[P. Cha]

And to Jesse.

SCA does have it's faults. But no lower leg attack or no hands really isn't one of them. In the West, we do have some fights with thos restrictions lifted and using full greaves and mitten gauntlets. It REALLY doesn't change the fight. I have already explained what happens when the rules change. You just start to punch block more. You use the crossguard of your sword to block instead of the basket hilt (whohoo such a big difference). What does change the fight is changing to plate calibration. Where a one handed sword blow to most parts of the body is no longer considered good anymore and you have to rely on stabs more...or two handed weapons.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Manciolino suggested choosing the longer weapon before the shorter one. The lance before the spiedo, partisan before two-handed sword.

[Raymond Arnold]

[P. Cha]

And then we have to get into sword types . Are we restricted to type X? Because that means once we are in plate land, no matter what the one handed sword is rather useless. Yes it gets plenty complicated .

For the unarmoured...

1) pole arm
2) sword and shield
3) pole arm

For plate armoured...

1) pole arm
2) depends on sword
3) depends on sword

For maile...
1) pole arm
2) sword and shield
3) pole arm

[B. Fulton]

Having handled an actual halberd from around the 1500s, I was surprised that despite the weight, the balance was much better than expected. I didn't get to toss it around, but it balanced far better than I thought it would in the hands.

[Bennison N]

[Raymond Arnold]

I think your primary answer is probably enough - it depends. On a lot. But the sense I'm getting is that reach is important so long as you aren't in a confined space.

[Bennison N]

[Bennison N]

[Joe Fults]

Armour and or shield if you have one should negate light thrown weapons. It is in all the vid clips and does change the game. Probably in more ways that I can fully appreciate given my very limited exposure to the stuff.

[Bill Tsafa]

[Bram Verbeek]

even with an axe, I often strike at hands and toes, takes some creativity, but even threatening makes for different combat. People that do not know my fighting sometimes leave their swordarm open too long in a strike, people that do know me often make sloppy strikes because they wish to protect their fingers all the way. I thought I saw toes attacked in old longsword treatises as well. If you cannot walk, you cannot fight, if you flinch when walking, you are dead as well

[Bennison N]

I can hit a NZ 50c coin (roughly the size of a Yu Ess of Ay quarter...) from 15 feet (well, about 5m, anyway) in three of five shots with Chinese feidao. Real feidao look nothing like those khukri things from "House of Flying Daggers", the ones I have are basically steel pyramids with a ring and white tassels. I suspect that unless the armoured fighter has full face protection, he's not going to be seeing for long.

It seems to me that a lot of you guys rely too much on a shield and not enough on the defensive uses of your swords! When I match, I don't use a shield EVER... I simply block with my sword and move my body out of the way. Please forgive if I am wrong, but it seems that Western Swordsmanship relies a whole lot on big power shots, and taking a hit on your armour or shield... Why? If you run the point of your sharp sword over the skin covering the Carotid Artery, you will get pumping blood (and death), without having to cut the head off. The less armour, the quicker you can move. Plate armour must be hell to JUMP in...

An unnecessarily morbid subject, the whole head chopping and all, but something I've wanted to address for a while...

Does acrobatics figure at all in Western Swordsmanship? Does relying on reflex action, and repetitive drilling make a difference? I know drilling does, I have been listening intently to what you, the more practical experts have to say, but if you took a hit on your mail, you would still bruise like hell, wouldn't you? Wouldn't it just be easier to turn under the striking arm and push your entire sword into the ribcage? It has worked for me, theoretically speaking...

Apologies in advance for any offence this post may cause, but I really need to know exactly how to compare Western swordsmanship, the battle-proven kind, to the Eastern equivalent. It seems to me, in all honesty, that Western Swordsmen don't get out of the way often enough, preferring to rely on a shield or armour! It just doesn't seem altogether healthy to rely on a metal suit for protection, rather than speedy movements, ALL the time...

I want, no need, to understand this mentality better. Help me out, fellas...

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

[Bennison N]

I find acrobatics serves a good psychological purpose, as well as increasing your ability to "squirm" out of situations you might otherwise have to block the hell out of and retreat. The first unarmed style of Chinese origin I learnt was Hou Quan, or the Monkey Fist, which was very athletic and acrobatic, albeit more for show and useful against not more than perhaps three opponents at once. It did not, and still doesn't, have a sword form of any type, however... I told my late teacher I would make one, but it just doesn't seem to convert well.

I do think that rapier is the most similar to jian in use. Then next would seem to be the arming sword. I would like to match against skilled exponents of either of these, to see how they work, and discover the defensive applications of them. I consider defensive applications to be of greater importance than offensive. I suspect that a great deal of jianshu moves could be adapted to either of these weapons. I saw a film in which a Chinese choreographer had used rapier as the hero's weapon. "The Musketeer", I believe it was called. A not-very-authentic take on the old Dumas novel. The choreography was good... Unfortunately the rest of the film was not as good...

If anyone here considers themselves to be expert at the use of either a rapier or arming sword, I would like like to discuss at length, if they be so willing, the similarities and differences between these weapons and the jian. Also, if anyone can suggest another weapon which in use is similar, I would like to know of it.

Thanks Ben and Vincent for your help, although I still suspect I can hit the armoured guy's eyes with my feidao...

[Bram Verbeek]

I think it would be very hard to hit the eyes of someone wearing a great helm, that said, many of the regular guys would not have full face protection. Not as much of the western way of fighting focusses on bashing hard, it focussus on thrusting in hard to protect places in armour. The face is not often stabbed, mainly because it is easy to spot where the weapon is going (you would instinctively get away, and then the weapon has nothing to strike anymore). The main use of a shield is that you do not have to move as vigourously, so the buddy next to you can rely on you, it is a war thing, you will not lug a shield with you on a midnight stroll, as you will not take a halberd, both of which are almost exclusively designed for use in formations. This is where rapier stands out, unarmoured and facing unarmoured troops (unless you find yourself having to take on a few curassiers, but you should not have a midnight stroll when the curassiers are after you)

[Sam N.]

I have heard a lot of comments that the combat doesn't change that much with leg targeting, but I think it changes radically.

As mentioned before, striking low is not typically a good idea, if you have equal length weapons. However, with a polearm against a shorter weapon like a sword, there are no problems with compromising range through low targets.

Perhaps to explain what happens in my bouting will help. All the bouts I have seen with sword and shield vs. polearm (of mid size, from say 6' to 8') go like this:

Polearm delivers cut to shield's lower leg.

I have seen many strategies in trying to cope with this, kneeling with your shield protecting your legs (which opens up a nice headshot), pulling your legs back, ala one of the German mastercuts (which then fails because the shieldman STILL can't reach the polearm user) and other such things. In my experience, no counters seem to work if the polearm simply strikes quite low, since that area is difficult to defend effectively for someone who has a shield that is not a tower shield. Even if the shieldman rushes, the polearm simply cuts him in the lower leg before he can even get in distance (the time of the hand is faster than the time of the foot). However, if the polearm attacks high, than it is quite easy to defend against.

So, I can say I would certainly prefer a polearm in open field unarmoured combat (say, in a late 16th Century skirmish). Even in armour, I would choose a poleaxe. In confined spaces, definitely a spear.

I think this is why save for a few notable examples (like a Roman legionary), soldiers across the ages have always been armed with some sort of polearm as a primary weapon (with a shield occasionally) and some sort of sword in case something happens to the polearm (and to carry around town since polearms can be uncomfortable in that respect). Arguably, this even extends to today with the idea of a rifle with a bayonet on it (of course, not a primary weapon anymore, but still following the same principles).

Again, this comes from my experience of padded and weighted simulators while wearing no armour. (However, has anyone taken into account that in SCA combat, one has to hit harder than one would have to with a real weapon? After all, the other guy has to "feel" the hit, which is why you could never pull something of like a slice with a longsword in SCA combat. However, this is assuming that SCA is replicating what I though it was replicating, unarmoured combat with armour for safety. If I am wrong, than please correct me.)

[Sam N.]

Oh yeah, also, I heard that reports from battlesites indicate that leg wounds were very common. Does anyone know more? I think it might be relevant to the leg-targeting debate.

[Joe Fults]

Bennison,

You have to consider the context of the discussion. Most of this thread has been about armored fighting in a specific modern sporting system that does some very good things but also has some limitations. However, in my limited experience when you are fighting unarmored with intent the game does change and the bull fighter (strength/power) can be more easily compromised by speed and skill (this I can say with confidence because I'm more on the bull side of things myself). Without armor the game becomes much more about taking and keeping the initiative while changing positioning to avoid attacks and create openings. When the armor is not there it cannot be used to absorb strikes and it becomes a bit more risky to close the way the videos show.

I suspect you're seeing much less avoidance in the videos because the armor is there. The fighters don't have to avoid the blow that armor protects them from and its not like the players are trying to injure each other. To me the nature of the construction we're viewing favors the bull fighter a bit so that is what we see.