[Chad Arnow]

Steven,
Your aggressive tone and sarcasm are out of line. You are welcome to debate with people, but keep it civil, courteous and professional.

This is the second warning to you in a day. The next incident will result in a temporary loss of your posting privileges.

Am I clear?

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Deciding which hits count and stop the fight is problem in any type of sparring. Many groups count most hits as a roughly immediate stops for unarmored sparring. This isn't realistic, as humans commonly continue to struggle after being severely wounded. On the other hand, a good fencers always wants to avoid getting hit. It's a complicated issue.

[Sean Smith]

Yet from everything I have heard, Talhoffer was talking about specialized dueling shields, in an unarmoured context, to (what I have heard) is first blood. Which is far different than what the quote you referenced was referring to. It (referring to SCA combat), is an armoured fight between two combatants, dressed in roughly 1150's contemporary armour, fighting to a single shot standard (which can be, and has been changed over time, to allow experimentation such as multiple blows to end a bout). The other thing is that throwing a wrap against someone out of armour vs in armour relies on different techniques (cutting/slicing actions, vs. possible percussive action). Wraps in the conventional sense, as opposed to back edged cuts in general which may be thrown from any range, also rely on your opponent being unwilling to wrestle, or otherwise do something to not want you to be that close.

If you could provide any evidence of Mazarro or Talhoffer's system in reference to the combatants, I would be highly interested. Everyone who seems to mention them to me seems to fall silent when asked about their usage, armour they would have worn during such a bout, the ending criteria, and any social stigmas attached to certain types of attacks (aka. if it is to first blood, killing your opponent is frowned upon). So figuring out how these would have bearing on a different system becomes more difficult when one doesn't have all the facts.

Chad, if you feel this warrants a new thread, please start one or let me know. I am unfamiliar with the protocol of how far off-topic from the original post is allowed.

[Bill Tsafa]

Steven, with all respect, you use what ever methods works for you and I will use what ever works for me.

I certainly did not mean I was anywhere near a master, just decent enough and I have fenced enough people know what works. When I happen to run into people that are better then me, I certainly take any advice I can get and see how I can use it.

With the rapier there are no issues of target areas, no armor and the whole body is a target area. The calibration is light so everyone can play. If you think there is something missing from SCA rapier then I invite you enter a few tournaments and beat everyone. If their level is as poor as you say, then people will surround you and plead with you to train them. I will even include myself in that crowd. I would love to raise my skill too. You can then take full credit for bringing SCA rapier up to your higher standard.

Now to explain my comment more fully, I have always felt that the buckler was a hold over form prior periods. I feel that a dagger is a lighter faster parry device. The buckler usually weighs twice as much and is slower. I think the buckler is more useful against harder hitting cutting swords that might otherwise blow through a buckler.

The rapier manual also include a lot of cuts. I think Di Grasse suggests a 50-50 mix. I have fought rapier outside the SCA too where cuts are allowed and I have found them ineffective as a primary attack. I find cuts and slices sometimes effective when a thrust goes off-line but I would do not want to go 50-50 with a rapier.

[Steven Reich]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Steven Reich]

[Steven Reich]

[Bill Tsafa]

Pulling Di Grasse out of the list of Masters or setting him aside is not something I feel comfortable with doing. I feel a lot more comfortable with just saying, some of his methods don't work for me.

You actually surprised me, I though your argument was going to be in favor of cuts since that is not allowed in SCA rapier. So where is the big discrepancy between us? I fight rapier with a weapon in each hand, I move in non-leaner circles, I use the strong of my sword to set aside, the quillons to trap, use thrusts mostly slices and tip cuts if I miss. I use range, distance and timing. The whole body is a target but I prefer the upper body because it is closer. What do you think is missing from SCA rapier?

[Joe Fults]

So about range...

[Sean Smith]

So, what does he talk about in the way of shields, Stephen? That was kind of the jist of my arguement, and trying to see what if anything was applicable to an earlier form of fighting (aka. the SCA heavy armoured standard, a Norman helm with a hauberk).

[Doug Lester]

I was going to stay out of the fray, but what the heck. I am admittedly a newbie and not a practitioner of western martial arts. I think that with everything else being equal, in general, the longer weapon will give an advantage. I can see if I had a six foot long thrusting spear or a glave that I would have an advantage over some one with only an arming sword, everthing else being equal. However, if I were out in the open by myself armed with a 16 fool long pike my best bet would be to throw it down and take off running. The pike has great reach and in massed formation, for which it was designed to be used, it was formidable. By itself it would be slow and akward and too long ranged against a man with a sword. Pikes also had a weakness that could be exploited as the Spanish sword and shield men did.

It would also seem that pole arms would be at a disadvantage where the fighting was at close quarters, especially where the mass of fighters were pressed upon each other.

As far as any system of sparing where certain targets, such as the legs, being off limits for safety or any other reasons, they cannot accurately represent what happens on the battlefield where nothing is off limits. As one man I saw interviewed about tactics used by the Army Rangers said, "if you're not cheating, you're not trying hard enough. Simulations can only approximate combat conditions only so close.

[Steven Reich]

[Sean Smith]

Really what I am looking for is any information they talk about with armoured combatants (maille or better covering most of the body) with a shield bigger than 24" (my artificial definition of buckler). Several people have tried to argue that "SCA fighting is unhistorical" and tend to hold those examples (usually Talhoffer's Dueling shields) as reasons against what we do, saying "The masters argue for something totally different". Yet when pressed for any information about those systems, they seem to lose interest in the argument. What I am looking for is anything that deals with weapons designed to cut and thrust, against an opponent in armour, with a shield. Obviously, these swords would be a far cry from the Type X through XII that would have been used, but that is where the relevancy would be in question. This would let me (and others) form our own opinions about how much knowledge from one age would impact another. From what I have found, there really isn't anything dealing with this (hence SPADA and the other things people extrapolate). Kind of like the argument of "Did all fights end in grappling, aka. Fiore-style, before the advent of rigid armour?". I believe they didn't, but I listen to the arguments of the opposing view, as they may impact my thinking. However it is hard to hold up one side of an argument without the supporting facts, and degree of relevancy.

Sorry about the mis-spelling, was trying to finish typing before I had to rush off and do something, SteVe.

Doug, no-one is saying that any system of sparring is perfect. This is because no system can replicate full targeting, full force with full speed. Mostly because weapons of that age did their job, sometimes frighteningly well (look at the topic on flails for a good example), and we like having our sparring partners around for a while . What is important to look at when comparing any simulation is how much things that are "against" the rules really come into play. As an example, I and many others believe that in a sword/shield vs sword/shield fight the lower leg would rarely be a target, due to more vital areas being in range at the same time. Hence, removing that for safety still gives a high degree of extrapolation to the scenario. Using the same example and removing the head leads to a lower degree of extrapolation, as it would be a key target. The key is drawing the line between safety and extrapolation, which every group does differently. Seeing the interaction, and the ways different groups react under the same circumstances helps our extrapolations, as it is more likely to show where the rules may artificially impact the extrapolation.

[Bill Tsafa]

Sean I very much agree with you on the limits of any fighting system.

In any training system some compromises will have to be made for the sake of safety. Either, the weapons will be padded, or the moves will be slow and controlled, or the armor will be unrealistically heavy, etc... I am sure that when medieval knights trained they also observed some restraints. Not a good idea to kill ones own squires. My opinion is in that by training using different methods you will round out the shortcomings and compromises of any one training system.

Low Leg Block
I took a picture and made a video to better explain my position on low-leg blocks. Observe my block in the following picture. Notice the glaive angled down from shoulder hight to my ankle. Notice how the shaft makes contact with my shield at the corner which I have rolled down. I am blocking my ankles by stopping the glaive at a higher and more forward position. Notice the my hand is hanging straight down, I could push it more forward and catch the glaive at an even higher position without even having to lower my shield as much as I do. So it is not a mater of bringing the shield down but out. You will also notice that when the shield goes down to block, the sword comes to that side too in case my opponent faked low and attacks my head instead.



I created a video detailing this low leg defense. You can view it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFOgO_jo1A8

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Elling Polden]

I'd do the low shield block the other way around, using the sword in a hanging guard.
Against a block like that, I'd simply bend down and scarpe the ground with my glaive to get under the shield.
The best defense against a polearm High-low in my experience is intercepting the pole with your sword as it's going down, applying the shield edge, and closing in.
As long as you stay at pole length, he can try to kill you all day long without putting himself in danger.

[Steven Reich]

[Sean Smith]

Hey Steve, when you get back and get some time, lets take this discussion into its own thread. I have some more questions, and it is nice to find someone willing to discuss the systems, instead of using them to justify an argument already made, and being slow to produce when it may not actually say what they originally quoted (not anyone here, previous discussions). I will try to get an initial post up today, after I get done with work, and a major report due.

[Sam N.]