The Armour Archive

Amen, brother!

Now, where are we going to Church?

-Aaron

Thorstenn wrote: P.S. are you going to Squires revolt?

Hmm, Squires are revolting? Squires ARE revolting! Sorry my friend, but I have a dance recital being held in Slippery Rock, PA that weekend. I leave for Pennsic tomorrow morning.

Have a good time and tell Mustafa he is a slacker.

Odo

Will do your Grace.
Have a blast, and a safe trip.

I have a padded poleaxe that hits like a ton of bricks, much harder than it did before I added the padded head. I have to be careful not to hit people too hard, and I'm 5'4". I second this opinion that unpadded polearms are not dangerous. And if they were, aren't unpadded greatswords?

Odo wrote:

Geoffrey of Blesedale wrote:As an aside, an unpadded pole cleaving on the top of the head or the shoulders can hit WAY too hard, IMO, and I would not be sad to see them go.

There is a fallacy here that needs to be pointed out. An unpadded glaive does not hit any harder than the person wielding it. A padded glaive can hit just as hard, and cause just as much damage. If you do not believe me, let me hit you with a rubber headed pole axe.

The problem is not the weapon. The problem is the wielder.

Odo

I have actually found that people tend to hit harder with padded weapons. YMMV, but I usually have to crank up a bit with a padded weapon.

The mechanics of a polearm and a greatsword are a little different, even if they are the same length. On a gs, all your grip is in the handle. It takes more effort and torque to get the sword's tip up to speed. On a pole, you can choke up higher and accelerate the tip faster, then slide the upper hand down to increase power. When both are swung from the same start position, I'd bet the pole has a bit more momentum.

Next time, if I feel my neck compress after a cleaving blow on top of my head, I'll just call it excessive and blame the fighter, not the pole. Still, I'd rather get hit on the shoulders with a padded head.

Geoffrey of Blesedale wrote:The mechanics of a polearm and a greatsword are a little different, even if they are the same length. On a gs, all your grip is in the handle. It takes more effort and torque to get the sword's tip up to speed. On a pole, you can choke up higher and accelerate the tip faster, then slide the upper hand down to increase power. When both are swung from the same start position, I'd bet the pole has a bit more momentum.

Ricasso...

Not to mention a terrible understanding of how a lever works. I can hit a LOT faster with a great sword and my hands 12 inches apart than with a glaive and my hands 2.5 feet apart. Acceleration is slower, top speed is higher. Nobody cares how fast the car accelerated to the speed it got to when it hit you.

That's like saying you're rather be hit by a car at 50 mph and it took an hour to get to 50 than by the car that accelerated to 5 mph in a second and then it hit you.

This is why swings of >90 degrees are outlawed (at least around here).

Personally, I'd put my money on more power from a one-inch shot with a glaive using the hips right than a Braveheart swing with a greatsword.

Mike F wrote:This is why swings of >90 degrees are outlawed (at least around here).

Personally, I'd put my money on more power from a one-inch shot with a glaive using the hips right than a Braveheart swing with a greatsword.

Sorry Mike, I have to correct you here. Northshield's regulation is against excessive force, not greater than 90 degree swings with a great weapon. You can swing your great weapon through whatever arc you wish, just make sure you are not striking with excessive force when it hits.

Same thing for the Midrealm, as far as I know.

Kevin O'Shaughnessy

Kevin O'Shaughnessy wrote:

Mike F wrote:This is why swings of >90 degrees are outlawed (at least around here).

Personally, I'd put my money on more power from a one-inch shot with a glaive using the hips right than a Braveheart swing with a greatsword.

Sorry Mike, I have to correct you here. Northshield's regulation is against excessive force, not greater than 90 degree swings with a great weapon. You can swing your great weapon through whatever arc you wish, just make sure you are not striking with excessive force when it hits.

Same thing for the Midrealm, as far as I know.

Kevin O'Shaughnessy

Yes it is (and it carried over to NS marshallate because of "we're used to that", if I am not mistaken)... I am sure we could name a few people who could generate "excessive force" with an arc of half that (ie 45 degrees), if they so wished (of course they don't).

Right. I've had a chance to look at the proposed changes. Most of it is just clean up. I don't like the siloflex and shrink wrap ban and would like to see some of the data driving this decision. The rules still don't address the question of whether a basket hilt is part of the weapon or hand armor and this takes on a particular urgency in light of the adoption of target substitution as a Society standard. The explanation I have been given for the removal of the Pas D'Arms dispensation makes perfect sense, but I still don't like it. Surprisingly, my only significant complaint revolves around the definition of an effective blow.

V. B. An effective blow will be defined as a blow which was delivered with effective technique for the particular type of weapon used, and struck properly oriented and with sufficient force; such that, if that were a live weapon of that type, striking actual presumed armor of chain, boiled leather and iron helm, the blow would have killed or incapacitated the opponent or body part.

My objections are:
1) Fighting to the death was a feature of warfare or judicial combat. In formal deeds of arms (tournaments, etc...) it was an accepted risk but an undesireable outcome. Slaying your opponent demonstrated a lack of skill on your part and robbed you of the opportunity for ransom.
2) We demonstrably don't hit hard enough to disable through the assumed armor standard. Many SCA participants fight in the assumed armor standard or less and we don't see a host of deaths, broken limbs, or even knockouts. Many of us (not me) could strike that hard but don't. People who do are accused of hitting with excessive force and counseled or prevented from fighting. So this definition creates a false standard that could contribute to injury.

I think it would be better to adopt the term 'telling blow' and simply state that it is a stout blow struck with proper orientation.

All in all far fewer changes than I had expected and many of them help to clear up ambiguous or superfluous language.