Stephen Hand wrote: |
One of the biggest inaccuracies in both re-enactment combat and western martial arts is that scary terror weapons like the falx and the Danish axe can't be used as they were historically without the risk of historical results. |
That's putting it bluntly... :p Sorry... I just couldn't resist.
It is true, though... we can only get an approximation - sometimes a very good one, other times, not in the same ballpark. In the group I used to reenact with (1066 era), mass battles did not allow hafted axes and the like - clubs, swords, yeah, but axes were deemed too risky. Even with hand-picked fighters, if a "special weapon" were to be used, a "special routine" would have to be worked out ahead of time to insure the safety of everyone, they were typically "called on the carpet" one-on-one or small group "fights", and even then, punches were pulled.
Stephen Hand wrote: |
Legs, particularly lower legs should be defended by distance, not with the shield. That's why we have pictures of knights fighting with heater shields with guige straps on, physically incapable of covering their legs with the shield. If you try to defend the legs with a shield (other than a kite shield or similar which is long enough to cover the legs) then you'll get into all sorts of trouble. |
It takes a change in form from what a lot of us are used to, based on what I have seen. Shield out, legs in, not the other way around. In this stance, the shield both feels and works differently. It was hard for me to get used to the idea - felt all strange... but I did start seeing less bruises on my shins! It's been a while since I have done any significant shield work... I'm starting to miss it here. Hopefully, I'll have the opportunity to again soon.