http://youtu.be/iIaHeK9f3YY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_e...IaHeK9f3YY
WOW! Do they ever go at it hard! That was really fun to watch. I'm gonna guess these guys have some bruising the next day.
I wonder what the rules/goals are for these? Looks like fun, whatever it is
Sort of scary when one guy lots his helmet and was totally exposed ..... I hope a little sanity prevailed and people avoided hitting the guy deliberately, but in the really hot melee getting hit by accident would be a real hazard !
Oh, hope the guy retreated at least until he could get a helmet back on !
I couldn't help wondering how a standard riot police line would fare against these guys, at least in theory !
Now it wouldn't really happen as the police would probably have to escalate to firearms and deadly force to deal with these guys.
Oh, hope the guy retreated at least until he could get a helmet back on !
I couldn't help wondering how a standard riot police line would fare against these guys, at least in theory !
Now it wouldn't really happen as the police would probably have to escalate to firearms and deadly force to deal with these guys.
I'm still a bit put off by all the headlong charges. These folks certainly go hard, but the rules and fighting culture involved produce peculiar results. Many of these combatants act like they think they're invincible - and I guess they almost are. I do imagine historical tournaments looked something like that because of the same desire to avoid casualties. It's impressive regardless of how much it deviates from my interpretation of combat in the age of plate.
Yes.
They seem to have a "no thrust" policy.
Also, a good demonstration regarding the mobility of an historically armoured man.
It also looks like people get blind-sided pretty easily when helmetted.
They seem to have a "no thrust" policy.
Also, a good demonstration regarding the mobility of an historically armoured man.
It also looks like people get blind-sided pretty easily when helmetted.
| M Boyd wrote: |
| Yes.
They seem to have a "no thrust" policy. Also, a good demonstration regarding the mobility of an historically armoured man. It also looks like people get blind-sided pretty easily when helmetted. |
Many clubs in live steel do not allow thrusting. My group doesn't unless you weld on a thrusting cap. I wish my group had a promo video like that.
I've got to say, I'm not a fan... I don't really see a lot of technique being applied in a lot of that, it seems mostly like the wild bashing that the HEMA community has struggled so hard to convince people WAS NOT the way knights fought.
That being said, it does do a great job of showing how mobile and agile you can still be while wearing full armor.
That being said, it does do a great job of showing how mobile and agile you can still be while wearing full armor.
What I took away from that was how the body and momentum can and is used as a weapon. They were all fairly well armoured, from the looks of it, so bashing each other with blunt swords wasn't going to do an awful lot. But a good tackle or body slam, and your opponent is floored and vulnerable.
I'd wager that it doesn't bear much resemblance to fighting on the battlefield, though that's not the intention. I would also say, however, that historical tournaments would have been different in terms of focus on skill rather than ability to bash and smash.
I'd wager that it doesn't bear much resemblance to fighting on the battlefield, though that's not the intention. I would also say, however, that historical tournaments would have been different in terms of focus on skill rather than ability to bash and smash.
| Chad Hanson wrote: |
| I've got to say, I'm not a fan... I don't really see a lot of technique being applied in a lot of that, it seems mostly like the wild bashing that the HEMA community has struggled so hard to convince people WAS NOT the way knights fought.
. |
Actually, with all limitations of such formula, I think it's valuable, in the sense that reminds that heated fighting WAS always, brutal, physical, atavistic things.
And it will always look wild, while I even in those short videos you can see quite a few really seasoned guys with pretty solid technique.
Footwork, shield bashes, really nice body lock trips, and general wrestling to trip the opponent and hack him hard without being hit.
| Quote: |
| I'd wager that it doesn't bear much resemblance to fighting on the battlefield, though that's not the intention. |
For what we know about battlefields, it's complete abstraction, of course.
It may be closer representation of something like Combat of the Thirty, and similar skirmishes.
Or clashes of dismounted knight/heavily armoured infantry on the sidelines of the battle, in the chaotic melee during storming the camp, and so on, and so on.
I'm with Chad on this one.
Kai asked, "I wonder what the rules/goals are for these? Looks like fun, whatever it is"
WAIT, YOU THINK THEY HAD RULES? LOL!
Somewhat seriously I think they prohibit thrusts but I couldn't see much else that appeared to be barred. Blindsiding your opponent is probably a good tactic but strikes me as enormously dangerous. People only get one spine and some of those collisions look like a lifelong ticket to a chiropractor or worse!
WAIT, YOU THINK THEY HAD RULES? LOL!
Somewhat seriously I think they prohibit thrusts but I couldn't see much else that appeared to be barred. Blindsiding your opponent is probably a good tactic but strikes me as enormously dangerous. People only get one spine and some of those collisions look like a lifelong ticket to a chiropractor or worse!
| Ken Speed wrote: |
| Kai asked, "I wonder what the rules/goals are for these? Looks like fun, whatever it is"
WAIT, YOU THINK THEY HAD RULES? LOL! Somewhat seriously I think they prohibit thrusts but I couldn't see much else that appeared to be barred. Blindsiding your opponent is probably a good tactic but strikes me as enormously dangerous. People only get one spine and some of those collisions look like a lifelong ticket to a chiropractor or worse! |
It certainly brings new meaning to the phrase "keep your head on a swivel." With those helmets unless you're turning your head, there appears to be little chance of seeing an attacker coming at you from the side. That is a pretty wild video, its well done.
| Ken Speed wrote: |
| Kai asked, "I wonder what the rules/goals are for these? Looks like fun, whatever it is"
WAIT, YOU THINK THEY HAD RULES? LOL! Somewhat seriously I think they prohibit thrusts but I couldn't see much else that appeared to be barred. Blindsiding your opponent is probably a good tactic but strikes me as enormously dangerous. People only get one spine and some of those collisions look like a lifelong ticket to a chiropractor or worse! |
It certainly brings new meaning to the phrase "keep your head on a swivel." With those helmets unless you're turning your head, there appears to be little chance of seeing an attacker coming at you from the side. That is a pretty wild video, its well done.
I went to a sword fight and a brawl broke out! That's what it looked like to me. Don't know if you noticed but one guy was using a small shield, not much bigger than a buckler, which had a "peak" on the top, for lack of a better term. He seemed to be tying to strike his opponent under the helm with that part of the shield. That could be fatal. I thought it was exciting but it just seemed to be out of control the entire time.
| Theo Squires wrote: |
| I would also say, however, that historical tournaments would have been different in terms of focus on skill rather than ability to bash and smash. |
From what I've read, some tournaments involved exchanges of blows and an emphasis of displaying strength and courage first and foremost. Others included thrusting and sharp weapons, so certainly those would have looked very different.
| Bartek Strojek wrote: |
| It may be closer representation of something like Combat of the Thirty, and similar skirmishes.
Or clashes of dismounted knight/heavily armoured infantry on the sidelines of the battle, in the chaotic melee during storming the camp, and so on, and so on. |
It's bound to differ from any earnest fighting in armor if only because of the lack of thrusts. The prevalence of shields also distinguishes this style of combat from how men-at-arms tended to fight on foot form the fifteenth century on if not earlier. Additionally, as I believe we've discussed before, various historical sources present heavy polearms as more dangerous to the helmed head than polearms appear to be in modern full-contact armored fighting.
looks like cage fighting with swords and armor.
whats shown in the video is best hits etc which just seeing some of them its pretty amazing to see. however there were also some things within it that raise some concern. if this is an attempt at sporting, i don't see it from these videos but am intrigued enough to learn more about it before i pass final judgement.
whats shown in the video is best hits etc which just seeing some of them its pretty amazing to see. however there were also some things within it that raise some concern. if this is an attempt at sporting, i don't see it from these videos but am intrigued enough to learn more about it before i pass final judgement.
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
|
It's bound to differ from any earnest fighting in armor if only because of the lack of thrusts. The prevalence of shields also distinguishes this style of combat from how men-at-arms tended to fight on foot form the fifteenth century on if not earlier. Additionally, as I believe we've discussed before, various historical sources present heavy polearms as more dangerous to the helmed head than polearms appear to be in modern full-contact armored fighting. |
Amount of shields is pretty relative and personal thing, and it's hard to really tell how could it look in 14th and earlier 15th century. Illustrations from period are not supposed to be representative in such detail obviously.
As far as polearms go, actual sharp, biting edge, compared to 'safe' rounded one could probably make a lot of difference, even if painful dents still occur today. Or just some period helmet could have been thinner or more shoddy. Also plenty of possibilities.
Lack of any thrusts, daggers, strikes to the face and actual methods of going around armor obviously makes almost all difference in the world, and it's no point in disputing it.
Can't imagine a way to do it safely, of course, so it has to stay that way. :lol:
| Daniel Wallace wrote: |
|
whats shown in the video is best hits etc which just seeing some of them its pretty amazing to see. however there were also some things within it that raise some concern. if this is an attempt at sporting, i don't see it from these videos but am intrigued enough to learn more about it before i pass final judgement. |
Yeah, it's in a way pretty much full contact sport with swords and axes.
You can't apply any submission holds, strike to actually unarmored parts as feet or face, and referees pay attention to any participants unable to continue.
Lack of thrusting and submission holds removes around two-thirds of historical armored techniques. In rough terms, period manuals tell you to thrust at gaps/weak points, grapple with a dagger, apply holds (including limb breaks), or strike to the head (ideally with a heavy polearm). These folks practice the last technique but add to that the shield-slam charge and lots of shield bashing in general. (Shield bashing is certainly historical, but there's not much evidence for it in the age of plate as far as I know.)
As far as period armors go, shoddy helms are indeed possible, but that doesn't really explain all of the relevant sources indicating that a single blow to the head could kill or incapacitate. On the other hand, we've got various accounts of historical armored warriors enduring multiple polearm blows as well. (Flodden Field 1513 comes to mind.) I imagine taking a well-armored foe out of the fight with one polearm stroke requires considerable skill and strength. Sir John Smythe thought lusty fellows armed with halberds would carrying all to the ground by striking at the head and thrusting at the face, but that allows for multiple blows as well as thrusts. (Even if the first blow only stuns for but a moment, that's enough time for a deadly followup thrust.)
As far as period armors go, shoddy helms are indeed possible, but that doesn't really explain all of the relevant sources indicating that a single blow to the head could kill or incapacitate. On the other hand, we've got various accounts of historical armored warriors enduring multiple polearm blows as well. (Flodden Field 1513 comes to mind.) I imagine taking a well-armored foe out of the fight with one polearm stroke requires considerable skill and strength. Sir John Smythe thought lusty fellows armed with halberds would carrying all to the ground by striking at the head and thrusting at the face, but that allows for multiple blows as well as thrusts. (Even if the first blow only stuns for but a moment, that's enough time for a deadly followup thrust.)
Better make sure your armor hasn't got any gaps or you'll end up with more than a bruise....
Page 1 of 3
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