The Armour Archive

I'll focus this response to Adam only, just so I don't lose him in all of the other threads going on ...

WMA wrote:I guess what i understood from your comment was that hooks and buttspikes on historical weapons had no real use in actual combat.

Exactly the opposite. Where there is correlating evidence beyond simple geometry -- and this is true for hooks and buttspikes -- I most willingly acknowledge the historical provenence in a martial context.

WMA wrote:Im not in any way referring to sca or larp, or someones foam version of an actual weapon.

Neither am I. I only suggest that, in addition to lacking provenence beyond geometry, the unsuccessful application in our modern recreation may begin to provide the foundation for a dismissal of the suggested technique.

Without wishing to derail an otherwise enjoyable thread, this is one of my greatest frustration with madus. All we have is the weapon; there is no correlating evidence of how it was used -- let alone if it was used against armor. Unfortunately, it's continued success in the SCA context either indicates that these potentially devastating weapons were overlooked for centuries by our medieval forebears; or that they are ideally suited to our ruleset, despite the continued lack of historical validation.

WMA wrote:My sca version of a bec has a striking head, a thrusting tip, a buttspike and a spike on the backside of the head, similar to historical weapons ive looked at. I have found all of these pointy bits usefull, but the actual striking head is what is used mostly.

Everything you describe above is supporrted by evidence above and beyond the weapon's geometry. In your earlier post, however, I interpreted that you were also talking about the presence of spikes on the sides of the hammer head (at the shaft). It is this type of spike, as well as the points of the axe bit itself that Aaron is promoting, that I find suspect when proposed as a disabling attack. Certainly they can be used as hooks and binds, but were they used to deliver mortal or incapacitating blows of themselves? I would need to see more evidence -- historical or effective modern applicaton -- before conceding this point.

With respect... AoC

Sean Powell wrote:Pardon me for asking but what (or which) kingdoms in the SCA allow this tactic?

I thought all shots to the head with the striking or thrusting surface were legal in the West. It just seems silly to turn your head to avoid a thrust. It's almost armour-as-worn...which is a path that would be nice for me but I fear the SCA would change from what I've enjoyed so far.

With a longer pollaxe I was thinking a wide swing, with a quick snap back (like starting a lawn mower) would deliver a good shot to the back of the head that can't be blocked (or seen).
Maybe I'm thinking to much and just need to fight someone.

-Aaron

carlyle wrote:Fighting more upright will also increase your mobility (this is, by definition, a very mobile style).

Sir Alfred,

I seem to be more "stiff" when I'm standing straight up. When I'm low I'm on my toes, like a fencer or sprinter.

Could you clarify your advice a bit? I'm not following it all.

-Aaron

Good Morrow,

The “gemsâ€Â

30 minutes at the pell, no breaks...

I started out left leg back, left arm up, just like I thought I should.

I ended up loose hipped, horse stance, up on my toes with my toes facing the direction I'm firing the shot. If the shot is coming from my right to my left, my toes face left...and vice versa.

My left shoulder is warm, and I worked up a sweat.

So, yes, I can perform the "axe murderer" bit Nissan suggested at a strike a minute, but I get REALLY sloppy after 20 minutes.

I'm getting a shower and going to bed...after I call a friend about helping me out on Sunday.

Thanks again everyone for taking the time to read this thread,

-Aaron

PS: I'm tired and want a beer.

This has been an excellent conversation - thank you all

Posted by Aaron:

With a longer pollaxe I was thinking a wide swing, with a quick snap back (like starting a lawn mower) would deliver a good shot to the back of the head that can't be blocked (or seen).
Maybe I'm thinking to much and just need to fight someone.

As noted before, I'm pretty sure that this action, delivered to any part of an SCA fighter's body (let alone the back of the head) would not be counted as a thrust at all.

The limited universe of SCA fighting, as delineated in the various kingdom and SCA-wide weapons standards and Conventions of Combat, has (I believe) only one kind of "thrusting tip": the kind on the end of a stick of rattan (or fiberglass for a spear). Regardless of how you shape the foam head of your axe, it won't be counted as extra thrusting tips.

So, the neat trick you describe might work great in real life with a real axe, but in the SCA it's not a thrust; also not a "blow" in the normal sense. I know I wouldn't take it as such. Probably you should drop it from your repertoire and concentrate on footwork and getting those hip shots in (one of the few advantages of a "great-weapon" or "mass weapon" in the SCA is that a blow to your opponent's hip or shoulder ends the fight).

I always thought of a horse stance as having the hips already locked between both shoulders (right hip under right shoulder, left under left). Is that how you are, or are you basically in a reverse of your L stance (your weapon and shield stance as I understand it) ? Most of my power polearm and greatsword strikes pretty much end in a horse cause thats where my hips lock.

If I can fight the way I want, I pretty much start left foot forward and step into the same stance you describe as part of the attack.

Axel,

We agree about the horse stance. Yes, when fighting a right-hander, my stance is reversed from my S&S stance (right foot and hand forward), and I'm almost turned sideways to my opponent. This is from long range. The only techniques I use from this range are "slaps" to my opponent's weapon, and modern fencing techniques with the point. I use these to clear my opponent's point from the center line, then I move in quickly. I don't strike during this "move in" phase - I just control the center line until I'm at my desired range - which is pretty close, but not corps-a-corps. Once I get there, I will change the sideways-facing horse stance to one which is wider, and much more square, giving me a good, stable "gun platform". Then I play "sticky hands".

I don't use "big" strikes on the entry phase (or any other time, actually), because I think they take too much time to develop, and provide too much information to my opponent. I'd rather play inside, using the leverage of the weapon, rather than the length, to produce powerful, short forehand and back-edge blows, and to control my opponent's movement.

If my opponent tries to maintain separation by running away, I follow, but I try to maintain a forward-facing horse stance, both to supply power for both forehand and back-edge strikes, and to allow me to be able to quickly change directions. It looks sort of like a spread-legged waddle, (It doesn't sound too glamorous, when described like that) but it allows me to close the distance by a full step, each time my opponent curves his/her flight path. It also allows me to avoid over-committing to a linear motion forward. During the chase, I'm only concerned with controlling the center line. The actual attack will wait until I catch my opponent.

Aaron wrote:I seem to be more "stiff" when I'm standing straight up. When I'm low I'm on my toes, like a fencer or sprinter. Could you clarify your advice a bit? I'm not following it all.

In order to step, you have to first move your center of mass over the stationary leg. This is true even in normal walking, as well as combative movement.

The wider apart your feet are when you start, the larger distance you have to cover to shift your weight. Also, your knees are likely to be bent more with a wider stance, and your joints are often unable to support your full weight when the joint is bent this far, so you will have to "rise up" on the stationary leg to support the shifting mass (which also adds to the "telegraph". Finally, to achieve a similar stance upon completion of the step, you will likely need to cover a greater distance with the moving foot, which again takes longer to do than with a smaller step. All of this adds up to a relatively slow transition and final step.

A more moderate stance -- not fully upright, but not as deep as an exagerated horse-riding stance -- allows the shift in mass over the stationary foot, the distance covered by the moving foot, and final re-centering of the mass back between the pillars of your platform to be done more quickly. Also, the inherently smaller steps limit the "telegraph" of direction. At the time you are shifting the mass back, you are "committed", and an attack launched before you are set will hit you at your weakest moment. Shortening that time by shortening the step and subsequent amount of shift will reduce your exposure.

This will, however, require that you decide on a compromise between the amount of power you can generate and the stability of the platform. A deeper stance, for instance, allows for more power -- see the earlier comments on how a baseball player steps "into" the pitch to deepen the stance and increase his power -- and more stability in the event of a charge. Standing completely upright, on the other hand, gives up too much power and stability for mobility. You dont (usually) need the extra power and stability the deeper stances provide, but you will still have to pick a stance that generates -sufficient- power and provides you a -stable enough- platform to anticipate and repel charges. For my part, I achieve this by teaching my students to stand with their feet slightly more than shoulder width apart and the knees -loose- but not bent.

I would suggest studying some videos and stills of really, -REALLY- good fighters to see how deep their stances are -while in motion or engaged- (this is an important qualifier, because some will "pose" much more deeply than they actually fight -- Jade is one such fighter who does this). Logan, for example, has some video out there that shows he is fighting virtually erect, and I think you will see that this is almost universally true across the board.

With respect,

Alfred

carlyle wrote:

Aaron wrote:I seem to be more "stiff" when I'm standing straight up. When I'm low I'm on my toes, like a fencer or sprinter. Could you clarify your advice a bit? I'm not following it all.

In order to step, you have to first move your center of mass over the stationary leg. This is true even in normal walking, as well as combative movement.

The wider apart your feet are when you start, the larger distance you have to cover to shift your weight. Also, your knees are likely to be bent more with a wider stance, and your joints are often unable to support your full weight when the joint is bent this far, so you will have to "rise up" on the stationary leg to support the shifting mass (which also adds to the "telegraph". Finally, to achieve a similar stance upon completion of the step, you will likely need to cover a greater distance with the moving foot, which again takes longer to do than with a smaller step. All of this adds up to a relatively slow transition and final step.

A more moderate stance -- not fully upright, but not as deep as an exagerated horse-riding stance -- allows the shift in mass over the stationary foot, the distance covered by the moving foot, and final re-centering of the mass back between the pillars of your platform to be done more quickly. Also, the inherently smaller steps limit the "telegraph" of direction. At the time you are shifting the mass back, you are "committed", and an attack launched before you are set will hit you at your weakest moment. Shortening that time by shortening the step and subsequent amount of shift will reduce your exposure.

This will, however, require that you decide on a compromise between the amount of power you can generate and the stability of the platform. A deeper stance, for instance, allows for more power -- see the earlier comments on how a baseball player steps "into" the pitch to deepen the stance and increase his power -- and more stability in the event of a charge. Standing completely upright, on the other hand, gives up too much power and stability for mobility. You dont (usually) need the extra power and stability the deeper stances provide, but you will still have to pick a stance that generates -sufficient- power and provides you a -stable enough- platform to anticipate and repel charges. For my part, I achieve this by teaching my students to stand with their feet slightly more than shoulder width apart and the knees -loose- but not bent.

I would suggest studying some videos and stills of really, -REALLY- good fighters to see how deep their stances are -while in motion or engaged- (this is an important qualifier, because some will "pose" much more deeply than they actually fight -- Jade is one such fighter who does this). Logan, for example, has some video out there that shows he is fighting virtually erect, and I think you will see that this is almost universally true across the board.

With respect,

Alfred

mmm. I am one of those "virtually erect" fighters - I'm actually consistently surprised in photos and video of just how upright my stance and movement is.

That said, I don't think I agree with your analysis about needing to shift the center of mass over the stationary leg. I would suggest that walking is almost exactly the opposite, a process of falling forward and catching yourself, you can't take a step if your center of mass doesn't move off of a stationary leg...

Likewise, a significant number of combative maneuvers involve picking up a foot that is in a loadbearing position without first shifting mass off that foot. A well executed fencer's lunge, for example, or a front kick in karate, involve lifting a load bearing foot without a prior shift - and utilize the resulting fall forward as an important part of the technique.

I do agree that movement out of a narrower stance is generally quicker, easier and involves less telegraphing than from a wider stance. A narrower stance also allows for faster changes of direction, as your steps are shorter.

Gavin

kilkenny wrote:That said, I don't think I agree with your analysis about needing to shift the center of mass over the stationary leg. I would suggest that walking is almost exactly the opposite, a process of falling forward and catching yourself, you can't take a step if your center of mass doesn't move off of a stationary leg...

Your Grace, I believe we are saying the same thing, but that I was not sufficiently clear in my description. Please allow me to try to clarify.

The weight has to shift -off- the foot that you are going to step with. The natural movement is to shift it to the leg that will remain stationary and drive the movement. There is no weight committed to the trailing leg as it moves forward and -up to- the stationary leg.

This means that the center of mass will, at the very least, pass over the stationary leg. In normal walking, we usually allow it to continue forward of the center of balance before the moving foot has reached it's destination, resulting in the same "throwing yourself at the ground" and catching yourself that I discussed earlier and (I think) you are describing above.

In combat, I am suggesting that the fighter maintain the balance over the stationary foot until the moving foot is in place. This shortens the stride, but it also limits the exposure to attack during the moment at which the transition is weakest -- during the time that the center is moved back between the pillars and weight is again committed to the foot just moved.

For practice, a drill I use is to tap the moving foot at the new location first before committing weight. If you can tap, then the mass and balance are still over the stationary pillar (leg). This is all done slowly at first, but with experience, the exercise can be practiced at nearly 3/4 speed. At full speed, of course, there is no tapping, and the shifting of mass and balance need to flow seemlessly. The only thing that changes is the order and timing of the various elements; this is the discipline the exercise is meant to impart.

Kilkenny wrote:A well executed fencer's lunge, for example, or a front kick in karate, involve lifting a load bearing foot without a prior shift - and utilize the resulting fall forward as an important part of the technique.

I concede the validity of these techniques, but depending on the MA and your instructor, I would suggest that they are deviations from the norm. I learned from the very first form that standard steps were executed by shifting the weight to the stationary, forward leg, with the now-free trailing leg following an inside arc past the stationary foot to a new, forward position. The inside arc described serves a dual purpose, since it also enables the fighter to transition to a kick if the situation called for it.

The front snap kick I learned is executed in two parts -- first the kick, and then the step. the forward motion of the body was not a contributing factor to the technique's power; that was all derrived from the driving of the stationary leg and resulting hip twist. After the kick is complete and the foot "re-chambers", the fighter has the choice to either kick again, or to move the foot to a new position and complete the step. By contrast, however, the hammer kick I learned did depend on the falling, forward motion of the leg and body.

Kicks do not play a role in our sport, however, so I encourage an "outside" arc for the moving foot. This provides at least a nominal platform for attack and defense should the movement be interrupted at any point in the execution. And while lunges can be useful and do, indeed, allow the fighter to move a foot with weight still committed; the majority of movement should still be executed as described in this and earlier posts. In short, a fighter who only moves through lunging is very limited and highly susceptible to counters in time to their very predictable actions.

Kilkenny wrote:A narrower stance also allows for faster changes of direction, as your steps are shorter.

Thank you! An excellent point that I had considered and intended to include, but failed to call out earlier in the thread.

With regards,

Alfred

mordreth wrote:This has been an excellent conversation - thank you all

Ditto! I feel like I have a host of calm, mannered Sensei available 24 hours a day!

Now to see if the student can learn...

-Aaron

I very much agree that fighting from an erect stance is the proper technique. Leaning commits the fighter to a movements in specific direction, and interferes with the rotation of the body, thereby inhibiting the application of power.

I've tried several methods now:

1. Right hand up, left leg back
-Ended up smacking shots into my friend's shield...

2. Left hand up, left leg back.
-Got some good shots into the helm, shoulder and neck. Ineffective against the body. While it takes a second to bring the shield up to block the head/neck/shoulder, it only requires the slightest twitch to the left to tie up the haft of my poleaxe when it's going to the body. It's a small twitch, but it robs the shot of all it's power.

3. Swinging like a demented axe murderer.
-If it was hot, my friend might have asked me to continue so that he could be fanned by the breeze...but other than that I was unsuccessful and silly looking.

I have video, but I'm just looking for a place to host it. This is video at night, with the NVG option on my camera. But my armour is shiney, so you can easily see where I am and what I'm doing.

If I could find a place to send the video, it would be most helpful.

I've recoreded video that is 2.48 min long, and either 900, 11K or 16K in size. I can record in an intermediate size.

I'll keep working on all the techinques. I'm not putting ANY of them down, but rather pointing out my lack of training and experience.

-Aaron

1. Right hand up, left leg back
-Ended up smacking shots into my friend's shield...

Raise your trainling hand to change the angle of the attack.
If your right hand is at mid chest, and your left is at about hip level your attacks are coming into your opponent at a very acute angle making it easier for him to block

I'm going to derail my own thread a bit...

I would like to publically thank you all, and Baron Conrad, Baron of the Far West.

After staying awake for almost two days (work related), Baron Conrad carried 85 pounds of armour 2 hours on the train (ONE WAY) through Tokyo, endured overcooked BBQ (I need practice in more than just fighting), suited up and fought me late Sunday night for the video.

Now THAT is service to your subjects! He took the time out of his schedule to make a difficult journey so his subject might hone his skills.

Now THAT was impressive my friends...and this is the SECOND time he's done this.

Somebody make this fellow a KSCA, because I'd squire to him if I could be in the same location as he for more than a year.

My apologies for derailing my own thread...some public praise was definately in order.

-Aaron (aka Lord William Featherstone)

Aaron,
send your video to me and I'll host it for you.
tcanevaro at qccsystems.com

http://home.armourarchive.org/members/m ... %20Web.wmv

The digital quality is very low. I did the "web-setting" on my MS Moviemaker.

There are more detailed videos, but if you blow this up to full size you'll see most of what you need to see (I think), but without some of the details.

I'll ask my two good friends who offered web-hosting help to accept a higher size file.

Sorry about this one guys, but the video shows a lot of what you might want to see (maybe).

I'll get a better one up. This is MY fault people. Sorry.

-Aaron

Hey Aaron, if you want, I can try to host it. Georgia Tech gives us all our own personal space, so I should be able to throw it up there. Shoot me an email at druidfire217@gmail.com and we will see what I can do.

I watched the video, If I had been fighting him..since he had a round shield I would have been doing pump fakes and rising snaps. I would have attacked his lead leg more at distance as well. Generally speaking when fighting round shield fighters pump fakes of some sort to freeze their guard just before striking to another part of their body is a pretty good plan. It worked 20 years ago at Pennsic against Duke Paul...well sorta..I faked his round shield down around his knees, I might have actually hit him with the follow up shot if he didn't have lighting fast reflexes usually only seen in martial arts movies. But it's worked on any number of OTHER round shield fighters

Axel

Aaron wrote:With a longer pollaxe I was thinking a wide swing, with a quick snap back (like starting a lawn mower) would deliver a good shot to the back of the head that can't be blocked (or seen).

Well I tried this tonight with my short pollaxe on my pell. My wooden 4x4 pell broke off both it's supports when it flew back at me and my axe needs repair for the bottom "spike" of the pollaxe.

I think the technique would be VERY viable, but possibly dangerous if power is applied. It's a leg hook, but to an arm or head.

The shot just rockets backward toward the sword arm, with almost no possiblity of blocking it.

The screws, bolts and enforcing plates just tore loose and my pell is in pieces.

Can I get a suggestion on how to make a stronger pell?

But I think the method would work well at a lower power (upping the power if the first shot is called "light").

Just a word of warning. Many years ago when I was young and stupid (now I'm older and stupid) I was playing with friends and we were using one handed axes in a similar way. Experience suggests that this technique is very bad for targets health. It seems to be a lot like getting smacked from behind by an unseen foeman, certainely I won't be doing that again.

Bastior

Aaron wrote:The reason for a short pollaxe -- my "too close" photo essay.

Your problem here is not that the haft is too long, but that your top hand is too far away from the head. Notice that I also set up the back cut by blocking his wrap first. (Thanks Duke Paul!)

Take a look at my stance and grip as I work the back cut on Aethelwolf about 3/4 of the way through Things Not to Do. When I fight any shieldman, my top hand is at the head.

It seems appropriate to mention here that there are still 8 slots open in my Intermediate Polearm class to be held this coming weekend in Charlottesville VA, at Atlantian University. "An armored class for authorized polearm fighters interested in killing people in tournaments rather than melee. Hands on." Two hours.

Corby de la Flamme wrote:It seems appropriate to mention here that there are still 8 slots open in my Intermediate Polearm class to be held this coming weekend in Charlottesville VA, at Atlantian University. "An armored class for authorized polearm fighters interested in killing people in tournaments rather than melee. Hands on." Two hours.

It would be great, but work is sending me to Korea for the month of June.

Ok I'm not going to quote several posts and I'm still reading it all so bare with me on that...

First, I don't see the need for the thrusting tips I the blade of the weapon as it's the blade. It's all a striking surface even the points (if you mark them as such). Also you can make a clicker head for it like clicker maces and that might help with the "sound" as I know that a lot of shot are called by sound as much as feel.

Second the "pull back" shot would not really ba a thrust but just a regular shot and should be taken (or not) as such. I use a 6' poll and use that shot a lot to strike the back of fighters that got too close.

I find that a stiff blade works better than a heavy one it may not fight exactly like it's period counter part but more people take the shots on the feild, they are used to how a word feels and sounds when it's good and a big leather/rubber axe head just dosen't meet thier expectations for a good hit. You will get the ever popular light, light, light , excisive! when you drop it on the head at last.

- - - - - - - - - -

Still reading the foot work stuff. Looks good it's got me thinking on mine not sure that a good thing as I don't think on it now I just do it...