SCA - The reasons for such close-range fighting?

jester · Post by **jester** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 9:47 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Raibeart Lok De la Haye:


-SNIP-

My request for clarification in this instance is sincere as I truly can't imagine why armored fighters would be fighting as if they were unarmored AND not taking advantage of valid target areas.The SCA approach as I understand it seems to be neither fish nor fowl.Thanks for any informed input.

-SNIP-

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The SCA stipulates that every participant, regardless of what they are actually wearing (or not wearing), is wearing the exact same suit of armor. That armor is typical of the armor from the late 13th Century.

Against this standard it is reasonable to assume that a sword using a hacking or cutting attack would inflict damage if swung with the proper technique and strength. We even have images of helms of that period being split.

The fechtbucher are all late 14th Century or later. (The possible exception being the I.33 document. But that document depicts unarmored combat.) By the late 14th Century the transition to plate armor was well under way and by the early 15th Century it was complete. So the fechtbucher cannot be compared to the fighting the SCA seeks to recreate.

We can use the fechtbucher as the basis for slightly less uninformed guesses about how people fought. The underlying principles contained in the fechtbucher can give us some idea of how folks might have fought in the SCA's time period. Unfortuneately the fechbucher, by and large, are advanced references and basic principles must be inferred from the advanced techniques shown. So we can't really claim to be on strong ground.

We can also make comparisons to conditions that existed in the earlier time period and roughly analagous conditions in the fechtbucher. Example: A key consideration (but by no means the only one) in unarmored combat as depicted in the fechtbucher is the vulnerability of the hand. No armor. In the earlier period the hand might or might not have been armored. If it was armored, it would have been protected by mail over a padded mitten. This protection will protect against the casual slash but a strong blow will still inflict damage (note: this is the underlying assumption in the SCA armor standard). The two situations are roughly similar. In the fechtbucher the hand is protected by keeping it out of range, by making sure that the blade precedes the hand into range, and by the use of shields. How did they protect the hand in the earlier time period? We don't know. But we might guess that they used similar techniques.

A point in favor of this is the strong continuity that can be demonstrated between some of the documents. Although the correlation is not always exact, there is a strong similarity to be found between the sword and buckler techniques found in I.33 and Talhoffer. Some of the guards are exactly the same. This, despite the fact that the documents are separated in time by roughly 200 years.

In summary, the SCA is "neither fish nor fowl". We are recreating a time period earlier than the fechtbucher, but some safety-imposed limitations create conditions closer to the time period the fechtbucher represent. This is not generally perceived to be a problem because SCA heavy fighting is primarily a game/sport and not a venue for experimental archaeology.

cheval · Post by **cheval** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 9:52 am

Constancius: "...buttspikes on great-swords(at least here in Calontir. Oh, how I miss those.)..."

Pommel smashes to the face I can understand, but do you have any credible provenence for the use of butt-spikes? As a long-time (and moderately successful) two-sword fighter, I understand more than most how difficult it is to abandon a particularly cherished SCA-ism, but don't you think it's time to "upgrade" our practices to better reflect historic practice (at least where we are able)?

More suggestion than criticism... -c-

Vitus von Atzinger · Post by **Vitus von Atzinger** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 10:11 am

I thought Juliet Barker made a great point during that recent Discovery program about tournaments. She said "...nobody bothered to write down how to run a tournament because it was common knowledge." or something to that effect. I think that Chef is absolutely right in saying that spears of every length dominated the medieval battlefield, but sword and shield combat was probably so freakishly common that nobody bothered to write a treatise on it's basics, or else these works are lost to us because they were produced a few hundred years further back in time. There were no-doubt countless approaches, based upon limitless factors.
Manuals are the only place where sword and shield combat is NOT a common martial theme, and many people here have made the point that by the time there was a large enough audience and market for books of this type, the shield was no longer needed. On this we all agree.
As always, the advantage is owned by the larger, the stronger and the better armed. Of this there can be little doubt.
-V

Diglach Mac Cein · Post by **Diglach Mac Cein** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 10:13 am

[q]Dilan,
you also have a boxing background that aids indefinitly to close in fighting....

Samuel[/q]

Yep, that helps - though I have a lot more in my background that just the boxing. Learned at an early point in my sports background to do what the opponent isn't comfortable with -

As someone pointed out, SCA combat isn't "living archeology" - its a competitive sport which (IMO) draws its traditions, rules, and codes on conduct at least in part from an Arthurian Chivalric Ideal.

But it is a sport. If close in fighting is effective in your area, then people will use it until someone develops and train people in a technique or style to beat it. When that happens, the next "unbeatable" style will be on the upswing.

Like when the old "run and shoot" first came to football - nobody could beat it right? Gee, doesn't seem to be THAT overwhelming now.

Your opponent wants range? Fight in close.
Your opponent wants to be close? Use range.
You opponent leans heavily on a particular style / technique? Use it weaknesses against him.

Its just smart fighting.

Dilan

justmagnus · Post by **justmagnus** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 1:39 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by cheval:
Constancius: "...buttspikes on great-swords(at least here in Calontir. Oh, how I miss those.)..."

Pommel smashes to the face I can understand, but do you have any credible provenence for the use of butt-spikes? As a long-time (and moderately successful) two-sword fighter, I understand more than most how difficult it is to abandon a particularly cherished SCA-ism, but don't you think it's time to "upgrade" our practices to better reflect historic practice (at least where we are able)?

More suggestion than criticism... -c- <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not sure how the butt spike on a great sword worked in other kingdoms but in the middle it was only good for face thrusts. This puts it in the realm of a pommel smash rather than an actual butt spike. An unfortunate choice of labels in my opinion but it does add an extra level to fighting great sword.

Respectfully,
Rob

justmagnus · Post by **justmagnus** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 1:41 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Irish:

Your opponent wants range? Fight in close.
Your opponent wants to be close? Use range.
You opponent leans heavily on a particular style / technique? Use it weaknesses against him.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe that Silver advocates the use of a variable fight just so that your opponent can't do this type of thing to you.

Respectfull,
Rob

Bob Charron · Post by **Bob Charron** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 2:07 pm

Cheval,

Pommel spikes on "greatswords"? You bet.

There a many illustrations of "spada in arme" or "spada e azza" used in armour (illustrations from Fiore and Vadi spring to mind) that show sword with large, sharp pommels, "wheel of spikes" pommels, etc.

No problem documenting their use. In fact, Fiore gives all sorts of specifications for these large, heavy weapons, including their weight.

These weapons would be used by "half-swording" them and using them in that fashion.

------------------
Bob Charron
St. Martins Academy of Medieval Arms

Diglach Mac Cein · Post by **Diglach Mac Cein** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 2:48 pm

justmagnus -

I *knew* that my old football coach didn't come up with the analogy first!

It's a basic tenent for ALL sports - I heard it in boxing, football, rugby, wrestling, and every other martial art I participated in - including SCA!

Really, I bet that if you go far enough back, you'll find one caveman telling the other "Og come at you with rock - you use sharp stick. Og use stick, you use rock."

There will ALWAYS be improvments in a combat sport, unless rules dictate otherwise. I'm sure after the first draft the guys who wrote the feuchtbooks didn't say "OK, that's it! Perfection of combat!" That's a conceit that will lead to the grave. Adapt, grow, change or die.

And frankly, if you ONLY rely on the "period techniques" in SCA combat, you're going to get beat by a percentage of opponents. On the other hand, if you only use "rush in and throw wraps" technique, you're gonna get beat too!

There is no superior technique or art, just superior technicians and artists.

Dilan

cheval · Post by **cheval** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 3:18 pm

BC: "There a many illustrations of "spada in arme" or "spada e azza" used in armour (illustrations from Fiore and Vadi spring to mind) that show sword with large, sharp pommels, "wheel of spikes" pommels, etc."

I hinged my incomplete defense on my experience that, in all the museums I've visited both here in Europe and in the US, I have not seen anything representing a spiked pommel on a greatsword in any of these collections. If they did exist and I overlooked them, it has to be because they are so rare as to be the exception, rather than the rule that the SCA interpretation would imply. My evidence is certainly far from scientific or comprehensive, but it could lead one to believe that either the museums' curators feel they are too dangerous to display (no telling what some impressionable university student might try to do with such knowledge), the ones you described were rare and used for a specific purpose, or they were merely fantastic descriptions of what -might- work, rather than what was common (sort of a Da Vinci effect -- or didn't you know that the Italians were flying around in ornithopters long before the dawn of the 20th Century

?).

Still, I'll take your word for it that there is provenence. Thanks for the lesson... -c-

[This message has been edited by cheval (edited 03-11-2003).]

Alcyoneus · Post by **Alcyoneus** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 3:33 pm

I have several pics in my books as well. Including one that is apparently spring loaded, and comes straight down out of the hilt (AIR). Common? No. One pic from a fechtbuch or manuscript shows a pommel with a spike coming down, and one each going front and back.

FrauHirsch · Post by **FrauHirsch** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 4:00 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Irish:
Lyonnete -

You're also a darn sight shorter than most of your opponents - for you "in range" is liable to be their "up close"!Dilan<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. I'm also a very short fighter 5'2". Determining what range I use is all about reach and angles and height of my opponent. I can fight at the end of my range for a similar hieght opponent, but must be closer the taller they get to adjust for the angles of the blows around a shield.

Its also about comfort zones of your opponent. Fighting mid-to far range (which would be mid to close for my opponent) gives me more body fake options. I find most fighters do not want to close, they want to stay out of range, then come into range, toss a few blows then back out. This is often a timing pattern which can also be messed with :-)

I find that most folks back out as I close, those that don't tend to overshoot their blows, which will land sloppy or too close to the hilt to be solid, and I've even had people hit their own shield when overshooting a wrap with me inside their shield.

Juliana

justmagnus · Post by **justmagnus** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 4:26 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Irish:

Really, I bet that if you go far enough back, you'll find one caveman telling the other "Og come at you with rock - you use sharp stick. Og use stick, you use rock."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hahaha... The first game of Rock-Paper-Scissors.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Irish:

There is no superior technique or art, just superior technicians and artists.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Irish, I agree with you 100%.

Rob

Shane Smith · Post by **Shane Smith** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 5:10 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by jester:
 The SCA stipulates that every participant, regardless of what they are actually wearing (or not wearing), is wearing the exact same suit of armor. That armor is typical of the armor from the late 13th Century.

Against this standard it is reasonable to assume that a sword using a hacking or cutting attack would inflict damage if swung with the proper technique and strength. We even have images of helms of that period being split.

The fechtbucher are all late 14th Century or later. (The possible exception being the I.33 document. But that document depicts unarmored combat.) By the late 14th Century the transition to plate armor was well under way and by the early 15th Century it was complete. So the fechtbucher cannot be compared to the fighting the SCA seeks to recreate.

We can use the fechtbucher as the basis for slightly less uninformed guesses about how people fought. The underlying principles contained in the fechtbucher can give us some idea of how folks might have fought in the SCA's time period. Unfortuneately the fechbucher, by and large, are advanced references and basic principles must be inferred from the advanced techniques shown. So we can't really claim to be on strong ground.

We can also make comparisons to conditions that existed in the earlier time period and roughly analagous conditions in the fechtbucher. Example: A key consideration (but by no means the only one) in unarmored combat as depicted in the fechtbucher is the vulnerability of the hand. No armor. In the earlier period the hand might or might not have been armored. If it was armored, it would have been protected by mail over a padded mitten. This protection will protect against the casual slash but a strong blow will still inflict damage (note: this is the underlying assumption in the SCA armor standard). The two situations are roughly similar. In the fechtbucher the hand is protected by keeping it out of range, by making sure that the blade precedes the hand into range, and by the use of shields. How did they protect the hand in the earlier time period? We don't know. But we might guess that they used similar techniques.

A point in favor of this is the strong continuity that can be demonstrated between some of the documents. Although the correlation is not always exact, there is a strong similarity to be found between the sword and buckler techniques found in I.33 and Talhoffer. Some of the guards are exactly the same. This, despite the fact that the documents are separated in time by roughly 200 years.

In summary, the SCA is "neither fish nor fowl". We are recreating a time period earlier than the fechtbucher, but some safety-imposed limitations create conditions closer to the time period the fechtbucher represent. This is not generally perceived to be a problem because SCA heavy fighting is primarily a game/sport and not a venue for experimental archaeology.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for the thoughtful and insightful reply.

------------------
Shane Smith
ARMA~Virginia Beach

[This message has been edited by Shane Smith (edited 03-11-2003).]

Gaston de Clermont · Post by **Gaston de Clermont** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 5:35 pm

Pommel spikes- Codex Wallerstein has a bunch too. I'm still baffled why we don't see them more in museum pieces. Maybe they don't hang flush with a wall as easily?
If frequency of use is the criteria for acceptance, can we explain the madu's popularity?
Gaston de Clermont

Gaston de Clermont · Post by **Gaston de Clermont** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 6:58 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by cheval:
Clermont: "1. Change the outcome of double kills"

Cheval: I believe this is counterproductive. It implies a "kill", whereas we know that, while death may have been an unfortunate outcome, it was not the objective of tournament combat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<snip>
The "kill" terminology is misleading, I agree. But I've seen a fair emphasis on technique and forms that either result in your opponent getting whacked, or both of you getting hit- it's common with two sword and the way folks frequently do shield hooks for example. In contrast, it looks like the manuals encourage an attack when you have an advantage of position, initiative, range etc. The attitude of "take the shot, you have nothing to loose" only makes sense within the present rule set.
If we could have bouts with the outcome of both combatants looking good, and neither being a clear victor, as we have seen some evidence of in historic texts, so much the better.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Clermont: "2. Limit shield size"

Cheval: I strongly disagree. This would prejudice combat to a given period, rather than encourage better bouts. By example, larger shields are the dominant form in the age of mail -- the very era from which our armor "standard" is derived.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The point of these suggestions is not to make SCA combat consistent with the whole range of history the SCA purports to study, but to make it consistent with the manuals we know of. None of which show the use of typical SCA size shields. Vitus has rightly pointed out that this doesn't mean such shields were never used, just that they weren't in the manuals we know of.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Clermont: "3. Allow leg and arms shots to count as a victory (or at least the same number of points in a counted blow scheme)"

Cheval: Effectively reducing the bout to "counted blows of 1 blow". Intriguing, but why not simply adopt counted blows and move to a more standard 3 or 5? I'm not too keen on accepting that a single leg shot is "worth" the same as a single head shot, but I can understand where repeated leg shots might yield comparable results to repeated head blows, or a mix of targets (1 head, 1 arm, 1 leg). BTW, I think that this is the real answer to the concern expressed in (2) above (actually, counted blows is the "magic bullet" for a long list of glaringly anachronistic conventions, IMnsHO).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Would you say you'd be more likely to continue fighting with a broken leg or fore arm than a broken rib? If getting hit in the leg, even repeatedly, meant loosing a bout, the advantage of close range might be countered by the risk, and folks would keep their distance like they tend to in the manuals. There is some real merit to a counted blow system, and this isn't inherently incompatible with that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Clermont: "4. Allow grappeling with weapons"

Cheval: We already allow this on hafted weapons -- what I believe you are suggesting is grabbing "bladed" weapon parts. I am not so keen on grabbing the business end of anyone's weapon for the simple fact that it increases the risk of interposing an open hand in the way of an incoming blow, which I fear would lead to a measurable increase in serious hand injuries, especially thumbs. Using closed hands or backs of hands to move or pin weapons, however, does sound interesting, so long as we could distinguish the technique from blocking with the hand (target substitution), which I do believe is possible.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sure there's more risk with this. We'd have to teach people to control their opponent's weapon first. If I screw it up, and you end up whacking my hand, it's not really your fault, it's mine. So the initial risk is mostly on the person attempting the technique.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Clermont: "5. Allow binds, grabs etc of an opponent"

Cheval: Some of the Tourney companies are already exploring this arena. I look forward to hearing what they discover.

Clermont: "6. Allow throws"

Cheval: Been there, done that -- have the scars to prove it. This can be done with relative safety, though probably less than what is currently acceptable to SCA sensibilities. Still, if you can demonstrate techniques that would be deemed "safe", I'm willing to give it a go. Falling down as part of a known move can't be much worse than all of the accidental tumbles I've taken over the years, can it?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In judo, you've got to maintain your grip on your opponent, and generally they've got to fall neatly on their back, or side- at least that's the idea. A throw designed to drop your opponent on his head is verboten. If we were to limit throws in a similar way it might work- it might also limit which period techniques we can use, but not feeling guilty for paralyzing someone is worth it.
Cheval- I appreciate your opposition. Like practicing with a good sparing partner, we may both improve our ideas, and see what strikes a point home.
Gaston de Clermont

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 10:16 pm

I've been reading about all these comparisons between this group and the next. What rules apply here and there. I've been in and out of the SCA for about 14 yrs now. I started to fight because I thought it was fun. I still fight because it is fun. I look at SCA like this ya'll "It is for those of us in the world who want recreate as best we can the middle ages (OK 600AD - 1600AD) and have fun doing it. I fight with in the rules set down by those with better knowledge, and more experience than I. I fight in late 14 Cent. plate with an 18inch blade ,yes I said 18inches. I fight close in to put those with a longer range than I, at a disadvantage. My shield is a small sized heater at 20"by 30". I have a nasty offside snap shot that in my younger days few could defend against, but even today gets its fair share of kills. I have learned so much from others, and try to use what I have learned. Really aren't we all out to have fun with what we do. Why worry that I don't "fight" period, or that this person doesn't do this the right way. JUST HAVE FUN WITH IT YA'LL

------------------
Hi Ho Watch the hammer blows (and those fingers too)

Vitus von Atzinger · Post by **Vitus von Atzinger** » Wed Mar 12, 2003 6:25 am

Fighting "period"....
1. Kill or capture the other guy.
2. Achieve the counted blows or broken lance.

Fighting with documented techniques that have been interpreted in solid academic fashion...
1. Stick to the manuals.

How's that?
-V