As I am primarily interested in 400AD - 1100AD, so dressing up in gothic plate and fighting with longswords isn't very relevant, and there aren't any extant manuals from that period. Using a roundshield and handaxe in a shieldwall is. It depends a lot on what your area of interest is.
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: |
| Just out of curiosity did any of this " blind " reinventing of the wheel get some of it right if right is defined as corresponding to what we now know ( or think we know ) now based on historical texts ?
I would assume that some very poor techniques might have been created but that some would be virtual " clones " of the period ones. But also many basic things missing as well as the least obvious and more complex techniques. So what did they get right ? ( if anything ) |
Maybe you could decide it for yourself. There are several different fighting styles known in SCA heavy combat, and one of the most popular is the Bellatrix school:
http://www.bellatrix.org/school/
and here's a different, rather older style:
http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/cariadoc/closed_form_heater.html
Interestingly, this page:
http://sca.org.au/abertridwr/fighters.html
mentions the increasing influx of actual WMA techniques into SCA fighting, although the ultimate effect is yet to be seen. DOn't ask me because I'm not an SCA member/fighter myself.
Last edited by Lafayette C Curtis on Wed 06 Jun, 2007 10:39 pm; edited 1 time in total
| Gavin Kisebach wrote: |
| As I am primarily interested in 400AD - 1100AD, so dressing up in gothic plate and fighting with longswords isn't very relevant, and there aren't any extant manuals from that period. Using a roundshield and handaxe in a shieldwall is. It depends a lot on what your area of interest is. |
Even so Gavin, there's a lot that can be extrapolated from the later fencing treatises. Just because it's Talhoffer with Type XV blades does not mean there' s no cross-over with earlier weapons. You can nicely extrapolate quite a bit from MS I.33 too.
| Gavin Kisebach wrote: |
| As I am primarily interested in 400AD - 1100AD, so dressing up in gothic plate and fighting with longswords isn't very relevant, and there aren't any extant manuals from that period. Using a roundshield and handaxe in a shieldwall is. It depends a lot on what your area of interest is. |
You have to sort of look at it from a standpoint of what you *can* accomplish rather than what you *want* to accomplish. It's not possible to accurately simulate the fighting of the period you're interested in at full speed and power--the mainstay of SCA fighting. As just one example of many, the warriors of that period didn't use gauntlets or baskethilts.
Conversely, if you view the SCA as recreating the friendly deeds of arms of the 14th and 15th centuries (since the harnesses of that period are perfect for the kind of fighting the SCA does) and you modify their combat system to more closely resemble that sort of fighting (which is achievable--it's been done!) then you're able to create a very robust and simple form of combat that is extremely accurate. The main thing that's missing is grappling, and frankly, in real deeds of arms the presiding noble would stop most fights if one combatant went to the ground anyway.
And no, the fighting of your period has no relevant source material. I strongly disagree with those who claim that techniques developed for unarmored combat with 6-foot shields bear any connection to armored (in mail and a helmet, if nothing else) combat done with 2-3 foot rounds.
And it is also possible to recreate the kind of combat written about in the Fechtbücher, at least to a limited extent. I'll attach a picture of me at a major SCA event fighting halfsword, and spear and pollaxe fit in with even less of a problem.
Attachment: 99.31 KB
Halfswording in the SCA
| Gavin Kisebach wrote: |
| As I am primarily interested in 400AD - 1100AD, so dressing up in gothic plate and fighting with longswords isn't very relevant, and there aren't any extant manuals from that period. Using a roundshield and handaxe in a shieldwall is. It depends a lot on what your area of interest is. |
I'm gonna second Gavin here. I am pretty exclusive to the 11th C. No manuals survive this period, if they existed in this period at all. That's why I focus on SCA and reenactment. There is plenty for a Norman-at-heart to do in both. Not so much in HEMA...
Funny you mention it, Craig. I bought Medieval Sword And Shield by Paul Wagner and Stephen Hand for just that reason. I really need to dig that out and find a partner to study with, it's a great book and I highly recommend it.
Hugh,
That picture warms the cockles of my heart. I'm pretty well anchored to the SCA, as you may have noticed, but I would love to see more of this introduced.
I also agree that fighting in heavy armor is silly if you are trying to simulate dark age warfare. A lot of guys wear specific armor to simulate this more accurately. Here's what that translates to:
The rules state that you need rigid protection for your hands and wrists, elbows, knees, sternum, throat, kidneys and skull.
Based on those limitations, you can still keep your armor light if you use plastic. Yes, I know, everybody hates picklebarrel. That's why you cover it. There's a guy who makes armor just for guys like me: http://www.plasticlegs.com/
A lamellar cuirass, bazubands, plastic basket hilt, plastic knee cops worn under baggy trews, and a good helm with aventail should allow you to move light and fast, with plenty of flexibility and no comprimise of safety. Yes, there are consessions here, but you're not terribly burdened and you are very well protected. It's also relatively affordable.
That picture warms the cockles of my heart. I'm pretty well anchored to the SCA, as you may have noticed, but I would love to see more of this introduced.
I also agree that fighting in heavy armor is silly if you are trying to simulate dark age warfare. A lot of guys wear specific armor to simulate this more accurately. Here's what that translates to:
The rules state that you need rigid protection for your hands and wrists, elbows, knees, sternum, throat, kidneys and skull.
Based on those limitations, you can still keep your armor light if you use plastic. Yes, I know, everybody hates picklebarrel. That's why you cover it. There's a guy who makes armor just for guys like me: http://www.plasticlegs.com/
A lamellar cuirass, bazubands, plastic basket hilt, plastic knee cops worn under baggy trews, and a good helm with aventail should allow you to move light and fast, with plenty of flexibility and no comprimise of safety. Yes, there are consessions here, but you're not terribly burdened and you are very well protected. It's also relatively affordable.
| Gavin Kisebach wrote: |
| Based on those limitations, you can still keep your armor light if you use plastic. Yes, I know, everybody hates picklebarrel. That's why you cover it. There's a guy who makes armor just for guys like me: http://www.plasticlegs.com/
A lamellar cuirass, bazubands, plastic basket hilt, plastic knee cops worn under baggy trews, and a good helm with aventail should allow you to move light and fast, with plenty of flexibility and no comprimise of safety. Yes, there are consessions here, but you're not terribly burdened and you are very well protected. It's also relatively affordable. |
Given that basket hilts and gauntlets weren't worn during the period that interests you how can you justify the use of gauntlets or basket hilts--the only two ways I know of to adequately protect your hands? A bare hand on a hilt or haft is *very* different from even the lightest gauntlet, and while a basket hilt simulates the *use* of a bare hand on the hilt, it also allows you to ignore the *dangers* of doing so (one of the main failings of SCA combat).
And most people who opt for hidden, a-historical plastic armor don't take a lighter blow than those in accurate plate harnesses. To me, that suggests taking the advantages of a light kit while ignoring its disadvantages (both in weight and restriction to movement).
I would suggest that the harnesses of the 14th and 15th centuries best match the requirements for safety necessary to fighting at the level of speed and force SCAdians use (the best thing about SCA fighting), therefore they are ideal for SCA fighting. You don't have to fake anything, you just wear an accurate kit and you're good to go. That teaches you so much more about Harnischfechten and is therefore a much more meaningful experience!
| Hugh Knight wrote: |
| Given that basket hilts and gauntlets weren't worn during the period that interests you how can you justify the use of gauntlets or basket hilts--the only two ways I know of to adequately protect your hands? A bare hand on a hilt or haft is *very* different from even the lightest gauntlet, and while a basket hilt simulates the *use* of a bare hand on the hilt, it also allows you to ignore the *dangers* of doing so (one of the main failings of SCA combat).
And most people who opt for hidden, a-historical plastic armor don't take a lighter blow than those in accurate plate harnesses. To me, that suggests taking the advantages of a light kit while ignoring its disadvantages (both in weight and restriction to movement). I would suggest that the harnesses of the 14th and 15th centuries best match the requirements for safety necessary to fighting at the level of speed and force SCAdians use (the best thing about SCA fighting), therefore they are ideal for SCA fighting. You don't have to fake anything, you just wear an accurate kit and you're good to go. That teaches you so much more about Harnischfechten and is therefore a much more meaningful experience! |
What about those of us who fight in maille? Thats period for me, and I'm certainly not getting the benefits of wearing plastic. I also don't wear cuisses. Besides baskethilts and shin-shots, I'd say I get the experience of my period. I don't have any rigid defenses except those required, but my body, thighs, shoulders, etc. have only the little protection my maille and wool tunic or gambeson can afford. I'd like to see baskethilts be fair shots, and make shins fair game too. I however don't buy the partyline that 14th C. is the only proper period for SCA combat...
Hugh,
I can't and won't even try to justify a plastic basket hilt, at least not in terms of historical accuracy. I have found that I cannot use a handaxe or rattan sword with the same degree of finesse that I can in a bare hand. I don't get the same freedom of movement. I built a hand axe that I fully intended to use with a gauntlet, but even in the best gauntlets we could afford, it just wasn't right. The blade would turn in my hand if I struck a glancing blow.
Finally, I broke down and put a plastic basket on it. The thing is admittedly hideous, but it now handles just how an axe should. Now, when I take to the field, I can focus on fighting, not my equipment. I will agree that this builds a bad habit of blocking with the basket. I will try to train myself out of that.
I can't and won't even try to justify a plastic basket hilt, at least not in terms of historical accuracy. I have found that I cannot use a handaxe or rattan sword with the same degree of finesse that I can in a bare hand. I don't get the same freedom of movement. I built a hand axe that I fully intended to use with a gauntlet, but even in the best gauntlets we could afford, it just wasn't right. The blade would turn in my hand if I struck a glancing blow.
Finally, I broke down and put a plastic basket on it. The thing is admittedly hideous, but it now handles just how an axe should. Now, when I take to the field, I can focus on fighting, not my equipment. I will agree that this builds a bad habit of blocking with the basket. I will try to train myself out of that.
[quote="Robin Smith"]
Fighting in mail without cuisses is fine. Do you, therefore, take an extremely light blow to the thigh (under your mail) or a very light spear thrust (even a press) to the body as a good blow? Likewise, how do you protect your hands? If you're struck in the basket hilt do you also accept that as a good blow since you accept the freedom such a practice gives you over someone in gauntlets? If the answer to either of those questions is no then I'd like to respectfully suggest moving to a period that can be simulated more accurately.
And the 14th century isn't the only period for SCA combat--the 15th century can be done well, too (although it's much more expensive) as can the 16th century, although it's hard (and *extremely* expensive). But those are the periods in which knights typically engaged in friendly deeds of arms on foot rather than on horseback, and we can't say that about earlier periods as far as I know; the mounted melee and joust were the almsot exclusive tests in that period according to my research. My reading of Juliet Barber's The Tournament in England and Barber and Barker's Tournaments suggests friendly deeds of arms fought on foot didn't become popular until the 14th century; and since that's the kind of fighting we do, the connection is obvious.
So from both an equipment standpoint and a historical format standpoint the 14th & 15th centuries are the way to go.
| Hugh Knight wrote: |
| What about those of us who fight in maille? Thats period for me, and I'm certainly not getting the benefits of wearing plastic. I also don't wear cuisses. Besides baskethilts and shin-shots, I'd say I get the experience of my period. I don't have any rigid defenses except those required, but my body, thighs, shoulders, etc. have only the little protection my maille and wool tunic or gambeson can afford. I'd like to see baskethilts be fair shots, and make shins fair game too. I however don't buy the partyline that 14th C. is the only proper period for SCA combat... |
Fighting in mail without cuisses is fine. Do you, therefore, take an extremely light blow to the thigh (under your mail) or a very light spear thrust (even a press) to the body as a good blow? Likewise, how do you protect your hands? If you're struck in the basket hilt do you also accept that as a good blow since you accept the freedom such a practice gives you over someone in gauntlets? If the answer to either of those questions is no then I'd like to respectfully suggest moving to a period that can be simulated more accurately.
And the 14th century isn't the only period for SCA combat--the 15th century can be done well, too (although it's much more expensive) as can the 16th century, although it's hard (and *extremely* expensive). But those are the periods in which knights typically engaged in friendly deeds of arms on foot rather than on horseback, and we can't say that about earlier periods as far as I know; the mounted melee and joust were the almsot exclusive tests in that period according to my research. My reading of Juliet Barber's The Tournament in England and Barber and Barker's Tournaments suggests friendly deeds of arms fought on foot didn't become popular until the 14th century; and since that's the kind of fighting we do, the connection is obvious.
So from both an equipment standpoint and a historical format standpoint the 14th & 15th centuries are the way to go.
| Robin Smith wrote: | ||
Jean, aren't most of the Czech groups primarily reenactors, who by extension may study HEMA, but still primarily reenactors? |
The guys I met, based in Tabor, were both. They had some Be-euatiful equipment. Very nice guys too.
J
Hi Everyone!
this is a great Question. and i think the answer would be Yes. with samantics ofcourse.
SCA (other then the fish bats (that was great Gavin) is very historically bassed, many practioners apply the techniquies used in the days of old. some just club each other. which i see as Historical fighting aswell (primal and unskilled).
i can strike anyway, anyhow, anywhere. and yes i get in trouble for it, but thats just "real" to me. theres a plethera of live saving and live ending tactics that are used in the SCA that were used back in the "day"
some things are not "real" in my opinion (if im wrong, its your duty to please disprove me! = ) Like a sword Wrap. wrapping around a mans shield and striking them in the back of the head or shoulders and back. it works great in th SCA but with my sharp, single hander Atrim i couldnt cut a stupid cardboard box on a wrap. im a bloody good cutter and 200lb athlete. a little red flag went up in my head after this experiment.
anyway.... most all swordsmanship sports offer something great. try them all. and after some experience and study you could tell us whats the most historical.
thanks
TS
this is a great Question. and i think the answer would be Yes. with samantics ofcourse.
SCA (other then the fish bats (that was great Gavin) is very historically bassed, many practioners apply the techniquies used in the days of old. some just club each other. which i see as Historical fighting aswell (primal and unskilled).
i can strike anyway, anyhow, anywhere. and yes i get in trouble for it, but thats just "real" to me. theres a plethera of live saving and live ending tactics that are used in the SCA that were used back in the "day"
some things are not "real" in my opinion (if im wrong, its your duty to please disprove me! = ) Like a sword Wrap. wrapping around a mans shield and striking them in the back of the head or shoulders and back. it works great in th SCA but with my sharp, single hander Atrim i couldnt cut a stupid cardboard box on a wrap. im a bloody good cutter and 200lb athlete. a little red flag went up in my head after this experiment.
anyway.... most all swordsmanship sports offer something great. try them all. and after some experience and study you could tell us whats the most historical.
thanks
TS
| Gavin Kisebach wrote: |
| Jean Henri,
What about the differnce in tempo? I've seen videos of ARMA fighters moving at 75% speed, do they ever fight at full speed? I assume you would have to own full plate to participate. Fighting at full speed and full force is a definite advantage. As a weak corrilary, I have an old friend who is a blackbelt in Tae Kwon Do. I was into Kenpo for a few years, but he had at least ten years of experience on me. We sparred once, but he was totally unprepared to take a full force punch. His technique was beautiful, but he had a really hard time in the full contact setting. Could this apply to our theoretical bout, or do you fight at full speed as well? I'm in the dark about some of this, so any new info is appreciated. |
Lol!
Of course ARMA spars at 100% speed. You probably saw videos of drill or fighting unarmored with wasters or live-steel. There are a few of the live-steel only groups which don't really agree with the concept of sparring, in which case I think you would have a point, but most HEMA groups spar at absolutely full speed, including ARMA. (I have sparred with ARMA guys and sometimes didn't even see the sword until it was upside my head) all of the big groups I know of do spar with full-contact weapons, either padded or weighted shinai or something equivalent.
So um, yeah at least as fast as SCA, faster in many cases because you can't strike full-speed in SCA with some weapons according to what I just read, though on the other hand HEMA sparring weapons are weighed and balanced identically to historical weapons, SCA rataan sticks are much lighter in the blade, and the single-swords usually have heavy basket-hilts which give them a much more hilt-heavy balance
here are some videos:
2007 international longsword tournament highlights, Dijon France (I am not responsible for the music)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6iHFhPk1gY
Fast enough for you?
AHF in England
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Y6-TB_ycM
Schola Gladiatoria also in England
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fekau0lJ2c0
Portuguese Jogo do Pau with and without Armor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSDSsereOdg
ARMA doesn't make a lot of their sparring videos public, but here is one from a group in South Florida
http://arma-sfl.com/videos/event2/2005_ARMA_F...lights.wmv
Here are a couple of videos of my small group in New Orleans
(the spinning stuff in the beginning was accidental and is not HEMA!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbH_bqx1fCM
(the soundtrack in this one has some Rated-R lyrics)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtJN9pBJlXQ
(This one is a kid who is trained in some kind of Japanese fencing, who came as a friendly challenge. You can kind of see what I was talking about regarding not being used to full-contact, or HEMA)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mro-2BgCeII
Even with the live-steel or wasters and minmal protection HEMA can be pretty fast
http://www.thearma.org/Videos/JNvAP_nylon_Longswords1.MOV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7iCbaIPtU0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi7TAQOWhKc
Hope that helps.
J
Last edited by Jean Henri Chandler on Thu 07 Jun, 2007 6:09 am; edited 1 time in total
| Gavin Kisebach wrote: |
| I built a "long sword" this spring and brought it to a war. I thought it would be great, as it was much faster than a greatsword, but still had some range. I found out that in a shieldwall it was practically useless. I was hopelessly out ranged by opposing spears, but lacked the passive defense of a sword and shield. My friend let me use his greatsword, and i found that I could use it like a short spear, or use it to disrupt spears by sweeping them out of line. Lesson learned. |
Your experience is in sinc with military history...
Longswords were not used in pitched pike type battles of that type as much as you might think. In fact the only swords which were used as primary weapons in pike -warfare included zwiehanders (huge greatswords 5-6 long) and sword and buckler (rotello) though the latter would be hard to do in an SCA context due to the oversized shields and special rules.
In the period where you saw a lot of kind of pike-walls like that, longswords were carried by knights on horseback as backup weapons (after the lances broke) and by some infantry, also as backup weapons. Many Swiss carried bastard-swords in this way for example, with a primary weapon being a crossbow, arquebus, pike or halberd.
A typical SCA war is a kind of a wierd amalgum of a 12th century shield-wall with a 15th century pike phalanx. The lack of heavy cavalry and of any kind of missile weapon which could penetrate a shield makes those huge shields, again, extra valuable and exra-important. In real life, javelins and longbow arrows would rain down over the shields, crossbows and early firearms would punch through them. But even in a battle like that the longsword can become very useful once the battle kind of breaks up into individual and small-unit combat. (Especially, as the Swiss knew, when your enemies are carrying three foot short swords as backup weapons and you have a four foot longsword!)
J
| Craig Peters wrote: |
|
Garrett, One other thing that I'd like to add. It sounds to me like you might be looking into pursuing one or the other. The choice is yours of course, but I think you might find the general lack of rules restrictions in good HEMA groups a lot more "fun" for lack of a better word. Though I was never a member of the SCA, I was first introduced to "SCA style" fighting, and gradually, as I learned about WMA online, my friends and I discarded the rules which create artificiality in the SCA. I'm not claiming that simply discarding SCA rules makes you a good fighter; far from it, there was still a lot that I had and have to learn. But I find the general lack of rules and restrictions to be much more satisfying, especially because I know that what I do is a reasonable reconstruction of historical techniques that were actually used by knights and other warriors. |
Agreed, when it comes to the individual or small-group fight, but those huge SCA battles are pretty amazing to experience...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7BIjuAdZXU&am...mp;search=
J
| Gavin Kisebach wrote: |
| As I am primarily interested in 400AD - 1100AD, so dressing up in gothic plate and fighting with longswords isn't very relevant, and there aren't any extant manuals from that period. Using a roundshield and handaxe in a shieldwall is. It depends a lot on what your area of interest is. |
Yeah but, last time I checked SCA armor, helmets, shields OR weapons are hardly anything like the equipment from that period, they didn't wear a lot of plate armor or full-helms, or five foot high inch-thick shields ...
We have huskarl axes which look, wiegh, and are balanced exactly like the real ones, and we can use them full-contact with a bare minimum of protective gear (helmet and gloves).
J
On the other end of the scale, we have Western european style light contact reenactment fighing... What we scandinavians call "Hĉrkamp", line, or skirmish fighting.
Developed from the quick 'n' simple rules for show combat used at reenactments and shows, reenatctment fighing features steel weapon, little required saftety gear (typicaly only gloves and suspensorium required, some groups, like ours, demanding mouthguards and light head protection as well.)
Target areas are limited to torso and tighs, sometimes upper arms.
While the level of abstraction when it comes to hits is higher than in the SCA (Many reenactment fighting hits could make a dedicated WMA practitioner cry...) it allows a number of things that the SCA does not, like grapling, halfswording, and so on.
Its advantages is much lower equipment requirements, as you do not need armour to participate. A more extensive safety course is however required, as one is after all using steel weapons, and careless use could result in injuries.
Like SCA heavy fighting, its a good way to learn some of the dynamics of group combat, and tactics.
(a typical skirmish fight involves a LOT of movement)
The fighting is however not directly applicable to real world fighting.
To remedy this, one has a seperate rules set for realistic dueling.
Overall it is better to do two things propperly than seek a impossible compromise.
While one is on the topic; what are the requrements for SCA helmet?
I have been pondering the posibility of fitting a kettlehatt with a removable SCA or fencing mask visor...
Developed from the quick 'n' simple rules for show combat used at reenactments and shows, reenatctment fighing features steel weapon, little required saftety gear (typicaly only gloves and suspensorium required, some groups, like ours, demanding mouthguards and light head protection as well.)
Target areas are limited to torso and tighs, sometimes upper arms.
While the level of abstraction when it comes to hits is higher than in the SCA (Many reenactment fighting hits could make a dedicated WMA practitioner cry...) it allows a number of things that the SCA does not, like grapling, halfswording, and so on.
Its advantages is much lower equipment requirements, as you do not need armour to participate. A more extensive safety course is however required, as one is after all using steel weapons, and careless use could result in injuries.
Like SCA heavy fighting, its a good way to learn some of the dynamics of group combat, and tactics.
(a typical skirmish fight involves a LOT of movement)
The fighting is however not directly applicable to real world fighting.
To remedy this, one has a seperate rules set for realistic dueling.
Overall it is better to do two things propperly than seek a impossible compromise.
While one is on the topic; what are the requrements for SCA helmet?
I have been pondering the posibility of fitting a kettlehatt with a removable SCA or fencing mask visor...
I'm not going to get deep into this conversation since it hasn't gotten me far in the past in other places, but I would like to see, just once, someone attempt the signature SCA "wrap shot" with a sharp blade in a test cut. My opinion is it would fail miserably. Now I'm sure there would be someone out there that might do it over and over and try to perfect it so it might work, but more often than not I think the average fighter would bounce the flat of the blade off of the target.
My only 2 cents in this posting,
Mike
My only 2 cents in this posting,
Mike
Probably posted these before, but they are the only good Huskar fighting clips i've got...
http://s40.photobucket.com/albums/e202/Elling...skarl2.flv
http://s40.photobucket.com/albums/e202/Elling...skarl1.flv
The "flip" would work againt the head of an unarmoured opponent, or as a entry to a stab. Otherwise it would just be nuisance.
One of the criticsisms of heavy fighting is that it uses large amounts of armour, but the hits are appropriate for uarmoured combat...
http://s40.photobucket.com/albums/e202/Elling...skarl2.flv
http://s40.photobucket.com/albums/e202/Elling...skarl1.flv
The "flip" would work againt the head of an unarmoured opponent, or as a entry to a stab. Otherwise it would just be nuisance.
One of the criticsisms of heavy fighting is that it uses large amounts of armour, but the hits are appropriate for uarmoured combat...
Page 2 of 11
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum