Combat in the SCA (Was: The Routiers... Why are they so bad??)
Yumitori no Kiyoshi
> That's about a 40-60 spread, which is, I would argue, very significant. If
> these unfortunate chaps were being hewn down from behind, why are the
> majority of the cuts on the _left_ side of the back of their heads?
> Particularly when the analysis of the wounds clearly shows that the vast
> majority of the wounds on the front of the body were on the victim's left
> side (as would be expected when facing right handed fighters). If they
> were being attacked from behind, we would not expect and *even* spread of
> hits to the back, we should see a clear predominance of wounds on the
> victims _right_ side (back). Why do we see the opposite? The wrap shot is
> a very possible candidate.
>
> Earl Michael de Lacy, KSCA
>
> (Michael Lacy)
Hmmm. A mounted right-handed warrior riding down a fleeing opponent
would tend to pass on the left, I suspect. That would account for blows
to the back left side of their victims.
Ron Martino
Michael Lacy
In article <33F462...@altus.speednet.com.au>,
Dave Earl <dave...@altus.speednet.com.au> wrote:
>In trying to reconstruct how people fought, then, we must rely apon the
>veidence which is available, which are for the most part i) period
>manuals, ii) other illustrations of combat, and iii) archaeological
>evidence.
To which I would add iv) practical experimentation.
>If wrap shots were common, then, as Michael has said, we would expect to
>find evidence of this in the archaeological record at least.
Not, of course, conclusive evidence. The arguments about whether battle
wounds on skulls is from a wrap shot, or from being struck from behind are
of course, insoluble, since we simply do not and cannot know the exact
conditions under which the fighter was killed. I think the sword (?) marks
on the great bascinet helmet at the V&A museum are possibly more indicative
of a wrap shot, since we know that blows from behind were frowned upon in
the lists. I have only examined that particular helm in detail, but I
would venture to guess that if some kind of wrap or thumb-side shot was
used, other tourney helms of this period will also show a similar
distribution of marks. I will look into this the next time I travel over
to the continental collections.
>To this
>end, Michael submitted the Wisby remains, suggesting that if people were
>slewn from behind there would be an equal distribution of blows to the
>left and right, and an emphasis on single large cuts rather than several
>small 'failed attempts'. If wrap shots were used, then it would be
>expected that they would be significantly more shots to the left side of
>the head, and several 'failed attempts'. An examination of the evidence
>from Thordeman shows that 58.33% of blows to the Occiptal and
>Parieto-Occipital bones were on the left hand side, which indicates a
>relatively even spread.
That's about a 40-60 spread, which is, I would argue, very significant. If
these unfortunate chaps were being hewn down from behind, why are the
majority of the cuts on the _left_ side of the back of their heads?
Particularly when the analysis of the wounds clearly shows that the vast
majority of the wounds on the front of the body were on the victim's left
side (as would be expected when facing right handed fighters). If they
were being attacked from behind, we would not expect and *even* spread of
hits to the back, we should see a clear predominance of wounds on the
victims _right_ side (back). Why do we see the opposite? The wrap shot is
a very possible candidate.
>Furthermore, only 5.1% of these bones received
>more than one cut.
Gravett, in his article 'The Face of Medieval Warfare', (Military History
Past and Present, April 1987, pp. 17-21), writes that 20 per cent of the
head blows showed multiple impacts in the Visby find. I will have to have
another look at Thordemann one of these days.
>Wisby is of course, too late for your period, but is unfortunately the
>best we can do in the way of a symstematic survey of battlefield
>remains. I beleive a book 'Anglo-Saxon Warfare' (can't remember the
>author) carried out a similar survey on bones from Anglo-Saxon grave
>sites, analysing the wounds that a few of the buried had recieved.
>Unlike at Wisby, however, the remains found in the graves are not purely
>battlefield casualties, and thus the results may be skewed.
The article you are thinking of is 'Anotomical Interpretations of
Anglo-Saxon Weapon Injuries' by S. J. Wenham, in 'Weapons and Warfare in
Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford University Comitte for Archaeology, 1989). Of
the six skeletons excavated, all had wounds recieved, probably in battle,
with a sharp weapon. Several of the skulls had multiple weapon injuries
and the author notes "Of fifteen major cranial blows in the Eccles
material, only four are to the right side of the head.' The majority of
the blows to the back of the head are on the left side, and are in a
position that could well have been cause by a wrap shot with a sword.
>I will look into this, but as of now we have little historical or
>archaeological evidence supporting the use of 'wrap shots'. Some will
>say 'absence of proof in not proof of absence', but this little peice of
>predigested thought sends most historians crazy- you can use it to
>justify anything.
Not to 'justify', but to keep an open mind. And of course it depends upon
how likely it is that the evidence that would mitigate against your
assertions can be found. If, for example, one were to assert that King
Edward III used zepplins in his war against the French, it is highly likely
that this would not have been noticed by the artists and chroniclers of the
time. Thus the lack of evidence is, if not proof of absence, very strong
evidence of absence.
However, when dealing with something as subtle and ephemeral as a specific
sword technique, it is extremely difficult to be so certian, as one would
not expect there to be much evidence for or against it in the first place.
To utilize the sources of evidence that Dave listed at the beginning of
this post, we start with the period fight manuals;
The only place I would expect to find any evidence that could even begin to
be conclusive about wrap shots is in a period sword manual that deals with
combat with sword and shield. There are none to be found.
Therfore, we turn to the next listed source of evidence, the iconography of
the time. Do we see the wrap shot being used in combat scenes? Not that I
am aware of. Is this reliable evidence that the wrap shot was not used?
No. Medieval illustrations are not photographs, they are artistic
interpretations drawn from the memory, or the imagination, of the artist.
While they can be quite reliable with regards to the costume, armour and
equipment of the fighter (which the artist may study at his lesiure), they
are less reliable in trying to analyse the violent and complex actions
involved in specific martial arts techniques. (Note for example how many
of the techniques illustrated in Talhoffer, which we regard as a very
reliable authority, are not to be found in any period iconography).
The evidence from archaeology (see previous comments on Visby and the
Anglo-Saxon skeletons) shows what we would expect to find if wrap shots
were being used - an unusually high percentage of wounds to the left side
of the back of the skull. This is of course not conclusive, as we do not
know exactly how the fighters in question were killed (from in front, from
behind, while they were down - who knows) but it does leave the question
very much open.
That leaves us with practical experimentation. I can, and have, put on a
suit of reasonably authentic replica armour and used a reasonably authentic
replica sword to strike a wrap shot with consierable force (certianly with
enough force to kill an unarmoured man, or for that matter, one wearing
only a mail coif, as many of the unfortunates at Visby seem to have been
wearing) on a pell. I can also, using a well-balanced and weighted wooden
sword, use this technique quite effectively against a trained opponent, and
have found the technique to be very effective against a foe using a shield,
as have hundreds of other SCA fighters.
Until I hear a reasonable explanation as to why this technique would not
work in the middle ages, I will continue to hold that our medieval
ancestors were at least as clever and inventive as we are today, and used
the technique as well when the situation called for it.
>> > > That said, I would submit that such a sport as ours cannot give the
>> > > feel of combat, but can reasonably communicate the feel of combat
>> > > training.
>> >
>> > I think that would be a very reasonable thing to try and acheive.
>> > However, I submit that the way SCA does combat is not particularly
>> > similar to that at the moment, either.
>>
>> Especially given what Michael Lacy has pointed out regarding fighting
>> men training with wooden weapons, I really have a difficult time
>> understanding your last remark.
>
>The evidence Michael has given in regards to 'training' with wooden
>weapons consists of a series of quotes about *tournaments*, plus the
>supporting evidence of Japanese bokkens. The theory seems to run that
>because tournaments were originally thought to have evolved from
>practice for combat, and sometimes used wooden weapons, wooden weapons
>must therefore have been used for training.
Wooden weapons _were_ used for training as far back as the Roman times, and
probably earlier. Not only were they used in the West, but the use of mock
weapons for training swordsmen is fully documented in Japan, and in several
other Asian countries as well (there is even a martial art that deals
specifically with rattan weapons). It is so widespread, so well documented
and so bloody sensible that I find it remarkable that anyone can doubt that
it was done in the middle ages.
>If you wish to use 12th century armour for your training, then a whole
>set of new problems is encountered. Michael has several handy hints on
>how to disguise SCA safety regulation equiptment whilst having an 'early
>period persona' at
>
>http://www.soton.ac.uk/~roy/sca/flame/war/4.html
>
>The result is that, should people wish to use armour appropriate for
>their early personas (personae?), then elaborate 'hidden armours' have
>to be used:
>
>> By using hidden armour you not only save money, since hidden armour need not be
>> particularly pretty, but you usually can make the armour much lighter than the plate
>> armour that many of our fighters now have, since you can use many non-period
>> shortcuts like thermoplastic and velcro! Here are some examples of complete early
>> period armours, slightly modified for SCA combat, which you could build using the
>> techniques described above:
>
>So, in addition to the expense involved in making armour that looks
>right from the outside,
Like a tunic. Bloody hard work, those tunics - and the price of fabric
these days - cor!
>you then have the further expense of the 'hidden armour' as well.
And the cost of second-hand sports pads and old leather straps these days,
my goodness!
>Now, should you wish to train, then you would have to train with people
>who were using armour and techniques that can date anything up to 300
>years after the end of the twelfth century, and which of course may or
>may not be to the same standard of accuracy (in terms of technique and
>function of weapons and armour) as your techniques and equiptment. I
>doubt that anyone from the twelfth centuey had the pleasure of actually
>training with anyone from the sixteenth century, or indeed any other
>century, and thus doing so would be a distictly un-medieval experience.
Assuming, of course, that fighting styles had changed radically during a
period when many weapons did not. Sure, Oakshote can write a whole book
about the evolution of the sword, but when you get right down to it, an
11th century longsword works pretty much like a 15th century one.
I am of the opinion that there is an 'optimal' way for a human being to use
any given weapon, and that this technique (or techniques) will not change a
whole lot through time or geography. A sword technique that worked in the
11th century would work just fine in the 15th, 18th or even, as we are
discovering in the SCA, the 20th. You yourself mentioned in an earlier
post how the 'open' and 'high' guards seem to be ubiquitous in iconography
throughout the 'SCA period.'
>One solution would be to only train with people who represent the same
>period as you, but this would of ciourse be violating the SCA's policy
>of 'inclusive' historical accuracy.
You can train with whoever you choose, in whatever weapon form you choose.
You will not be accosted by the SCA's 'inclusivity police.'
Michael Lacy
In article <33F653...@marsweb.com>,
Yumitori no Kiyoshi <yumi...@marsweb.com> wrote:
>> That's about a 40-60 spread, which is, I would argue, very significant. If
>> these unfortunate chaps were being hewn down from behind, why are the
>> majority of the cuts on the _left_ side of the back of their heads?
>> Particularly when the analysis of the wounds clearly shows that the vast
>> majority of the wounds on the front of the body were on the victim's left
>> side (as would be expected when facing right handed fighters). If they
>> were being attacked from behind, we would not expect and *even* spread of
>> hits to the back, we should see a clear predominance of wounds on the
>> victims _right_ side (back). Why do we see the opposite? The wrap shot is
>> a very possible candidate.
>>
>> Earl Michael de Lacy, KSCA
>>
>> (Michael Lacy)
>
> Hmmm. A mounted right-handed warrior riding down a fleeing opponent
>would tend to pass on the left, I suspect. That would account for blows
>to the back left side of their victims.
Most historians reckon that the majority of the fighters at Visby were
fighting on foot.
Stephen Hand
In article <B01B733C...@srmdel.demon.co.uk>, mi...@srmdel.demon.co.uk
(Michael Lacy) wrote:
>In article <33F462...@altus.speednet.com.au>,
>Dave Earl <dave...@altus.speednet.com.au> wrote:
>>If wrap shots were common, then, as Michael has said, we would expect to
>>find evidence of this in the archaeological record at least.
>
>Not, of course, conclusive evidence. The arguments about whether battle
>wounds on skulls is from a wrap shot, or from being struck from behind are
>of course, insoluble, since we simply do not and cannot know the exact
>conditions under which the fighter was killed. I think the sword (?) marks
>on the great bascinet helmet at the V&A museum are possibly more indicative
>of a wrap shot, since we know that blows from behind were frowned upon in
>the lists. I have only examined that particular helm in detail, but I
>would venture to guess that if some kind of wrap or thumb-side shot was
>used, other tourney helms of this period will also show a similar
>distribution of marks. I will look into this the next time I travel over
>to the continental collections.
<snip>
>The article you are thinking of is 'Anotomical Interpretations of
>Anglo-Saxon Weapon Injuries' by S. J. Wenham, in 'Weapons and Warfare in
>Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford University Comitte for Archaeology, 1989). Of
>the six skeletons excavated, all had wounds recieved, probably in battle,
>with a sharp weapon. Several of the skulls had multiple weapon injuries
>and the author notes "Of fifteen major cranial blows in the Eccles
>material, only four are to the right side of the head.' The majority of
>the blows to the back of the head are on the left side, and are in a
>position that could well have been cause by a wrap shot with a sword.
I had wished to stay out of this argument but this "wrap shot" thing has
forced me out of hiding. I think you are completely wrong and that the
"wrap shot" (which I understand to be a blow with the false edge to the
left rear of the head, assuming a right handed fighter) is possible the
silliest blow ever devised by the hand of man.
Let's look at Wenham's article. There are 10 injuries to the rear of the
skulls of the six victims. Of these five are to the top or right side of
the skull. One of the remaining blows is a short puncture, almost
certainly from a spear. This leaves four blows, of which three struck the
victim from above, from angles where a false edge blow would have a severe
mechanical disadvantage. This leaves one blow which could conceivably have
been the result of a "wrap". One out of ten, possibly from a "wrap". Most
of the injuries to the left rear of the skull look to be in exactly the
position I strike people when I pass forward and to the right, striking
diagonally down with the true edge. I consider this a far more plausible
explanation of these injuries than a false edge blow which requires the
two combatants to be standing toe-to-toe.
>
>>I will look into this, but as of now we have little historical or
>>archaeological evidence supporting the use of 'wrap shots'. Some will
>>say 'absence of proof in not proof of absence', but this little peice of
>>predigested thought sends most historians crazy- you can use it to
>>justify anything.
>
>Not to 'justify', but to keep an open mind. And of course it depends upon
>how likely it is that the evidence that would mitigate against your
>assertions can be found. If, for example, one were to assert that King
>Edward III used zepplins in his war against the French, it is highly likely
>that this would not have been noticed by the artists and chroniclers of the
>time. Thus the lack of evidence is, if not proof of absence, very strong
>evidence of absence.
>
>However, when dealing with something as subtle and ephemeral as a specific
>sword technique, it is extremely difficult to be so certian, as one would
>not expect there to be much evidence for or against it in the first place.
>To utilize the sources of evidence that Dave listed at the beginning of
>this post, we start with the period fight manuals;
>
>The only place I would expect to find any evidence that could even begin to
>be conclusive about wrap shots is in a period sword manual that deals with
>combat with sword and shield. There are none to be found.
Excuse me?!? A brief look through my manual collection has come up with
five manuals which have a section on sword and shield. I am not including
sword and buckler here, although I would probably be justified in doing
so. None of these manuals show anything even remotely like a "wrap".
>
>Therfore, we turn to the next listed source of evidence, the iconography of
>the time. Do we see the wrap shot being used in combat scenes? Not that I
>am aware of.
<snip>
>
>The evidence from archaeology (see previous comments on Visby and the
>Anglo-Saxon skeletons) shows what we would expect to find if wrap shots
>were being used - an unusually high percentage of wounds to the left side
>of the back of the skull. This is of course not conclusive, as we do not
>know exactly how the fighters in question were killed (from in front, from
>behind, while they were down - who knows) but it does leave the question
>very much open.
It only shows what you would expect to find if you are looking for it.
Anyone without a vested interest in the "wrap shot" finds very little
evidence at all.
>
>That leaves us with practical experimentation. I can, and have, put on a
>suit of reasonably authentic replica armour and used a reasonably authentic
>replica sword to strike a wrap shot with consierable force (certianly with
>enough force to kill an unarmoured man, or for that matter, one wearing
>only a mail coif, as many of the unfortunates at Visby seem to have been
>wearing) on a pell. I can also, using a well-balanced and weighted wooden
>sword, use this technique quite effectively against a trained opponent, and
>have found the technique to be very effective against a foe using a shield,
>as have hundreds of other SCA fighters.
>
>Until I hear a reasonable explanation as to why this technique would not
>work in the middle ages, I will continue to hold that our medieval
>ancestors were at least as clever and inventive as we are today, and used
>the technique as well when the situation called for it.
I'll give you two reasonable explanations why it would not work in the
middle ages, because they used their feet and used their shields. On the
one occasion when I fought an SCA fighter (and a good one by all accounts)
he continually tried to close to "wrap distance" He failed, because I
moved and struck him repeatedly as he tried to close the distance, mainly
on the upper and lower legs which he was unable to cover at such short
distance. Of course lower legs are not a target in the SCA. I finally
allowed him to close and, given that he was wearing a grilled helmet, I
belted him in the face with my shield edge just before he got close enough
to "wrap". Again, active use of the shield is not allowed by the SCA.
Trying to close distance sufficiently to swing a "wrap shot" is suicidal.
No one who is even half-way well trained will allow you to do it. It only
works due to the other inaccuracies of SCA combat. The "wrap shot" is an
artifact of the SCA combat style. There is no evidence for it in any
medieval illustration or in any manual with a section on sword and shield
play. The so-called evidence from injuries in grave finds is better
explained by practices which are documentable. Therefore the attempts by
SCA members to justify the "wrap shot" on historical grounds is extremely
poor scholarship. Arguing from the desired conclusion back to the evidence
is the worst form of scholarship possible. It is the way religious
fundamentalists argue.
>Earl Michael de Lacy, KSCA
>
>(Michael Lacy)
Steve Hand
Editor, Run 5 Magazine
Strategic Studies Group
http://www.ssg.com.au
Michael Lacy
In article <shand-21089...@saccess-03-121.magna.com.au>,
sh...@ssg.com.au (Stephen Hand) wrote:
Not even close; the silliest blow ever devised by the hand of man is the
one illustrated in Talhoffers' 15th century Fechtbuch where the combatant
takes his bastard sword by the *blade*, and whacks at his opponent with the
quillions. I mean, what is going on here? The pointy end, stoopid, the
pointy end!
>Let's look at Wenham's article. There are 10 injuries to the rear of the
>skulls of the six victims. Of these five are to the top or right side of
>the skull. One of the remaining blows is a short puncture, almost
>certainly from a spear. This leaves four blows, of which three struck the
>victim from above, from angles where a false edge blow would have a severe
>mechanical disadvantage.
I take it from the tone of your post that you have never actually *thrown*
a wrap blow? From my experience, a wrap blow can land just about anywhere
on the back of an opponent's body, and at almost any angle. If executed on
the pass, it can even land on the right side of the targets body.
>This leaves one blow which could conceivably have
>been the result of a "wrap". One out of ten, possibly from a "wrap". Most
>of the injuries to the left rear of the skull look to be in exactly the
>position I strike people when I pass forward and to the right, striking
>diagonally down with the true edge. I consider this a far more plausible
>explanation of these injuries than a false edge blow which requires the
>two combatants to be standing toe-to-toe.
Your comments are quite interesting, but if you have not mastered the wrap
shot (again, as I am assuming from the tone of your post - correct me if I
am wrong), you really are in a rather weak position to be telling those of
us who have what it can and cannot do.
>>>I will look into this, but as of now we have little historical or
>>>archaeological evidence supporting the use of 'wrap shots'. Some will
>>>say 'absence of proof in not proof of absence', but this little peice of
>>>predigested thought sends most historians crazy- you can use it to
>>>justify anything.
>>
>>Not to 'justify', but to keep an open mind. And of course it depends upon
>>how likely it is that the evidence that would mitigate against your
>>assertions can be found. If, for example, one were to assert that King
>>Edward III used zepplins in his war against the French, it is highly likely
>>that this would not have been noticed by the artists and chroniclers of the
>>time. Thus the lack of evidence is, if not proof of absence, very strong
>>evidence of absence.
>>
>>However, when dealing with something as subtle and ephemeral as a specific
>>sword technique, it is extremely difficult to be so certian, as one would
>>not expect there to be much evidence for or against it in the first place.
>>To utilize the sources of evidence that Dave listed at the beginning of
>>this post, we start with the period fight manuals;
>>
>>The only place I would expect to find any evidence that could even begin to
>>be conclusive about wrap shots is in a period sword manual that deals with
>>combat with sword and shield. There are none to be found.
>
>Excuse me?!? A brief look through my manual collection has come up with
>five manuals which have a section on sword and shield. I am not including
>sword and buckler here, although I would probably be justified in doing
>so. None of these manuals show anything even remotely like a "wrap".
Very interesting! Which of these manuals describes 'knightly' combat, say
12th-14th century? Please do send me the full references, as I'm sure the
Royal Armouries collection at Leeds or the Kelvingrove Library will have
copies of them as well.
>>Therfore, we turn to the next listed source of evidence, the iconography of
>>the time. Do we see the wrap shot being used in combat scenes? Not that I
>>am aware of.
>
><snip>
>>
>>The evidence from archaeology (see previous comments on Visby and the
>>Anglo-Saxon skeletons) shows what we would expect to find if wrap shots
>>were being used - an unusually high percentage of wounds to the left side
>>of the back of the skull. This is of course not conclusive, as we do not
>>know exactly how the fighters in question were killed (from in front, from
>>behind, while they were down - who knows) but it does leave the question
>>very much open.
>
>It only shows what you would expect to find if you are looking for it.
See my comments on the value of practical experimentation below.
>Anyone without a vested interest in the "wrap shot" finds very little
>evidence at all.
Uncharitably put; I would say that anyone who does not know what to look
for will (of course) find very little evidence (of what they aren't looking
for in the first place) at all.
>>That leaves us with practical experimentation. I can, and have, put on a
>>suit of reasonably authentic replica armour and used a reasonably authentic
>>replica sword to strike a wrap shot with consierable force (certianly with
>>enough force to kill an unarmoured man, or for that matter, one wearing
>>only a mail coif, as many of the unfortunates at Visby seem to have been
>>wearing) on a pell. I can also, using a well-balanced and weighted wooden
>>sword, use this technique quite effectively against a trained opponent, and
>>have found the technique to be very effective against a foe using a shield,
>>as have hundreds of other SCA fighters.
>>
>>Until I hear a reasonable explanation as to why this technique would not
>>work in the middle ages, I will continue to hold that our medieval
>>ancestors were at least as clever and inventive as we are today, and used
>>the technique as well when the situation called for it.
>
>I'll give you two reasonable explanations why it would not work in the
>middle ages, because they used their feet and used their shields. On the
>one occasion when I fought an SCA fighter (and a good one by all accounts)
>he continually tried to close to "wrap distance" He failed, because I
>moved and struck him repeatedly as he tried to close the distance, mainly
>on the upper and lower legs which he was unable to cover at such short
>distance. Of course lower legs are not a target in the SCA. I finally
>allowed him to close and, given that he was wearing a grilled helmet, I
>belted him in the face with my shield edge just before he got close enough
>to "wrap". Again, active use of the shield is not allowed by the SCA.
Yes, of course using blows that SCA fighters are not used to is a great way
to catch them out...the first time. I learned to counter such moves
fighting steel in the UK quite quickly, and I have fought *many* steel
fighters, from a variety of steel fighting societies in the UK. And I find
that I am more often teaching rather than learning. But then that's just
personal experience, as is your example above.
>Trying to close distance sufficiently to swing a "wrap shot" is suicidal.
>No one who is even half-way well trained will allow you to do it.
I rather suspect that that depend upon how well trained you are at closing
distance.
>It only works due to the other inaccuracies of SCA combat.
So you are claiming that the wrap shot will not work because the SCA does
not allow blows to the lower leg?
Actually you seem to be saying that *all* techniques that rely on closing
the distance are innacurate for medieval combat, because closing the
distance 'is suicidal.'
Well,I am not convinced. Many period manuals show fighters closing to even
grappling distance. And medieval accounts of battles often speak of armies
so closely engaged that fancy footwork was impossible. What about charges,
shield-presses and the inevitable toe-to-toe combat of a pressing attack?
I find that the wrap shot works best (particularly with a mace) in a tight
press like a bridge battle.
>The "wrap shot" is an artifact of the SCA combat style.
I disagree; granted, there *are* some combat techniques that the SCA has
thrown up that are, to my mind, only possible because of inaccuracies in
SCA combat - the so called 'florentine' (two sword) style seems to me to
rely very heavily on the hands being invulnerable within their basket
hilts. I have seen no examples of this technique in any early iconography
or fight manual, and the few written sources I have seen are somewhat vauge
on the point (was the fighter going into combat with a sheathed backup
sword, or was he actually fighting with both at the same time, etc.)
Several sword and shield styles I have seen that take advantage of the
'invulnerable hand' are also quite suspect, as is the use of the greatsword
in the 'christian' style, as a blocking weapon.
Yet I do not see any specific innacuracy, or combination of innacuracies,
that would make the wrap shot unusable. I don't find your argument against
closing the distance to be very convincing, as it is clear from documentary
and iconographic evidince that fighters in the middle ages often _did_
fight toe-to-toe, and for offensive shieldwork, that can be countered once
you get used to it. The basic fact remains; when you are at close range in
shield-to-shield combat, a wrap shot simply *works*
So does a head butt. Are head butts a documented form of attack? I
haven't the foggiest. Were they used in period? Very probably.
>There is no evidence for it in any medieval illustration or in any manual with a >section on sword and shield play.
What about the 'coup de jarnac' that has been brought up on another thread?
>> >"(Jarnac) dextrously passes his point behind the unfortunate man's left
>> >knee, holding his hand in pronation, and with a quick movement snatches it
>> >back, bringing the sharp false edge into contact with the lower part of the
>> >ham...
That pretty much describes a wrap shot, as far as I am concerned.
>The so-called evidence from injuries in grave finds is better explained by practices >which are documentable.
Possibly. Yet they do show the kind of wound one would expect from a wrap
shot as well, leaving the question very much open - and until a time
machine is invented, inconclusive.
>Therefore the attempts by SCA members to justify the "wrap shot" on historical >grounds is extremely poor scholarship. Arguing from the desired conclusion back to >the evidence is the worst form of scholarship possible.
Working backwards from the results of practical experimentation can also
lead you to new insights into the problem, and suggest new avenues of
research. This sort of thing goes on all the time in archaeological
reconstructions. For example, when they built the viking ships in Denmark
(I forget the name of the museum) they learned a great deal about dark age
shipbuilding, and technology in general. When they came to an impasse (how
exactly does this widget work?) they 'made it up as they went along' and
experimented, always trying to keep in mind the tools and material
avaliable to their dark-age predecessors.
Some of what they came up with was eventually re-done because later
scholarship proved it was wrong, but many of the educated guesses they came
up with were not only correct, but their 'experiment' itself was the
inspiration for the research which later proved it so. (I forget the
details of the specific 'thing' that I read about; it was some years ago.
I think it had something to do with a formula for tar...)
We in the SCA have come up with a technique that works. We believe that is
is highly probable that the shot was used in medieval combat, and now some
of us are looking to see if it can be documented. This thread is part of
that ongoing process of research.
Earl Michael de Lacy, KSCA
(Michael Lacy)
(And please be so kind as to send me the references for those sword and
shield manuals you have...)
Cheers,
Hicksc
Earl Michael de Lacy, KSCA (Michael Lacy) wrote:
>> (And please be so kind as to send me the references for those sword
>> and shield manuals you have...)
Michael,
On a serious note, there may be one, maybe more. My prime suspect is
Dom Duarte, Rey do Portugal; Regimento para aprender a jogar as Armas ca
1434.
This 'disappeared' in 1974 during the 'Flower Revolution' in Portugal from
the Carthusian Monestary in Evora where it was held in the MS collection
"MIsericordia".
Lots of reasons.
May Del Serpente has knightly sword and shield.
There is a fragment of a manual, combined with another in the Augsberg
collection which shows a Swabian judicial duel with the combatants using
knightly shields. No text though--but interesting information about how
the shield is slung and used. More later---gotta cook dinner.
ST
Kent/Kat/Jen
Stephen Hand wrote:
<Snip>
>
> I'll give you two reasonable explanations why it would not work in the
> middle ages, because they used their feet and used their shields.
as do sca fighters. at least in my area.
> On the
> one occasion when I fought an SCA fighter (and a good one by all accounts)
> he continually tried to close to "wrap distance" He failed, because I
> moved and struck him repeatedly as he tried to close the distance, mainly
> on the upper and lower legs which he was unable to cover at such short
> distance.
what type of weapon and shield was he using?. with a proper kite or
celtic coffin. the legs are fairly easy to block. and with a properly
uses small round or buckler it becomes close to imposible to to get you
sword in position to throw such a blow.
> Of course lower legs are not a target in the SCA. I finally
> allowed him to close and, given that he was wearing a grilled helmet, I
> belted him in the face with my shield edge just before he got close enough
> to "wrap".
against my houshold this would not have been an option for you first i
suspect we close much faster that your opponent did. we all prefer to
fight from inside our opponents shield if at all possible, and it is
except on rare occations.
> Again, active use of the shield is not allowed by the SCA.
wrong, very wrong, the shield may not be used to strike an opponent. it
can be used very activly and even offensivly. within that one
restriction. for esample the way we use a buckler is to allow you you
first shot and follow it back with the buckler and plant it on the hilt
of your sword, thus preventing all those anti-closing shots you are so
proud of. my knight will even start out by just snapping his buckler to
that position be fore you can throw a blow on occation. thus being both
active and offensive.
>
> Trying to close distance sufficiently to swing a "wrap shot" is suicidal.
no. it was suicidal for the one fighter you fought. try fighting a
couple hundred more from around the sca, and see if you still have the
same conclution.
> No one who is even half-way well trained will allow you to do it.
no one allows me to do anything on the field. i do it because i find a
way to over whatever defense they may put in the way.
> It only
> works due to the other inaccuracies of SCA combat. The "wrap shot" is an
> artifact of the SCA combat style.
please prove. annacdodatle evedence from one fight is not proof.
> There is no evidence for it in any
> medieval illustration or in any manual with a section on sword and shield
there is also no evidence against it in those manuals.
lord aelfraed of shyrwode
Richard Krajewski
Stephen Hand wrote:
> I'll give you two reasonable explanations why it would not work in the
> middle ages, because they used their feet and used their shields. On the
> one occasion when I fought an SCA fighter (and a good one by all accounts)
> he continually tried to close to "wrap distance" He failed, because I
> moved and struck him repeatedly as he tried to close the distance, mainly
> on the upper and lower legs which he was unable to cover at such short
> distance. Of course lower legs are not a target in the SCA. I finally
> allowed him to close and, given that he was wearing a grilled helmet, I
> belted him in the face with my shield edge just before he got close enough
> to "wrap". Again, active use of the shield is not allowed by the SCA.
> Trying to close distance sufficiently to swing a "wrap shot" is suicidal.
> No one who is even half-way well trained will allow you to do it. It only
> works due to the other inaccuracies of SCA combat. The "wrap shot" is an
> artifact of the SCA combat style. There is no evidence for it in any
> medieval illustration or in any manual with a section on sword and shield
> play. The so-called evidence from injuries in grave finds is better
> explained by practices which are documentable. Therefore the attempts by
> SCA members to justify the "wrap shot" on historical grounds is extremely
> poor scholarship. Arguing from the desired conclusion back to the evidence
> is the worst form of scholarship possible. It is the way religious
> fundamentalists argue.
First let me say I'm not defending or rejecting the validity of the
'wrap' shot from a historical perspective. I do think though that if
you're able to execute the blow in a reasonable facsimile of period
armour and with a steel weapon who am I to argue. However...
From my experience, a 'wrap' shot is usually delivered as a movement on
the pass and rarely executed from a front on stance. It is necessarily
accompanied by an attempt to step around your opponent to your natural
side.
Footwork is always going to be a good defence against the 'wrap' shot.
Good fighters are always using their feet in both attack and defence.
The shot will of course fail if your foe reacts and moves out of the
way! No-one disputes this. It's not a killer be-all and end-all blow,
there's no such thing.
However, its all very well to say 'I'd just step out of the way' but
you've got to do it and do it in a combat situation. Not to mention that
its probably delivered in a sequence with some other combination. (Its
very rare that you see a bout with nothing more than one-shots). In the
same manner as saying 'I'd just use my shield to block the blow' its a
moot point if you're not quick enough, or you don't see it coming.
And once the shot is delivered, the good fighter doesn't just stand
there and try another one either. After the initial step with the
natural foot there are also follow up movements to come back to a
standard defensive position.
We'll have to get you in armour again sometime Steve:-)
Richard Krajewski
Bojegei
In article <19970822214...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, hic...@aol.com
(Hicksc) writes:
>As to the wrap issue, I have to admit I am divided. I think the problem
>with many of the deep wraps is that when the distance is closed so much, a
>medieval fighter would probably resort to grappling when on foot. Also
>the deeper wraps would expose the arm to a counter. Either a cut or a
>grip.
>
>Now I think that blows with the false edge were made.
>
>In La Jeu, there are some instances where the back of the head are
>targeted. But clearly, I think, they are 'grappling' manuevers in a
>situation where both hands are otherwise busy.
>
>In the long sword style of Liechtenaurs, there were hooking, false edge
>blows made around the other's sword, but the target would have been more
>the front of the face/head. (Winden).
>
>Ray Smith in his dissertation makes a point that the advances of using the
>sword as a defensive arm as well as offensive freed the off hand and lead
>to the inclusion of a wide range of grappling moves. So what did pre 12
>th/13th century fighting look like? I don't know. But wrestling is a
>consideration certainly from that point on.
>
>I think that this thread has many good things to offer, but I think we've
>exhausted focusing on 'the wrap'. I have enjoyed both Michael's and
>Steven's expostions.
I, also, have been deeply enjoying this thread. (I think I'm going to
have to take a look at some of the sources! Fascinating stuff.) I have
been wondering something, if wrap style shots weren't thrown in period why
would there bee a false edge on the swords? If it was only as an aid to
thrusting, the false edge would only need to be a couple of inches long.
However, the swords I've seen in museums and books appear to have a lot
longer false edge. Does anyone have any documentation that explains this?
Thank you M'lords,
Bojegei
Hicksc
I lost who said this originally (maybe Michael Lacy).
>Not even close; the silliest blow ever devised by the hand of man is the
>one illustrated in Talhoffers' 15th century Fechtbuch where the combatant
>takes his bastard sword by the *blade*, and whacks at his opponent with
the
>quillions. I mean, what is going on here? The pointy end, stoopid, the
>pointy end!
And there are tons of other 'stoopid' blows. Make sense if the pointy
sharp end wasn't much better than the dull one. Or maybe, its different
purposes.
If the tip and blade cannot pierce the opponents armor, perhaps there
needed to be some alternative means? The pommel is a concentrated
weight--something like a maul. The quillions stick out, perhaps they can
be used to hook or foul the opponent or his weapon?
Let's look, why, the same stuff is being done in La Jeu, except there,we
have a polearm with a mal (hammer end)with a spike, making a cross, being
used to hook weapon, arms, legs, head, and the mal end is being used to
bludgeon.
Not much different.
The longsword is pretty much an 'omni-weapon', the differentiation we have
between business end and not wasn't so strong for them. There are some
pretty weird looking things in the old manuals, but, they're part of a
tradition that lasted from the 14th century till the 18th (according to
Matt Galas there were still demonstrations of these weapons at that time).
I refused to believe something in Talhoffer 1443, I was sure the artist
made a mistake, until I saw it in Durer. This stuff had to work, so why
did it?
For the Burgundian/French, in La Jeu the master says that the Hache is the
common weapon, from which all others may be learned. The Germans felt that
all that needed to be learned about using a polearm could be learned from
the longsword. Silver recommends the staff to learn all two handed
weapons-polearms of two hande sword.
In some ways fixating on this arguement Routiers/SCA, is getting it all
wrong. There is so much there, probably everyones interpretations will
not accomodate it all. Its not what we do that is important, it is
figuring out why what they did worked.
For the life of me, I couldn't understand how or why they did some of the
hand changes, it seemed so difficult and awkward and unlikely. Until I
started taking jodo, and became familiar with atarashi naginata.
Steve
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <33FE67...@nash.tds.net>, kd...@nash.tds.net wrote:
> Stephen Hand wrote:
> > Again, active use of the shield is not allowed by the SCA.
>
> wrong, very wrong, the shield may not be used to strike an opponent. it
Then he is effectively right. If one could shield punch, distance would
be a different matter...
> can be used very activly and even offensivly. within that one
> restriction. for esample the way we use a buckler is to allow you you
> first shot and follow it back with the buckler and plant it on the hilt
> of your sword, thus preventing all those anti-closing shots you are so
Can't see that working against a competently-trained swordsman. One step
to the side on my part, and where's your buckler? Furthermore, to follow
me back from my cut (I'm never stupid enough to just throw a cut and stand
around and WAIT for a responsed) means you'll have to run after me.
> > There is no evidence for it in any
> > medieval illustration or in any manual with a section on sword and shield
>
> there is also no evidence against it in those manuals.
Right, and there is no evidence against the Magnum .44 in those same manuals.
--
To respond via email, remove non-licit characters to change my site to "cornell.edu".
Who is this goober, anyway? You can find out a little at:
Bryan J. Maloney
realtime.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.cit.cornell.edu
Xref: cornellcs soc.history.living:8223 rec.org.sca:209852
In article <5tlgae$qf8$1...@news3.realtime.net>, moon...@bga.com wrote:
> Here's a question that may pertain to the wrap-shot debate: is there
> documentation of moulinets in period? A wrap shot isn't all that
The "molinello" (is that how it's spelled?") appeared in some of the
military-style Italian manuals of the 16th century. It was a
moulinet--"moulinet" might just be French for "molinello".
> different from a reverse moulinet. If people *were* using reverse
> moulinets, then I think it's a point in favor of them using wraps as
The difference is that the "wrap" uses the false edge. I find the true
edge to be much stronger on the cut and no more limited in reach than the
false. The only difference is that the false could cut directly opposite
me.
m...@total.net
Someone lost in the multiple layers of quotes wrote:
> >but thats the point isnt it? The true medieval experience (which is what
> >the SCA aims at) cant be reached if moves common during that period are
> >'against the rules'.
> >It like comparing boxing with a street brawl.
>
> Well. I'm not sure that *is* what the SCA aims at myself.
>
> Anyway.. given this, is there *any* way to recreate "The true
> medieval experience"?
Gentlemen:
Let me first say that I have found this debate going on in
soc.history.living and rec.org.sca absolutely fascinating with excellent
points being brought up on both sides of the argument.
However, I find that we are missing the forest for the trees...
Correct me if I am wrong, but the question seems to be "Can medieval
re-enactment/re-creation bring about a true medieval experience for the
participant?" with the side question "Is the SCA a superior or inferior
means for this goal?"
Instead, the discussion seems to revolve around the correctness and
authenticity of certain combat techniques and accessories...
Let me state that the following is merely my perspective on the matter
based on my limited experience. Yes, I participate with the SCA and have
not had the opportunity to play with other groups and this may have
coloured my perceptions, maybe not. I do like to think of myself as
fair minded.
Now then, In My Honest Opinion, whether or not one can throw face thrusts
has very little to do with the medieval experience, as does whether or
not a "wrap shot" is "period". also of minimal relevance is whether my
armor is mail or full plate, plastic or stainless steel, as is the grill I
must have on my helm even though the individual I am trying to emulate
probably did not have one. That my sword is actually a stick or an
over-heavy blunted steel bar is a very minor detail.
Nope.
For me the medieval experience is looking across the battlefield to see
hundreds (yes, hundreds) of warriors ready to join battle, convinced that
they are all coming after me. It is the incredible adrenaline rush which
builds up until the order to charge is given, and then gives me the
ability to charge at a dead run no longer feeling the weight of my armour
(which seemed so *&%$* heavy during the walk to the battlefield). It is
trudgeing through the woods for hours on end, exhausted, dehydrated,
sweaty(someone somewhere in this thread cited this as a condition for
"realism"), aware that an attack can come from any quarter, and finding
the energy to fight when that attack does come. It is the fact that the
combattants are wearing bright yellows, blues, reds, etc. rather than
camouflage, regardless of what is worn under the colours for protection.
It is not knowing if we will win this one. It is engaging the enemy
without holding back. It is standing at the rear of a bridge, waiting for
your turn to engage. It is the din of battle. It is the "clickety-clank"
of my armour when I walk.
I have experienced all of these things, as I'm sure have countless
re-enactors/re-creators in whatever system they use.
In short, it is an emotional as well as physical experience, and happens
mostly in one's mind. The exact type of weapon, style of armour, technique
of combat have little importance to me with regards to the "experience".
All styles of re-creation have a couple of "drawbacks" in common.
#1 Nobody actually dies, removing the fear of death, as has been mentioned
elsewhere in this thread. Big bummer, that.
#2 The necessity of combat limitations. In the SCA, we can hit "full
force" but some parts of the body are off limits. In other systems
everything is a target, but blows are pulled, or contact is disallowed
outright, and in some cases, feints are disallowed. Remove these
limitaions, and we may also rescind #1 above.
Given #1 & #2 above no system can provide the ultimate "true" experience,
and I feel it is unfair to all for anyone to say "MY system is better".
Were "wrap shots" actually used in period? My answer: who cares? I use
them because I find them useful in certain situations. Whether or not I
use them, whether or not they are historically authentic technique is
irrelevant to the experience of facing off with an armoured opponent who
is as intent to defeat me as I am to defeat him (or her), and, win or
lose, doing so with honour.
You want the 100% authentic experience? Find yourself a real war somewhere
(there are plenty going on) and hire yourself out as a mercenary. Because
in the end, death is death, whether by sword or bullet, and fear is fear,
then and now. Technology has changed much, but human nature has not.
Remember, friends. Regrdless of the rules we use, we are all doing this
for our personal pleasure.
My bear's (canadian $2 coin) worth for today...
Sebastiann Da Pachino mka Mario Carobene
Poursuivant, Ile du Dragon Dormant Computer guy, Photographer, etc.
http://www.total.net/~mbc/idd/ http://www.total.net/~mbc/
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Kent/Kat/Jen
Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>
> In article <33FE67...@nash.tds.net>, kd...@nash.tds.net wrote:
>
> > Stephen Hand wrote:
>
> >
>
> Then he is effectively right. If one could shield punch, distance would
> be a different matter...
but you can shield punch, just not to an oponents body or face. sheild
punches to the shield or weapon are still quite legal.
>
> > can be used very activly and even offensivly. within that one
> > restriction. for esample the way we use a buckler is to allow you you
> > first shot and follow it back with the buckler and plant it on the hilt
> > of your sword, thus preventing all those anti-closing shots you are so
>
> Can't see that working against a competently-trained swordsman.
then why has my knight been doing it for twenty + years?
> One step
> to the side on my part, and where's your buckler?
same place. your step is simply counted by my step. and if placed
correctly your step actually helped pull me along.
> Furthermore, to follow
> me back from my cut (I'm never stupid enough to just throw a cut and stand
> around and WAIT for a responsed) means you'll have to run after me.
yep. but unless you are one of these people who throws only one shot i
suspect you also intended to follow your first shot with a second, thus
making it much harder to run backwards. i also have met very very people
that can run backwards as fast as any in my household can forwards.
>
> > > There is no evidence for it in any
> > > medieval illustration or in any manual with a section on sword and shield
> >
> > there is also no evidence against it in those manuals.
>
> Right, and there is no evidence against the Magnum .44 in those same manuals.
exept that we know from other sources that the 44 mag. had not been
invented as of that time. the sword however had. and thus could be used
in such a fashion.
aelfraed of shyrwode
Mario Carobene
Gentlemen:
Nope.
Sebastiano Da Pachino mka Mario Carobene
ek
Using the reversed sword as a club might work if your blade got
extremely dull. But I have seen illustrations from a treatise on
musketry and it shows the combatants using smallswords, reversed
muskets, musket rests, even a cabacet (sp) helmet as weapons in hand to
hand. Myabe the author is just trying to show that anything is a
weapon. just because it's in print doesn't make it gospel truth or
smart to do!
Slainte,
Fearghus
ek
Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>
> In article <19970823005...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> boj...@aol.com (Bojegei) wrote:
>
> > I, also, have been deeply enjoying this thread. (I think I'm going to
> > have to take a look at some of the sources! Fascinating stuff.) I have
> > been wondering something, if wrap style shots weren't thrown in period why
> > would there bee a false edge on the swords? If it was only as an aid to
>
> for a cut is out in the foible...
>
> --
> To respond via email, remove non-licit characters to change my site to "cornell.edu".
>
> Who is this goober, anyway? You can find out a little at:
>
> http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/
Fearghus
Bryan J. Maloney
> Whatza foible? I mean besides an eccentricity.
> Fearghus
A sword blade has two sections.
The "forte" is the strong part, the half towards the hilt. The "foible"
or "feeble", is the other half.
Zen Bitz
blac...@sprynet.com wrote:
>
> > ek <e...@zianet.com> writes:
> > Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Why do sword edges even go down to the hilt? After all, the sweet spot
> > > for a cut is out in the foible...
> > >
> > > To respond via email, remove non-licit characters to change my site to "cornell.edu".
> > >
> > > Who is this goober, anyway? You can find out a little at:
> > >
> > > http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/
> > Fearghus
> >
> >>>>
>
> Bryan occasionally doesn't know what word he wants, so he sticks in something that looks vaguely correct
> and keeps right on going. In this case, I don't know exactly *what* word he wanted.
Not this time:
foi*ble \'fo_i-bel\ n
[obs. F (now faible), fr. obs. foible weak, fr. OF feble feeble]
(1648)
1: the part of a sword or foil blade between the middle and point
2: a minor flaw or shortcoming in character or behavior: WEAKNESS
syn see FAULT
Heck, it's even grey-area documetably period.
--
Void Where Prohibited * Laden With Cosmic Significance
"Second place? Second place in a gunfight gets you an 80 lb.
granite trophy, enscribed with your name and the date."
+== To send mail replace die@spammerscum with hitz@cumbnd ===+
Ben Hitz -- Do not reply Directly -- Dept. of Biochemistry
*** http://tincan.bioc.columbia.edu/Home/ben.home/ ***
C Freedman
blac...@sprynet.com wrote:
> > Whatza foible? I mean besides an eccentricity.
> > Fearghus
> >
> >>>>
> F:
>
> Bryan occasionally doesn't know what word he wants, so he sticks in something that looks vaguely correct
> and keeps right on going. In this case, I don't know exactly *what* word he wanted.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ld. Jonathan Blackbow
> Clan O'Shannon
>
I try to stay out of these discussions, but here is a case that I feel I
must respond to. FOIBLE is what Mr. Maloney said, and FOIBLE was what he
meant. Just because you don't happen to be familiar with the term (And
who is familiar with ALL terms? Certainly not I...) it is very poor
practice to accuse someone of blithely making up terminology as they go
along, particularly accusing them of doing it habitually. That being
said, the foible of a blade refers to the last third (or so) nearest the
point. From a leverage point of view, particularly in a
primarily-thrusting swordplay style, this is the "weak" portion of the
blade, requiring very little pressure applied laterally to deflect. The
portion of the blade nearest the hilt is often referred to as the forte,
the "strong" section of the blade, where the leverage of blade to blade
contact is much better.
Generally in a tactical sense, one attempts to parry the foible of an
opponent's blade with the forte of one's own blade. This works
especially well, as previously mentioned, during a thrust, whether using
an estoc, a rapier, a smallsword, or what have you.
Russ Myers
a.k.a. Brin Leare, Sgt.
Sir Thomas Blackwell's Regt.
ECW
Bryan J. Maloney
> Bryan occasionally doesn't know what word he wants, so he sticks in
something that looks vaguely correct
> and keeps right on going. In this case, I don't know exactly *what*
word he wanted.
The correct word, the word I want, is "foible". In the 18th and earlier
centuries, it was often used interchangeably with "feeble". Learn basic
terminology of sword anatomy. It would prove far more fruitful than
attempting to insult me and falling flat on your face.
Lysander
Corwyn wrote:
> Indeed, you might want to look at corpora as regards e-mail and the rialto:
> "2.11. Only Brian J. Maloney has the right to be sarcastic, opinionated,
> pompous, condesending, snide or provocative in pursuit of freedom of speech
> and historical recreation; and may justifiably complain and be insulted and
> indignant when others do the same to him."
> No kidding. It's right there. Right next to the secret section on "how to
> persecute those seeking greater authenticicty"
Doh-eth! Should have known.. frazzlmzzl@#$..!
Oh I thought you were serious..! You know what gave it away..? Brian would
never heed any *rule* held by a Hollywood-based barely medieval fantasy
group like the SCA <Hmm.. "barely medieval, fantasy group. Sounds rather
odd.. either it's fantasy, or it's barely medieval, or was it barely
fantasy, and medieval, or was it medieval fantasy, barely? That last one
sounds good ;-) >
As for persecuting those seeking greater authenticity, Brian persecutes
those that *don't* with far greater skill...
Lysander
William E Wilson
> > Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Why do sword edges even go down to the hilt? After all, the sweet spot
> > > for a cut is out in the foible...
>
> Bryan occasionally doesn't know what word he wants, so he sticks in
something that looks vaguely correct
> and keeps right on going. In this case, I don't know exactly *what*
word he wanted.
>
The correct word in modern fencing parlance is foible. It is the 1/3 to
1/2 of the blade closest to the point.
Barwn Gwylym
----------------------------------------
William Wilson -- william...@nau.edu
Northern Arizona University
Kent/Kat/Jen
Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>
> In article <34026B...@nash.tds.net>, kd...@nash.tds.net wrote:
>
> > but you can shield punch, just not to an oponents body or face. sheild
> > punches to the shield or weapon are still quite legal.
>
> not just into his equipment.
actually it is a real shield punch, as is one into the body of your
opponent. both have their time place, and most effective use.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > can be used very activly and even offensivly. within that one
> > > > restriction. for esample the way we use a buckler is to allow you you
> > > > first shot and follow it back with the buckler and plant it on the hilt
> > > > of your sword, thus preventing all those anti-closing shots you are so
> > >
> > > Can't see that working against a competently-trained swordsman.
> >
> > then why has my knight been doing it for twenty + years?
>
> Maybe he hasn't faced many competently-trained swordsmen...
very unlikely. after having fought in six kingdoms and against a large
number of so called sword-fighters from non sca groups that held pompous
opinions like yours.
>
> >
> > > One step
> > > to the side on my part, and where's your buckler?
> >
> > same place. your step is simply counted by my step. and if placed
> > correctly your step actually helped pull me along.
>
> And when I cut while you're following me up? Do you really think that I
> cannot change my ward just because somebody is exerting pressure upon my
> weapon?
never claimed pressure was exerted. the buckler lightly rests uupon your
weapon. and moves with it. you might try studying Akido at some point,
it teach how to move with your opponent rather than fighting him. it is
very effective for this style of combat.
> Have you ever heard of a "disengage"--and the harder YOU push,
> the EASIER it is for me to disengage AND throw you off balance. I have
> tagged SOOOOOOOOOOO many people who insist upon "pushing" my weapon "out
> of the way" with such foolishness.
unlike the fools you may fight, we do not exert any pressure on youir
weapon. we simply make sure to maintain contact at all times.
>For example, supposing you try to
> simply push my weapon down.
bad example as none of us would ever do this. maybe the flakes youtrain
would. but we don't.
> A quick disengage to prime or segund,
> followed by a molinello into a squalambrato or even fendente, and it's
> CLANG on your helm. What makes it *really* neat is that this move would
> be one tempo, and not two--I could use the force from your buckler to add
> impetus to my disengage and molinello. Push me to the side, and the
> molinello becomes even easier and more fluid. Doesn't your "household"
> teach the disengage upon pressure?
yes, which is why we apply no pressure. you are assume we make the same
stupid mistakes you do.
> It's a very basic technique, and it
> works for all styles of swordplay.
if you opponent unlike us, is willing to be that stupid yes it is.
>
> >
> > > Furthermore, to follow
> > > me back from my cut (I'm never stupid enough to just throw a cut and stand
> > > around and WAIT for a responsed) means you'll have to run after me.
> >
> > yep. but unless you are one of these people who throws only one shot i
> > suspect you also intended to follow your first shot with a second, thus
> > making it much harder to run backwards.
>
> Wrong, dead wrong. I can attack on the advance, on the retreat, standing
> still, going sideways, humming "Rule, Brittania", or reciting the
> multiplication tables (a little tricky, that last one).
never claimed you could not. however unless you are already reteating
when you make the first attack, which is unlikely as we will stay at
just barely in range until that first attack, simply body mechanics slow
down the start of any retreat if you throw an immediate followup blow.
that slight hesitation is all we need to close the distance.
> The first four
> are drilled into us mandatorially by my Maitre. Does your "household" not
> require all students to be equally as proficient in offensive use of the
> sword with *any and all* footwork? The feet are used to adjust distance.
> This does not determine what one is able to do with the sword.
yes, it does, but as i said. it ois not weather you can swing the blow
effectivly, it is weatre the blow causes a slight hesitation in your
retreat that matters.
aelfraed of shyrwode
.
Kent/Kat/Jen
Brian, got a question,
ever fenced in the round. and were did all this sword and shield
training come from as you master certainly does not claim it in his
abilities, or in the skills he teaches. while fencing is a wonderfull
art. it will only get you killed vs a real armoured swords man. stick
that little pig stiker out and i will simply remove the arm holding it,
while you vainly try penetrate the armour. ther is a reason, the
"fencing weapons did not come into play untill after the long bow and
gunpowder made a mokery of armour on the battle field.
aelfraed of shyrwode
Kent/Kat/Jen
Michael S. McCollum wrote:
> don't always agree with Bryan's commentary or his tone, but I will say
> this...
> he and I have debated points vis a vis rapier/swordplay/methodology and
> while we don't always agree, our dialogue has always been erudite (IMHO)
> and Bryan is not a tyro by any stretch of the imagination. I know of his
> Maestro and you do him and his salle a great disservice by your
> comments.
howso? al i di was point out that he claim no expertise in sword and
shield, and does not claim to teach it on any of the webpages or links
that are attached to the one he list in his sig.
> If you believe Bryan to be in the wrong, so be it, but certainly such
> callous comments about his fellows students and maesto are uncalled for.
if in this you include, the comments i made in other post please go
reread, you will notice brian started trowing the insults at my
household, i simply returned in kind. if you do not like them go tell
brian.
> As a personal anecdote I'd like to share an experience of mine that took
> place many years ago in Madrid. I had the extreme fortune to be
> introduced to Maestro Oscar Kolombatovich by the then military attache
> to the American Embassay. The Maestro is (among other things) swordmaker
> to King Juan Carlos. He participated in several real duels as a young
> man and has a fascinating background that includes the OSS in WWII. He
> is by no means inexperienced in bladed combat, either competition or in
> earnest. One day we were having a discussion regarding the very subject
> you take issue with with Bryan. The Maestro bade me take up a
> landesknecht zweihander and he took up an antique turn-of-the-century
> foil. He told me to strike at him and I did so half-heartedly. He glared
> at me and told me that as he knew I had some small experience I was to
> swing harder and at full speed. He neatly deflected my stroke and did so
> several times to prove it was not a fluke, aptly demonstrating that with
> proper technique the obscure could be made obvious.
all of which actually proved nothing, a slow two handed sworrd vs a
rapier being used purely defensively, can be quite easily defected. but
the mechanics chnge dramaticly, when the weapons opposing the rapier are
broad sword and shield.
> I will not take sides in what seems to me to have become a fairly heated
> discussion.
except that you have already done so , by attmpting to take me task for
an offense, that bryan also commits and failing to apply the same rule
to him.
>With your indulgence I would offer up a few observations
> though. I would never confuse one of my 44 inch rapiers a "pig sticker".
> While somewhat flexible, any one of them is perfectly capable of
> piercing mail or passing through any one of the weak spots in an armour.
if you can be that accurate, and it is not behind my shield you are
correct about the weeak spot argument, as for mail however, yes they
will penetrate butted chain, however, when being used against proper
rivited chain the equation changes dramaticly. now inorder to penetrate
you must break those rivits, not just slide the rings ends apart. this
will not prevent a competent rapier fighter from still penetrating the
chain, but it does require a much harder/cleaner blow.
> As to the rapier and its' appearance "post gunpowder', I think you need
> to look at the evolution of the sword a little more closely. I would be
> happy to offer several reference sources should you wish to have them.
once again please reread, i said, post longbow and gunpowder, each, of
these two weapons reduces the reliabilty of armour, and thus increased
the rate at which the rapier tolke over modern combat.
> Experience in various martial forms over the past 20 years or so has
> taught me that all attacks have counters as do all defenses. Any given
> weapon or fighting style has particular strengths and weaknesses. It is
> hubris to presume any given weapon or form is automatically superior to
> another as there are simply too many variables that enter into the
> equation.
tell that to bryan, who seems to think his fighting style is superior to
all form. and that all other are incompetant.
> In closing...I never met anyone I couldn't learn from..even if it was
> what *not* to do. May you resolve your differences amicably.
i will fully agree with this, it may not however be in the field they
wish to teach. and instaed be in some completly differant area. now if
i wanted to fight with rapier, and someday i do. i think bryan could
teach me alot, but untill he has had the 25+ years of fighting
experiance, including black belt, service in three of four millitary
branches, and his nighting almost 20 years ago. i seriously doubt he can
taeach me much about heavy combat that my 10 years with my knight have
not.
aelfraed of shyrwode
Dave Earl
Hello,
Baron Richard of Rowany wrote:
>
> Michael Lacy wrote:
> > >To this
> > >end, Michael submitted the Wisby remains, suggesting that if people were
> > >slewn from behind there would be an equal distribution of blows to the
> > >left and right, and an emphasis on single large cuts rather than several
> > >small 'failed attempts'. If wrap shots were used, then it would be
> > >expected that they would be significantly more shots to the left side of
> > >the head, and several 'failed attempts'. An examination of the evidence
> > >from Thordeman shows that 58.33% of blows to the Occiptal and
> > >Parieto-Occipital bones were on the left hand side, which indicates a
> > >relatively even spread.
> >
> > That's about a 40-60 spread, which is, I would argue, very significant.
>
> Well now that all depends. From a purely mathematical perspective, if
> we assume that that their was an equal likelihood that any one blow was
> delivered from the left or right then...
>
> For 100 blows the probability that more than 58 of the blows were on the
> left hand side is approx 4%
> For 1000 blows the probability that more 583 of the blows were on the
> left hand side is miniscule
>
> So of what degree of significance are we talking?
There were twelve blows to the Parieto-Occiptal and Occipital areas;
seven to the left and five to the right.
Dave.
--
----------------------------------
to find out more visit my page at:
Michael Lacy
In article <3408F2...@altus.speednet.com.au>,
Dave Earl <dave...@altus.speednet.com.au> wrote:
What is significant about the blows to the back of the head in the Visby
excavations is the fact that they showed the opposite predominance of
attack as shown in the front of the skulls. The front of the skulls showed
a marked predominance of wounds to the left front quarter. If those skulls
showing wounds to the back of the head were slain from the rear, then one
would expect the same distribution of blows (causing blows to predominate
in the right rear quarter). Instead we find the opposite (majority of
blows to the left rear quarter). Not only at Visby, but also at in the
bodies discussed in the 'Anotomical Interpretation of Injuries from
Anglo-Saxon Graves' article I mentioned, and in the blade marks on a 15th
century tourney helm at the Victoria and Albert Museum. Cooincidence?
Well, maybe. But it *could* be evidence of a wrap blow being used.
At any rate, it leaves the question of the wrap blow in period very much
open, to my mind.
Michael Lacy
(Earl Michael de Lacy, KSCA)
Bryan J. Maloney
o.cit.cornell.edu> <34026B...@nash.tds.net> <bjm10-26089...@potato.cit.cornell.edu> <3407A1...@nash.tds.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.cit.cornell.edu
Xref: cornellcs soc.history.living:8431 rec.org.sca:210664
In article <3407A1...@nash.tds.net>, kd...@nash.tds.net wrote:
> unlike the fools you may fight, we do not exert any pressure on youir
> weapon. we simply make sure to maintain contact at all times.
A disengage will still work.
Bryan J. Maloney
o.cit.cornell.edu> <34026B...@nash.tds.net> <bjm10-26089...@potato.cit.cornell.edu> <3407A3...@nash.tds.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.cit.cornell.edu
Xref: cornellcs soc.history.living:8430 rec.org.sca:210663
In article <3407A3...@nash.tds.net>, kd...@nash.tds.net wrote:
> Brian, got a question,
> ever fenced in the round. and were did all this sword and shield
Yes.
> training come from as you master certainly does not claim it in his
Initially in SCA, then I diverged and began to study from historical
sources--oh, and my Maitre DOES teach sword and buckler, by the way.
> abilities, or in the skills he teaches. while fencing is a wonderfull
> art. it will only get you killed vs a real armoured swords man. stick
> that little pig stiker out and i will simply remove the arm holding it,
Where is this rubbish coming from?
Bryan J. Maloney
<01bcb747$485dd040$9ea1...@fmtbdr0d.deet.gov.au>
NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.cit.cornell.edu
Xref: cornellcs soc.history.living:8433 rec.org.sca:210667
In article <01bcb747$485dd040$9ea1...@fmtbdr0d.deet.gov.au>, "Jeffrey
Blanchard" <jeff.bl...@deetya.gov.au> wrote:
> Now consider: Oooh gee, I'm a big strong novice. I'm new to this fighting
> thing, my targeting is a bit off but I can hit hard enough to kill someone.
> I am right handed. I am in a tightly packed shield wall, flailing away
> with my sword, forward and back, forward and back. Oooh, Sir Rabinowitz is
> immediately to my right, it looks like I may survive this one after all.
> Flail, flail, CLANG! Oooh, sorry Sir Rabinowitz - it appears that during
> my completely inaccurate but incredibly solid right handed shots I have
> smacked you about the head. Those dents do look good though, being on the
> back left and all...
The winners at Wisby were professional mercenary soldiers, not novices.
Bryan J. Maloney
o.cit.cornell.edu> <34026B...@nash.tds.net> <bjm10-26089...@potato.cit.cornell.edu> <3407A3...@nash.tds.net> <34079F...@visi.net> <340861...@nash.tds.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.cit.cornell.edu
Xref: cornellcs soc.history.living:8432 rec.org.sca:210666
In article <340861...@nash.tds.net>, kd...@nash.tds.net wrote:
> all of which actually proved nothing, a slow two handed sworrd vs a
> rapier being used purely defensively, can be quite easily defected. but
> the mechanics chnge dramaticly, when the weapons opposing the rapier are
> broad sword and shield.
Re-read the message--it was not even a rapier that was used but a
turn-of-the-century foil, a vastly smaller weapon.
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <bl10-ya02368000...@news.real.net.au>,
bl...@uow.edu.au (Lysander) wrote:
> Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>
> > Lysander wrote:
> > Y'know, it's nice to find somebody that even *I* can feel superior to.
>
> Maloney, don't even bother, you snide egostical farce of a man. This just
> proves the point that you can dish out the criticism but can't take it.
> What a sad insular world you live in.
As I said...
Trevor Barker
Dave Earl <dave...@altus.speednet.com.au> wrote
Now, I'm not a statistician (on the other hand, I do have a DPhil in
Chemistry) but it seems to me that a 7:5 spread is not particularly
significant. It could easily have occurred by chance. We cannot therefore
rule out the "null hypothesis", which is that the evidence
> > > >indicates a relatively even spread.
Trevor Barker
(aka Robert fitz John)
--
Opinions expressed are mine and not those of Logica
barkert "at" logica "dot" com
Kent/Kat/Jen
Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>
> o.cit.cornell.edu> <34026B...@nash.tds.net> <bjm10-26089...@potato.cit.cornell.edu> <3407A3...@nash.tds.net>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.cit.cornell.edu
> Xref: cornellcs soc.history.living:8430 rec.org.sca:210663
>
> In article <3407A3...@nash.tds.net>, kd...@nash.tds.net wrote:
>
> > Brian, got a question,
> > ever fenced in the round. and were did all this sword and shield
>
> Yes.
>
> > training come from as you master certainly does not claim it in his
>
> Initially in SCA, then I diverged and began to study from historical
> sources--oh, and my Maitre DOES teach sword and buckler, by the way.
which form, from an armoured combat stand point or unarmoured with
rapier. they are very differant styles.
>
> > abilities, or in the skills he teaches. while fencing is a wonderfull
> > art. it will only get you killed vs a real armoured swords man. stick
> > that little pig stiker out and i will simply remove the arm holding it,
>
> Where is this rubbish coming from?
what rubbish? if you are fighting rapier and buckler as i suppose you
have only one effective attack with your sword vs an armoured opponent
your thrust. which requires you to stick your arm out where it becomes
quite easy to cut off. in fact that is my one of my favorite attacks.
while you have a second set of effective attacks with your buckler. they
require you to be in effectuale with the rapier and well inside the
range of the heavy weapons fighter. and while the one you fought may not
have been weel versed enough in his weapons to add offensive shield
punches to his attacks, do not believe the rest of us would be caught so
flat footed.
but if you really want to know having fenced, and fought heavy, the
differance is really made by how much armour we are wearing. in little
or no armour, your extendad reach will give you a distinct advantage.
when the propoer armour for my style of combat is added into the picture
it your weapon advantages are at least equaled if not out weighed in tha
many of you attacks be come completly useless. (draw cuts, point slashes
etc.) and while executing any of them (all slower and more in the open
than a proper snap shot) your arm is wide open to my attack.
aelfraed off shyrwode
apriori
>but if you really want to know having fenced, and fought heavy, the
>differance is really made by how much armour we are wearing. in little
>or no armour, your extendad reach will give you a distinct advantage.
>when the proper armour for my style of combat is added into the picture
>it your weapon advantages are at least equaled if not out weighed in tha
>many of you attacks be come completly useless. (draw cuts, point slashes
>etc.) and while executing any of them (all slower and more in the open
>than a proper snap shot) your arm is wide open to my attack.
I must to some degree take issue. I generally fight SCA heavy with two quite
long rattan swords. These have been constructed to match my reproduction
rapiers (early period, heavy bladed 'sword rapiers' of around three pounds
each, with c. 37"blades) as closely as I could manage. I wear a fairly
accurate reproduction of an English Civil War soldier's armor (buff coat,
back-and-breast w/ spalders, lobstertail, steel elbow cops, gauntlets with
reinforced cuffs, and greaves). My arm armor is on the light side for SCA
heavy fighting, but it is quite legal and not the lightest I have seen passed
by the marshallate. It's quite unencumbering insofar as restriction of
joint movement goes. I'm somewhat larger and stronger than the average
fighter, but no behemoth.
While it is true that the usefulness of the draw cut and (to a lesser degree)
the point slash are reduced in armored combat, I find that at least 80% of my
kills are delivered with the point of one of my swords (about a 50/50 mix -
I'm ambidextrous...). Interestingly, many ofthe remaining blows tend to be
wraps. I have _not_ found that this reliance on the thrust as the primary
killing stroke has resulted in being struck on the arm any more often than
would have occurred when using primarily edge attacks. Note that many of the
fighters I spar with are far from rookies (lots of knights, a couple dukes and
counts/earls, and some rather skiled non-belts), know how to target an arm
when one presents itself, and are hardly slow.
Sure, if I _initiate_ a passage with a long thrust, I'd probably get
arm-chopped plenty - but that's not the fault of the basic premise of the
technique - it's the fault of stupd tactics! On occasion when I use an
initial thrust as a feint, I'm _expecting_ soem sort of counter directed at my
arm, and I'm prepared to defend against it.
Basically what I'm saying is that my experience would indcate that many
'proper' rapier techniques seem to work quite well in armored combat.
Yours in Service,
Earl Dafydd a' Gwynedd, KSCA
mka David Anderson
Jeffrey Blanchard
Michael Lacy <us...@srmdel.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<B02FA5E8...@srmdel.demon.co.uk>...
> What is significant about the blows to the back of the head in the Visby
> excavations is the fact that they showed the opposite predominance of
> attack as shown in the front of the skulls. The front of the skulls
showed
> a marked predominance of wounds to the left front quarter. If those
skulls
> showing wounds to the back of the head were slain from the rear, then one
> would expect the same distribution of blows (causing blows to predominate
> in the right rear quarter). Instead we find the opposite (majority of
> blows to the left rear quarter). Not only at Visby, but also at in the
> bodies discussed in the 'Anotomical Interpretation of Injuries from
> Anglo-Saxon Graves' article I mentioned, and in the blade marks on a 15th
> century tourney helm at the Victoria and Albert Museum. Cooincidence?
> Well, maybe. But it *could* be evidence of a wrap blow being used.
>
> At any rate, it leaves the question of the wrap blow in period very much
> open, to my mind.
Consider: It seems to me that during a fight the most vulnerable place to
be hit was where you could not see - behind you. If (and this is purely
conjecture) someone had one day been practising his/her sword work on a
pell (read: immobile practice target), threw a blow and, due to chance,
injury, mis-timing, distraction, whatever, the sword landed squarely on the
back of the 'pell'. The 'bad' fighter would probably put it down as a
terrible shot - " Christ, how did that happen? Hmmm, better concentrate so
it doesn't happen again..." The 'good' fighter stops, looks at where the
sword has landed and merely says "Hmmmmmm." Practice, practice and more
practice, you suddenly have someone who can throw a shot while standing in
front of you and hit you in the back of the head (or body or legs etc). He
teaches others, maybe others see and emulate, it doesn't matter - thus the
wrap is born. Those who know it practice and use it. Those who have never
seen it either adapt to it or die.
Now consider: Oooh gee, I'm a big strong novice. I'm new to this fighting
thing, my targeting is a bit off but I can hit hard enough to kill someone.
I am right handed. I am in a tightly packed shield wall, flailing away
with my sword, forward and back, forward and back. Oooh, Sir Rabinowitz is
immediately to my right, it looks like I may survive this one after all.
Flail, flail, CLANG! Oooh, sorry Sir Rabinowitz - it appears that during
my completely inaccurate but incredibly solid right handed shots I have
smacked you about the head. Those dents do look good though, being on the
back left and all...
Both conjecture. But both could have just as easily happened.
Jeff Blanchard
Bryan J. Maloney
o.cit.cornell.edu> <34026B...@nash.tds.net> <bjm10-26089...@potato.cit.cornell.edu> <3407A1...@nash.tds.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.cit.cornell.edu
Xref: cornellcs soc.history.living:8445 rec.org.sca:210709
In article <3407A1...@nash.tds.net>, kd...@nash.tds.net wrote:
> never claimed pressure was exerted. the buckler lightly rests uupon your
> weapon. and moves with it. you might try studying Akido at some point,
> it teach how to move with your opponent rather than fighting him. it is
> very effective for this style of combat.
I have studied Aikijutsu and Aikido under Soke Tom Burdine. By the way,
what you describe is not at all unique to Japanese combat--it's an
elaboration upon the concept of the "yield" to be found in Western
swordplay. A some of Fabris's "stressi tempo" stuff uses the
yield--following your opponent's own attack to his vital areas.
> unlike the fools you may fight, we do not exert any pressure on youir
> weapon. we simply make sure to maintain contact at all times.
As I said before, it is possible to disengage from this--furthermore,
insisting upon contact makes one a certain mark. Bazancourt, for example
would say that the best way to handle such a situation is to deny contact.
> > A quick disengage to prime or segund,
> > followed by a molinello into a squalambrato or even fendente, and it's
> > CLANG on your helm. What makes it *really* neat is that this move would
> > be one tempo, and not two--I could use the force from your buckler to add
> > impetus to my disengage and molinello. Push me to the side, and the
> > molinello becomes even easier and more fluid. Doesn't your "household"
> > teach the disengage upon pressure?
>
> yes, which is why we apply no pressure. you are assume we make the same
> stupid mistakes you do.
Lack of pressure does not make the disengages I described difficult, just
less easy--both of those disengages are yielding disengages, anyway, thus,
I yield against your yield. Soft upon soft, water flows away and rushes
back. If you give no pressure at all, it will not be possible to follow.
If you follow, you must exert effort--there will be pressure, no matter
how fluid one is. Learning to read this extremly fine nuance has been
called "sentiment de fer" in the French school.
> never claimed you could not. however unless you are already reteating
> when you make the first attack, which is unlikely as we will stay at
> just barely in range until that first attack, simply body mechanics slow
And I stay out of range until attacked. I prefer to let my opponent do my
dirty work for me.
> yes, it does, but as i said. it ois not weather you can swing the blow
> effectivly, it is weatre the blow causes a slight hesitation in your
> retreat that matters.
Actually, we work on that, as well. While there is a necessary changing
of physical gears for the legs, the arms should move independently.
Furthermore, all attacks must be executed upon the Twofold Mind. You
*are* familiar with the Twofold Mind, are you not?
Hicksc
Bryan wrote:
> The winners at Wisby were professional mercenary soldiers, not novices.
And the 'novices' were the ones that lost.
Steve
Bryan J. Maloney
> have only one effective attack with your sword vs an armoured opponent
> your thrust. which requires you to stick your arm out where it becomes
That depends entirely upon the weapon. Many weapons called by the name
"rapier" in the 16th century could deliver a respectable cut, John
Clements notwithstanding, and my Maitre teaches both rapier and buckler
and cut-and-thrust sword and buckler. Furthermore, against a cut-happy
opponent, I would not just "stick my arm out" and wait for it to be cut
off--there is such a thing as timing.
> but if you really want to know having fenced, and fought heavy, the
> differance is really made by how much armour we are wearing. in little
> or no armour, your extendad reach will give you a distinct advantage.
> when the propoer armour for my style of combat is added into the picture
> it your weapon advantages are at least equaled if not out weighed in tha
This much I will allow--armor makes a big difference, which is why Italian
duellists would wear a "privy coat" if they could.
> many of you attacks be come completly useless. (draw cuts, point slashes
> etc.) and while executing any of them (all slower and more in the open
> than a proper snap shot) your arm is wide open to my attack.
You presume that the SCA-style "draw cut" was actually ever done. I doubt
that it was ever done before it was invented in the 20th century--in SCA.
The cuts we learn to do are very sharp snaps. Ideally, they should be
done so that, were I holding a hammer and not a sword, I could drive a
nail of goodly length through solid wood in one swat--the better I am, the
longer the nail and the thicker the wood. It is true that DiGrassi does
recommend drawing the weapon across the target, but that is AFTER hitting
with a sharp snap cut--it's to increase the damage against a soft target.
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <5ui823$hm0$1...@nadine.teleport.com>,
ixnay_on_...@no.such.ISP.com (apriori) wrote:
> Sure, if I _initiate_ a passage with a long thrust, I'd probably get
> arm-chopped plenty - but that's not the fault of the basic premise of the
> technique - it's the fault of stupd tactics! On occasion when I use an
Hear! Hear! I could not agree more.
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <19970903222...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, hic...@aol.com
(Hicksc) wrote:
> What kind of sword and buckler does you maestro teach Byran? I know that
> maestro Rhodes in NYC (now deseased) taught S&B, so it apparently survived
Actually, it may be close to what M. Rhodes taught, given that Adam Crown
and Ramon Martinez (Rhodes's successor) have been cronies for decades.
Ooyamaneko
In article <bjm10-02099...@potato.cit.cornell.edu>,
bjm10@c$or$ne!ll#.e&du (Bryan J. Maloney) writes:
>
> <01bcb747$485dd040$9ea1...@fmtbdr0d.deet.gov.au>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: potato.cit.cornell.edu
> Xref: cornellcs soc.history.living:8433 rec.org.sca:210667
>
> In article <01bcb747$485dd040$9ea1...@fmtbdr0d.deet.gov.au>, "Jeffrey
> Blanchard" <jeff.bl...@deetya.gov.au> wrote:
>
>
>> thing, my targeting is a bit off but I can hit hard enough to kill someone.
>> I am right handed. I am in a tightly packed shield wall, flailing away
>> with my sword, forward and back, forward and back. Oooh, Sir Rabinowitz is
>> immediately to my right, it looks like I may survive this one after all.
>> Flail, flail, CLANG! Oooh, sorry Sir Rabinowitz - it appears that during
>> my completely inaccurate but incredibly solid right handed shots I have
>> smacked you about the head. Those dents do look good though, being on the
>> back left and all...
This put a big grin on m'face... :)
>
> The winners at Wisby were professional mercenary soldiers, not novices.
Aye...but most of the archeological evidence from the battle comes
from the _losers'_ mass graves, from my understanding.
-- Iacobus the Younger
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| While August Mobius _was_ a difficult and opinionated man, it is |
| untrue that he could only see one side to every question... |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
email: oo...@www.odyssey.ursus.maine.edu
Bryan J. Maloney
In article <5v3ler$21n6$1...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, oo...@ursus.maine.edu
(Ooyamaneko) wrote:
> Aye...but most of the archeological evidence from the battle comes
> from the _losers'_ mass graves, from my understanding.
And their wounds were likely inflicted, from behind, as they fled, by the
winners.