[SCA] Future of Fighting

[Guy Dawkins]

Learning and practicing the theoretical interpretations of medieval texts is NOT the same as fighting tournaments with arms of peace. Even when we do more "documentable" moves in the context of our combat, it becomes something else than fighting tournaments with arms of peace. We then mix the documentable move with the undocumentable move, which poisons the feel of *totally accurate and documentable* activity that some are yearning for. It really can't be both things and satisfy those who are worried about the opinions of scholars. When I am fighting with arms of peace in deeds of arms on foot, I do NOT care about the opinions of scholars. I am studying an entirely different aspect of medieval martial culture- combat as knightly sport. NOT modern sport- but medieval sport. If I want to work some period moves into my regular fighting experience, thats fine, but the fact that I am not actually trying to kill people with sharp weapons changes what I am doing into something else. I would not use moves that kill in tournaments, this would damage my reputation and possibly get me into serious trouble (in the period context.)
It's all about what we are trying to do.
-V

Sir Vitus,
Please explain further.
Are you saying that our ancient ancestors did not use the same fighting techniques when practicing arms of peace as when at war? Are you saying that it is not possible or that it is not necessary?

[jester]

Learning and practicing the theoretical interpretations of medieval texts is NOT the same as fighting tournaments with arms of peace.

Yes sir. But the marshallate, by and large, tends to view everything through the lens of competitive combat. They focus heavily on that and ignore or, sometimes, oppose other areas. While I understand the emphasis placed on the SCA's flagship martial activity, Corpora charges the marshallate with responsibility for all martial arts activities in the Society.

It's all about what we are trying to do.
-V

Beyond saying "...the Society provides an environment in which members can recreate various aspects of the culture and technology of the period, as well as doing more traditional historical research." Corpora is silent about what we are trying to do.

[Vitus von Atzinger]

I am saying that sharp weapons and specific techniques (like thrusting) were banned from specific tournaments and unknown in certain tournament formats. The documentation is rare, but it is there...at least for the era 1100-1350. After about 1350 sharp weapons seem to be chosen or used, and there must be a reason for this- I feel it is because as more plate appears, edged weapons are feared less by the fully armoured.
Halfswording is perfectly safe, and you can use it in SCA combat. However, edgestrokes were often useless to people who would NEED to halfsword. Halfswording and edgestrokes are from two different situations- one is to display prowess and to fight among other nobles for praise and prizes- the other is designed to kill a bitter enemy.
See what I mean? Much of the techniques and ideas being discussed were from outside the realm of tournament combat. I don't really want to use techniques designed for judicial duels or duels between enemies, because those techniques are rude.
I am not studying to kill. I never will kill anyone with a sword on a battlefield. I fight in tournaments with arms of peace, and I am interested in making what we do as true to that as possible.
It just seems that these are two different approaches and uses for the same weapons- swords, poleaxes and spears. Some of the more terrifying techniques would be murderous in any era and no matter what the opponent was wearing.
We can use them, but when we mix the concepts we are not being as pure as the scholars want it to be. I am not sure that longswords were used in tourney, for example...but I could be wrong. If they were, it seems the baton would be thrown down if somebody tried to halfsword a guy in the face. How many times were the combats of Jaques de Laling stopped before things went "to extremes?"
To Extremes...Outrance....this is fighting in anger and with the intent to kill, not show manly prowess and practice the edgeplay that cuts down the unarmoured.
Make sense? It's two different ideas. Plaisance and Outrance. The first beats you up and wears you out and *if you are hurt it is/was considered unfortunate*. Outrance is in anger and the fighting is meant to injure or kill.
To much of what we do is slowly moving towards Outrance- both in spirit and now in technique. The killing techniques are really of no use to me, since I will never use them in anger. I never study a martial art I do not intend to use, but that is just me.