatever other wierd weapons alone.

Sir Omarad wrote:I see your point.
The intent was to eliminate buttspikes on small weapons that were ridiculous and were causing hilts and gloves and gauntlets to hit people in the face.
We also didn't want to eliminate them from small spears, glaives, greatswords, etc... that actually had pommel strikes and spikes that could kill in period.

That language was the culmination of a lengthy discussion by KEM's over about a year that was ihntendedto allow them on anything safe and period but not on anything cheesy or dangerous..
Might have to tweak that a bit.

I'd really like madus to go away they're silly, if you look at a real one the pokey bits are horn and wouldnt have any effect on a warrior wearing the assumed armor standard (I haven't done a test of a historically constructed madu vs riveted maile over a gambison if anyone else has I'd love to hear it) Also they don't match the persona of the vast majority of users. 14th C armor and a madu just looks stupid.


Apparently, when I edited it earlier 1/2 a sentence disappeared...

chris19d wrote:I'd really like madus to go away they're silly, if you look at a real one the pokey bits are horn and wouldnt have any effect on a warrior wearing the assumed armor standard (I haven't done a test of a historically constructed madu vs riveted maile over a gambison if anyone else has I'd love to hear it) match the persona of the vast majority of users. 14th C armor and a madu just looks stupid.

It's a gimmick weapon.

Unless you got stabbed in the face with one and then you're dead.

Just sayin'.

Mankind has been stabbing eachother with pointy sticks, animal horns, rocks and eventually metal objects for all of our history.

Since the assumed armor standard includes a maile drape over the face, short of sticking it in someones eye I don't see it working that well. (especially at the force level that the majority of the society calls a face thrust at) Unlike the majority of other forms people don't pick up a madu because it fits their persona they choose one because of some perceived advantage it offers them. Its one thing to deviate from what is historical for safety reasons and completely another to deviate in search of some kind of advantage.

i doubt any of us is so physically powerful he could stick a horn through a human skull. much less a dagger. folks get stabbed in the face with modern blades all the time, ive yet to find one that ended up in a death from penetrating the skull (ive not found an eye stabbing that ended in death but have a whole bunch of arrows, pipes, sticks, etc that didnt).

besides, it is an indian peasants weapon. has zero to do with medieval combat by european nobles. i also though it was from the 16th century.....

regards
logan

Count Johnathan wrote:Unless you got stabbed in the face with one and then you're dead.

Just sayin'.

Mankind has been stabbing eachother with pointy sticks, animal horns, rocks and eventually metal objects for all of our history.

You're pretty serious about that whole period specific thing man. If you hadn't noticed the SCA isn't the historically accurate living history group you seem to think it is. Never has been. Sorry the website gave you that impression.

Edit: Originally directed at Chris but I guess it's a fitting response to HG Logan as well. LOL

Oh and I'm pretty sure I could stab an animal horn deep enough into a mans skull to f-- them up big time if not directly kill them. Just sayin.

By Daniel de Vise and Robert Samuels, Published: November 6
A female Frostburg State University sophomore died early Sunday after another female student allegedly stabbed her in the head in an argument....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/edu ... story.html

Not that it's important but let's not be silly. People stabbed in the head don't always survive and certainly it was far less likely for one to survive such a wound in medieval Europe.

Just sayin'

Actually since madu's didn't exist in medieval Europe, a medieval European would hae a very high chance of surviving being attacked by a non existent weapon

HA! GOOD ONE!

the story give no details on where the weapon entered or what it did. and, as i said, sure it can happen but the numbers are very much in favor that humans simply do not push knives through skulls. and i very much doubt this penetrated her skull.

regards
logan

Count Johnathan wrote:

By Daniel de Vise and Robert Samuels, Published: November 6
A female Frostburg State University sophomore died early Sunday after another female student allegedly stabbed her in the head in an argument....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/edu ... story.html

Not that it's important but let's not be silly. People stabbed in the head don't always survive and certainly it was far less likely for one to survive such a wound in medieval Europe.

Just sayin'

From an article by Joe Gorrod:
The North's State pathologist Professor Jack Crane added Collins died from multiple stab wounds to the head, two of which penetrated the skull and entered the brain.

He had been stabbed through an eye, had teeth knocked out and severe lacerations to the face and scalp, as well as two stab wounds to the back. Prof Crane said: "On the face there were over 20 wounds and the majority of them were stab wounds.

"It is very unusual indeed to be stabbed in the head. For the knife to penetrate the skull the weapon must have been very sturdy and used with a considerable amount of force."

Say it aint so!

chris19d wrote:Actually since madu's didn't exist in medieval Europe, a medieval European would hae a very high chance of surviving being attacked by a non existent weapon

Course neither would a Japanese samurai doesn't stop you from getting killed by him in a tourney though.

I choose not to fight with a katana because I am currently enjoying using period appropriate weapons not because I am regulated to do so.

As to a madu being a perceived advantage, how is a really small thin shield with two sharp tips an advantage to a real shield or another sword? To clarify i don't fight with one I just don't see what all the bitching about it not being period appropriate is for.

Why do you feel it is necessary to regulate other peoples fun?

yep, stabbing through the eye can prove problematic. pretty sure i mentioned that.........

20 stab wounds, one to the eye that penetrated the skull, still takes a considerable amount of force.

logan

Count Johnathan wrote:Say it aint so!

eidelon wrote:

chris19d wrote:Actually since madu's didn't exist in medieval Europe, a medieval European would hae a very high chance of surviving being attacked by a non existent weapon

Course neither would a Japanese samurai doesn't stop you from getting killed by him in a tourney though.

I choose not to fight with a katana because I am currently enjoying using period appropriate weapons not because I am regulated to do so.

As to a madu being a perceived advantage, how is a really small thin shield with two sharp tips an advantage to a real shield or another sword? To clarify i don't fight with one I just don't see what all the bitching about it not being period appropriate is for.

Why do you feel it is necessary to regulate other peoples fun?

Normally I am not inclined to over regulate other peoples fun either. My problem with the Madu, is that it is a defacto exception to the rule against shields that are also weapons. I don't care that it is Indian, and I don't care that it started as a peasants weapon (so did any number of European pole-arms). Although it was generally made from horn, those horns were sometimes steel covered, so I don't even care about that; but why can we have madus, but no spiked bucklers? The answer seems to be that we have them because a few people with clout like them, and so there allowed, even though they violate the rules.

Ld. Cornelius fitzReynald

because a spiked buckler would be an inline weapon and a madu is not

You know, people keep saying that you can't have a shield that's a weapon. And on a rules level, that's certainly true. But I'm pretty sure that it doesn't mean what people thinks it means.

If I produce something that passes the weapons requirements, then it is a weapon, regardless of its defensive characteristics.

As for the madu, if the SCA version hadn't picked up that unfortunate name from Stone's Glossary, would we really be complaining about it? Is there really a problem with a short spear that happens to have a grip in the middle? The ones around here don't tend to have any shield-like bits at all.

As for madu vs. buckler, a spiked buckler involves an inline tip, which is prohibited (though strangely, I can perform the 'prohibited' attack with a polehammer without breaking the rules.). Some of the Indian weapons also have those spikes.

chris19d wrote:Since the assumed armor standard includes a maile drape over the face, short of sticking it in someones eye I don't see it working that well. (especially at the force level that the majority of the society calls a face thrust at) Unlike the majority of other forms people don't pick up a madu because it fits their persona they choose one because of some perceived advantage it offers them. Its one thing to deviate from what is historical for safety reasons and completely another to deviate in search of some kind of advantage.

The maille drape is a Kingdom by Kingdom convention, not a Society standard.
1. All “fully armored” fighters are presumed to be wearing a chain hauberk over a padded gambeson, with
boiled leather arm and leg defenses and an open-faced iron helm with a nasal. The helm may be presumed
by Kingdom convention to include a very light chain mail drape, permitting vision and resisting cuts by
the mere touch of a bladed weapon.

this silliness ends once we demand full force face thrusts which are perfectly safe (they happen all the time with no real injury) and do away with the cancer that is the idea some folks have that touching someones face with a weapon would end a fight. gone too would be this notion that pommel strikes would end fights. just silly.

logan

dukelogan wrote:this silliness ends once we demand full force face thrusts which are perfectly safe (they happen all the time with no real injury) and do away with the cancer that is the idea some folks have that touching someones face with a weapon would end a fight. gone too would be this notion that pommel strikes would end fights. just silly.

logan

Just do away with thrusting entirely then. In a properly armoured man, a thrust with a sword, or even handheld spear, without a horses mass behind you, won't do anything.

(course, it's just as silly to believe that one cut from a broadsword would kill anyone wearing armor too.. so screw it.. it's impossible to kill people in armor with medieval weapons!)

um....what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoc

sword made specifically for thrusting into mail and plate.

blackbow

Maeryk wrote:

dukelogan wrote:this silliness ends once we demand full force face thrusts which are perfectly safe (they happen all the time with no real injury) and do away with the cancer that is the idea some folks have that touching someones face with a weapon would end a fight. gone too would be this notion that pommel strikes would end fights. just silly.

logan

Just do away with thrusting entirely then. In a properly armoured man, a thrust with a sword, or even handheld spear, without a horses mass behind you, won't do anything.

(course, it's just as silly to believe that one cut from a broadsword would kill anyone wearing armor too.. so screw it.. it's impossible to kill people in armor with medieval weapons!)

blackbow wrote:um....what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoc

sword made specifically for thrusting into mail and plate.

blackbow

Maeryk wrote:

dukelogan wrote:this silliness ends once we demand full force face thrusts which are perfectly safe (they happen all the time with no real injury) and do away with the cancer that is the idea some folks have that touching someones face with a weapon would end a fight. gone too would be this notion that pommel strikes would end fights. just silly.

logan

Just do away with thrusting entirely then. In a properly armoured man, a thrust with a sword, or even handheld spear, without a horses mass behind you, won't do anything.

(course, it's just as silly to believe that one cut from a broadsword would kill anyone wearing armor too.. so screw it.. it's impossible to kill people in armor with medieval weapons!)

So, you would be willing to take the field with a sword with no cutting edge?

Here's what it boils down to. Our armor and kill standard has NO BASIS IN REALITY. It's a shared fantasy. We share the rules, because they work, across the board.

face thrusts are kills. Get over it. Because we have all declared it as such. Reality does not enter into it.

Edged shots to helmets are kills. Get over it. Because we have all declared it as such. Reality does not enter into it.

mass weapons to an armored joint are kills. Get over it. Because we have all declared it as such. reality does not enter into it.

We have a system. It works. Just because one guy thinks his super gimmicky weapon should be nuclear, and another guy thinks you could ram an ICBM through his entire head and it wouldn't slow him down, well, doesn't enter into it.

Fight in the system, or don't.

Ld. Cornelius fitzReynald wrote:[
Normally I am not inclined to over regulate other peoples fun either. My problem with the Madu, is that it is a defacto exception to the rule against shields that are also weapons. I don't care that it is Indian, and I don't care that it started as a peasants weapon (so did any number of European pole-arms). Although it was generally made from horn, those horns were sometimes steel covered, so I don't even care about that; but why can we have madus, but no spiked bucklers? The answer seems to be that we have them because a few people with clout like them, and so there allowed, even though they violate the rules.

Ld. Cornelius fitzReynald

Let's look at your interpretation of the rules here. "defacto exception to the rule against shields that are also weapons". Could you show me where that rule is? Not the rule against punch bucklers, but the one that prohibits shields that are also weapons. I use weapons as my shields all the time, but my swords are not illegal because I block with them

It is not because "a few people with clout like them". You may not have noticed but there are also a number of people with clout who dislike them.

It is because they are fundamentally different from "spiked bucklers" - that is punch bucklers - and because there is no rule that a shield cannot be a weapon, but there are rules prohibiting certain forms of shield weapons.

Maeryk wrote:

dukelogan wrote:this silliness ends once we demand full force face thrusts which are perfectly safe (they happen all the time with no real injury) and do away with the cancer that is the idea some folks have that touching someones face with a weapon would end a fight. gone too would be this notion that pommel strikes would end fights. just silly.

logan

Just do away with thrusting entirely then. In a properly armoured man, a thrust with a sword, or even handheld spear, without a horses mass behind you, won't do anything.

(course, it's just as silly to believe that one cut from a broadsword would kill anyone wearing armor too.. so screw it.. it's impossible to kill people in armor with medieval weapons!)

[/quote]

So, you would be willing to take the field with a sword with no cutting edge?

Here's what it boils down to. Our armor and kill standard has NO BASIS IN REALITY. It's a shared fantasy. We share the rules, because they work, across the board.

face thrusts are kills. Get over it. Because we have all declared it as such. Reality does not enter into it.

Edged shots to helmets are kills. Get over it. Because we have all declared it as such. Reality does not enter into it.

mass weapons to an armored joint are kills. Get over it. Because we have all declared it as such. reality does not enter into it.

We have a system. It works. Just because one guy thinks his super gimmicky weapon should be nuclear, and another guy thinks you could ram an ICBM through his entire head and it wouldn't slow him down, well, doesn't enter into it.

Fight in the system, or don't.[/quote]

Couple of thoughts. Maeryk, they called it a "bar mace" and it seemed to work reasonably well.

Logan, you boxed, right? So a sixteen ounce glove in the chops can knock a man out cold, but a butt stroke with the pommel of a sword can't ? I'm pretty sure I've seen people knocked out cold with one punch. Maybe all of those are fixed fights.

Armour works, but so do weapons. People are an amazing paradox of tough and fragile. Extreme examples exist on both ends of both subjects.

sure if that was what folks did or wanted. the reality, and you know this, is that folks want to bump a guy with a "pommel strike" and call it a kill. thats silly. if you, or anyone else, wishes to allow full force strikes with pommels that actually stun people i am all for it. im also all for allowing elbows (only if they daze folks) and anything else that actually does something to end a fight. i dont support the idea but i would be fine with it coming into play. if you are attempting to compare the force behind a trained strikers punch to what we do in the sca with pommel strikes that some folks desire to be counted as good you are out of your mind. ive done both and there is, in no way, any sense in that kind of commentary.

logan

Kilkenny wrote:

Maeryk wrote:

dukelogan wrote:this silliness ends once we demand full force face thrusts which are perfectly safe (they happen all the time with no real injury) and do away with the cancer that is the idea some folks have that touching someones face with a weapon would end a fight. gone too would be this notion that pommel strikes would end fights. just silly.

logan

Just do away with thrusting entirely then. In a properly armoured man, a thrust with a sword, or even handheld spear, without a horses mass behind you, won't do anything.

(course, it's just as silly to believe that one cut from a broadsword would kill anyone wearing armor too.. so screw it.. it's impossible to kill people in armor with medieval weapons!)

So, you would be willing to take the field with a sword with no cutting edge?

Here's what it boils down to. Our armor and kill standard has NO BASIS IN REALITY. It's a shared fantasy. We share the rules, because they work, across the board.

face thrusts are kills. Get over it. Because we have all declared it as such. Reality does not enter into it.

Edged shots to helmets are kills. Get over it. Because we have all declared it as such. Reality does not enter into it.

mass weapons to an armored joint are kills. Get over it. Because we have all declared it as such. reality does not enter into it.

We have a system. It works. Just because one guy thinks his super gimmicky weapon should be nuclear, and another guy thinks you could ram an ICBM through his entire head and it wouldn't slow him down, well, doesn't enter into it.

Fight in the system, or don't.[/quote]

Couple of thoughts. Maeryk, they called it a "bar mace" and it seemed to work reasonably well.

Logan, you boxed, right? So a sixteen ounce glove in the chops can knock a man out cold, but a butt stroke with the pommel of a sword can't ? I'm pretty sure I've seen people knocked out cold with one punch. Maybe all of those are fixed fights.

Armour works, but so do weapons. People are an amazing paradox of tough and fragile. Extreme examples exist on both ends of both subjects.[/quote]

I was always taught that the power to the face is not meant to be an instant kill. It would simply leave you so debilitated that the fight would be over for you. You bleed in the eyes, get a shattered jaw or lose an eye and its probably it. They'd just trip you up and smash in your face with next maneuver. Realistically.

But given that we fight on with missing arms and legs, I can see why we might get the mentality that we're all heroes and could fight on like Rasputin (who purportedly died of freezing in the Volga after surviving being poisoned and shot a few times).

Me, I'm happy not to take any regular shots to the face. Its been established that blows to the head in boxing cause brain damage. So I think that reducing the force to the face can't be a bad thing.

why do you think the helmet is required to be made out of steel as opposed to aluminum? Why do you think chainmail camails work as well as they do?

they add WEIGHT to the side that's being hit as opposed to a sixteen ounce glove to side of your bare head.

apples and oranges again. Or oranges and watermelons, to get the analogy right.

Blackbow

Andre de Montsegur wrote:I was always taught that the power to the face is not meant to be an instant kill. It would simply leave you so debilitated that the fight would be over for you. You bleed in the eyes, get a shattered jaw or lose an eye and its probably it. They'd just trip you up and smash in your face with next maneuver. Realistically.

But given that we fight on with missing arms and legs, I can see why we might get the mentality that we're all heroes and could fight on like Rasputin (who purportedly died of freezing in the Volga after surviving being poisoned and shot a few times).

Me, I'm happy not to take any regular shots to the face. Its been established that blows to the head in boxing cause brain damage. So I think that reducing the force to the face can't be a bad thing.