| Author |
Message |
Gavin Kisebach
|
 Posted: Sat 30 Aug, 2008 7:39 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | Just a question to the SCA guys out there: Why is a medium, fairly light, round shield (i.e. a target/rotella) a bad design? Authors such as Agrippa, Digrassi, Marozzo, Silver, Page and many more teach its use as a feature of their system, therefore, it couldn't have been too bad in period. Yet I see SCA people all the time disparaging this type of shield in favour of a heavy, large heater shield. (Plus, Marozzo's sword and rotella system that I saw being used in the video I posted earlier seemed viable...) |
The short answer is that they are too easily displaced, and don't provide any significant passive defense. Add to that the problem that you cannot use the shield offensively, and you get the idea.
This doesn't mean that no one in the SCA is trying bucklers; as with everything else in the SCA someone somewhere has probably got it down to an art form. Overall they just haven't caught on for tourneys.
I couldn't care less about tournaments, because I am a war fighter, and anything less than ten people in a scrap is a yawn to me. Small shields can't lock into a shieldwall, don't stop arrows, and glaives, spears, and halberds just plow through them. They may be good for a flanking archer hunter who is quick on his feet, but even then you'd better be dedicated to the form, because you're going to take a lot of lumps before you figure out how to make yourself useful to the team.
That said, I still see a few guys at most wars rockin' the buckler. For those of us that aren't that agile it's a simple equation
Urge to try buckler and sword < Urge not to take bolt to the trachea 
There are only two kinds of scholars; those who love ideas and those who hate them. ~ Emile Chartier
|
|
   |
 |
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Sat 30 Aug, 2008 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I dont' think I've yet made by point; we are certainly not more fearless...we just don't have nearly as much to fear. What is losing a bout and getting a bruise compared to agonizing death and/or the disgrace that falls on you and your family for being proven the loser in a judicial duel? |
I don't know if we really disagree. On here, sometimes it's hard to tell. The main thing I take issue with is this: I got the impression from your posts that historical warriors wouldn't have had to worry about suicidally aggressive opponents. While the line from various fechtbucher does imply that, I don't think it's true across the board. As I said, I believe Silver's system is specifically designed to handle such opponents. Based on what Silver wrote about fighting resolute men half drunke, I suspect sparring against fearless fighters could be excellent training.
What you say about the sparring mindset can't be refuted. It's different, I don't disagree. This is something period masters recongized as well. After all, they sparred too. Here's what Swetnam wrote:
I say there is great ods betwixt fighting in the field and playing in the fence-schoole, for in the field being both sober, I meane if it be in a morning upon cold blood, then every man will as much feare to kill as to be killed, againe a man shall see to defend either blow or thrust in the field then in a fence shcoole, for a man will be more bold with a foile or a cudgell, because there is small danger in either of them. But when they come to tell their tale at the point of a rapier, they will stand off for their owne safety.
On the other hand, I think we can also be too defensive in sparring. With dagger sparring, specifically. Fightning as a Silver suggests makes for a fun workout, but it's far removed from an assassination attempt or the like. When practicing that sort of thing, one player has to be wildly aggressive. If the attacker snipes and feints, unarmed defenses become almost impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Reich
Location: Arlington, VA Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Sat 30 Aug, 2008 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gavin Kisebach wrote: | The short answer is that they are too easily displaced, and don't provide any significant passive defense. Add to that the problem that you cannot use the shield offensively, and you get the idea.
This doesn't mean that no one in the SCA is trying bucklers; as with everything else in the SCA someone somewhere has probably got it down to an art form. Overall they just haven't caught on for tourneys. |
In the interest of clarity, Sam was talking about the Rotella, which is strapped to your arm, as opposed to a buckler which you hold only in your hand.
Spada e Rotella
Spada e Brocchiero (Buckler)
I'm just trying to be sure we're all on the same page.
Steve
Founder of NoVA-Assalto, an affiliate of the HEMA Alliance
|
|
 |
|
Steven Reich
Location: Arlington, VA Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Sat 30 Aug, 2008 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | What you say about the sparring mindset can't be refuted. It's different, I don't disagree. This is something period masters recognized as well. After all, they sparred too. |
Yes, we see numerous references to this in various period works. Giganti has an excellent example where he gives a technique to use against those fencers who "...in the school attack without giving any care to tempo or measure..." (i.e. very wildly) which he says can be difficult to deal with. I find it amusing that he ends this technique by saying, "This technique is more useful than beautiful." (For those interested, it is basically making a nice big opening to the inside, then parrying with a strong beat and riposting (i.e. a two tempo, parry-riposte).
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | On the other hand, I think we can also be too defensive in sparring. With dagger sparring, specifically. Fighting as a Silver suggests makes for a fun workout, but it's far removed from an assassination attempt or the like. When practicing that sort of thing, one player has to be wildly aggressive. If the attacker snipes and feints, unarmed defenses become almost impossible. |
Very good point. Actually, you see this in free-play with swords quite often where no one is willing risk a hit and actually make a committed attack. Of course, this is usually because neither fencer knows how to make a committed attack securely. The end result is usually a lot of standing around with the occasional cut to the hand (usually responded to with a counter-attack to the hand). It is ironic to say, but sometimes in free-play you really need to force yourself to make real committed attacks (as does your opponent), even when you're likely to be successfully counter-attacked. Only by doing this do you really learn how to make safe and successful committed attacks. Now this doesn't really apply to a tournament (because a tournament is not really any time to learn techniques), but when you're sparring for training (i.e. to learn rather than to win), you really owe it to yourself and your partner to do this.
Steve
Founder of NoVA-Assalto, an affiliate of the HEMA Alliance
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Sat 30 Aug, 2008 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | Quote: | | I dont' think I've yet made by point; we are certainly not more fearless...we just don't have nearly as much to fear. What is losing a bout and getting a bruise compared to agonizing death and/or the disgrace that falls on you and your family for being proven the loser in a judicial duel? |
I don't know if we really disagree. On here, sometimes it's hard to tell. The main thing I take issue with is this: I got the impression from your posts that historical warriors wouldn't have had to worry about suicidally aggressive opponents. While the line from various fechtbucher does imply that, I don't think it's true across the board. As I said, I believe Silver's system is specifically designed to handle such opponents. Based on what Silver wrote about fighting resolute men half drunke, I suspect sparring against fearless fighters could be excellent training.
What you say about the sparring mindset can't be refuted. It's different, I don't disagree. This is something period masters recongized as well. After all, they sparred too. Here's what Swetnam wrote:
I say there is great ods betwixt fighting in the field and playing in the fence-schoole, for in the field being both sober, I meane if it be in a morning upon cold blood, then every man will as much feare to kill as to be killed, againe a man shall see to defend either blow or thrust in the field then in a fence shcoole, for a man will be more bold with a foile or a cudgell, because there is small danger in either of them. But when they come to tell their tale at the point of a rapier, they will stand off for their owne safety.
On the other hand, I think we can also be too defensive in sparring. With dagger sparring, specifically. Fightning as a Silver suggests makes for a fun workout, but it's far removed from an assassination attempt or the like. When practicing that sort of thing, one player has to be wildly aggressive. If the attacker snipes and feints, unarmed defenses become almost impossible. |
Benjamin,
We're almost on the same page, but one thing has yet to be made clear. I am not advocating defensive fighting (nor am I condeming it, it's just not what I'm talking about at all). While there are different takes on the German system, the most common, and the one I agree with, is that the Germans want you to seize initiative and attack, usually. They also teach you how to counter and regain initiative (they actually teach this first).
However, it is the nature of the attack and the counter that seperates fighting competetively without fear of death, or fighting in earnest.
Sure, attack, sieze the initiatve, but use one of the versetzen to attack in a way that closes the most likely line of counterattack. Counter your opponent's attack, but do it in such a way that neutralizes his attack and kills him right there and then. This is not defensive fighting. You can attack, attack, attack and still deal with all threats to you while doing so.
Similarly, seeing a strike coming at you and instead of addressing that stike undercutting so you can hit first is not offensive fighting, it is stupid fighting. Or it is a good strategy in a sporting bout, because it may get you the point. It's the context that decides, and that context is the heart of the matter we're discussing.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
Last edited by Michael Edelson on Sun 31 Aug, 2008 6:32 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Sat 30 Aug, 2008 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It is ironic to say, but sometimes in free-play you really need to force yourself to make real committed attacks (as does your opponent), even when you're likely to be successfully counter-attacked. |
Yes, definitely. I'll often do this in sparring. Rarely I'll even attempt to be Silver's resolute man half drunke and attack wildly. Doing this combined with a more realistic stopping time from hits can lead to messy results. Grappling seems much more important when you realize that thrust or cut probably wouldn't end the fight instantly. To his credit, my sparring partner would usually respond well and thump me soundly on the head for my trouble. Gardant can be an iron wall against blows. I imagine that's why Silver liked it so much. I wouldn't trust anything else against an angry Englishman from the 16th century.
| Quote: | | Similarly, seeing a strike coming at you and instead of addressing that stike undercutting so you can hit first is not offensive fighting, it is stupid fighting. |
I can't argue with that. Personally, I feel like a moron whenever a double kill happens to me in sparring. (And it happens plenty, sadly.) I try to avoid it as much I can. I stress to my partners that dangerous tricks would only be good once to historical warrior. Out of habit and ease, I usually spar to the first solid attack in an important location. From what I've seen, most folks do the same. For the most realistic sparring, you have go beyond hitting without getting hit. You've got to maintain a defense after most successful strikes. As noted in the excellent SPADA II article, few wounds stop quickly. Thrusts, especially, can't be relied on.
As a side note, I wonder if the idea of attack forcing defense in the German tradition has to do with their favored form of attack. When I see a zornhau coming at me, I do feel awfully compelled to parry or get out of the way! Thrusts are scary, but seem perhaps survivable. I can't imagine walking away from a wrath stroke.
Last edited by Benjamin H. Abbott on Sun 31 Aug, 2008 9:32 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Sat 30 Aug, 2008 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Who was guilty of double hits in period when the stakes where high ?
1) The novice: Doesn't know what to do, will react unpredictably, won't react to an attack with a good defence, will react defensively but do it so badly that it misses being defensive and ends up causing a mutual kill.
2) The fool: Thinks he is better than he is and will do something stupid through overconfidence, will only be reacting to fear or blind anger and attack ignoring the defensive completely, drunk or mentally ill and doesn't feel the fear needed to react defensively.
3) The desperate or fatalistic: Convinced he is going to die anyway because he is convinced that his opponent it so much better than himself that with anger or despair will just simultaneously attack.
4) The " OOOOPS ": One or the other or both opponents misjudge and hit each other while failing to attack safely.
5) ???? Any others I'm overlooking or conditions under which simultaneous hit will occur
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Sat 30 Aug, 2008 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Based on Silver's writing, unsound martial theories could lead to double kills. The idea that the thruster absolutely has the advantage, for example, and the supposedly common notion of striking simultaneously with a more skillful opponent. You could count these as variations of the novice or fool.
|
|
|
|
|
Gavin Kisebach
|
| Posted: Sun 31 Aug, 2008 2:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | In the interest of clarity, Sam was talking about the Rotella, which is strapped to your arm, as opposed to a buckler which you hold only in your hand. |
Oh gosh how did I miss that? The rotella you attached looks like a viable shield to me; in fact famed SCA heavy fighter Paul Bellatrix used one throughout his career and was a proponent of the type.
From his website:
| Quote: | I prefer small shields because the use of one forces the fighter to become more involved in the fight, and thereby eventually to become a better fighter. I think that this is because the shield offers less static protection, and must be moved, requiring the fighter to fight with the shield, instead of simply from behind it. The shield becomes integrated into the flow of movements, influencing, and being influenced by the movements of the sword and body. Also, I think (again, personal taste) that the style becomes more elegant as a result.
I prefer a round shield to a heater because it supports the punch-blocking style that I use. With a heater, I have to worry about keeping the edges and corners in proper orientation. Actually, the basic style of punch blocking is similar with both shield shapes. This is a choice of alternatives. Those who prefer heaters or half-rounds like the extra protection offered by the corners. |
Here in the northwest, the study of Norse history dominates and while round shields are common, they are almost all center grip, so if you wanted to learn how to fight with an enarmed round you might need to be somewhat of an autodidact.
One last thing that might come into it is ease of manufacture. I can go down to the lumber store and buy some plywood, cut it into a circle, wankel, or heater and strap it for less than ten dollars. I have a shield press so I can give my heater a nice deep dish if I like, but a dished steel shield like that Rotello would be difficult to make for most people and expensive to purchase.
There are only two kinds of scholars; those who love ideas and those who hate them. ~ Emile Chartier
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Reich
Location: Arlington, VA Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Sun 31 Aug, 2008 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | 5) ???? Any others I'm overlooking or conditions under which simultaneous hit will occur |
The individual whose training encourages situations where double-hits occur. For example, if in bouting you tend to cause a lot of double hits, I bet that the odds are higher that you'll end up the same in a duel (since you've been "training" yourself to the double).
Steve
Founder of NoVA-Assalto, an affiliate of the HEMA Alliance
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Reich
Location: Arlington, VA Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Sun 31 Aug, 2008 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gavin Kisebach wrote: | | One last thing that might come into it is ease of manufacture. I can go down to the lumber store and buy some plywood, cut it into a circle, wankel, or heater and strap it for less than ten dollars. I have a shield press so I can give my heater a nice deep dish if I like, but a dished steel shield like that Rotello would be difficult to make for most people and expensive to purchase. |
Not that bad. You can get a Windlass version for about $73 from Kult of Athena (although it really needs a little work to make it a little more viable. However, I don't know whether or not it would be usable in SCA as-is because I am not familiar with their safety/equipment restrictions.
Steve
Founder of NoVA-Assalto, an affiliate of the HEMA Alliance
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Sun 31 Aug, 2008 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steven Reich wrote: | | Gavin Kisebach wrote: | | One last thing that might come into it is ease of manufacture. I can go down to the lumber store and buy some plywood, cut it into a circle, wankel, or heater and strap it for less than ten dollars. I have a shield press so I can give my heater a nice deep dish if I like, but a dished steel shield like that Rotello would be difficult to make for most people and expensive to purchase. |
Not that bad. You can get a Windlass version for about $73 from Kult of Athena (although it really needs a little work to make it a little more viable. However, I don't know whether or not it would be usable in SCA as-is because I am not familiar with their safety/equipment restrictions.
Steve |
All it would need to be legal is to have the edge covered so it does not damage people's weapons when they hit it. Common ways of covering the edge are garden hose, radiator hose and leather. These options if light don't last long and the more heavy duty stuff can add as much as two lbs to the shield. The best way I have find is to buy Windrose shield edging. It is both light and durable. They only charge a $1 per foot so it is cheaper too. You will need 10 feet for a heater like mine.
http://www.windrosearmoury.com/zc/
The fingers on the inside of the shield must be protected too. You can buy a shield basket for about $20 or just use a hockey glove like I do. If you use the hockey glove remember to strap it so that it fits the glove, not just your hand.
I bought my heater shield at Pennsic from By My Hand last year. They are intended for heavy combat use and are expected to last forever. They are made of 5052 H38 aluminum that is .100" thick. They are custom cut to order. You can give them measures or mail them a pattern to trace.
Round- $60.00 plus shipping
Custom cut
Upto 30" high $50.00 plus shipping
Up to 36" high $55.00 plus shipping
Up to 48" high $60.00 plus shipping
http://www.bymyhanddesigns.com/
http://www.bymyhanddesigns.com/bmhdshields.html
From my discussion with them they are not exactly internet geniuses so it might be best to call them rather then email them (317) 931-0561
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
|
|
 |
|
Jason G. Smith
|
| Posted: Sun 31 Aug, 2008 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: |
I can't argue with that. Personally, I feel like a moron whenever a double kill happens to me in sparring. (And it happens plenty, sadly.) I try to avoid it as much I can. I stress to my partners that dangerous tricks would only be good once to historical warrior. Out of habit and ease, I usually spar to the first solid attack in an important location. From what I've seen, most folks do the same. For the most realistic sparring, you have go beyond hitting without getting hit. You've got to maintain a defense after most successful strikes. As noted in the excellent SPADA II article, few wounds stop quickly. Thrusts, especially, can't be relied on.
As a side note, I wonder if the idea of attack forcing defense in the German tradition has to do with their favored form of attack. When I see a zornhau coming at me, I do feel awfully compelled to parry or get out of the way! Thrusts are scary, but seem perhaps survivable. I can't imagine walking away from a wrath stroke. |
This is why, when training, that "reset button" mentality needs to be thrown out the window. We try (and I do mean try, we're not always successful at it...) to train in loose play and free play to always retreat to cover, or strike again and retreat after a clean hit. We also sometimes go the other route, and use the "stun" factor of a clean strike to grapple our partner. This forces you into the mindset of "it may not yet be over." This is the result of addressing just such problems, and the inevitable situation when your partner doesn't realise he's "dead" and thumps you when your guard is down - a most unpleasant and potentially dangerous situation.
In short, and while it may sound cheesy, "never let your guard down." 
Cheers,
Jason
Les Maîtres d'Armes
Member of the
Chivalric Fighting Arts Association
... above all, you should feel in your conscience that your quarrel is good and just. - Le Jeu de la Hache
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Sun 31 Aug, 2008 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | We try (and I do mean try, we're not always successful at it...) to train in loose play and free play to always retreat to cover, or strike again and retreat after a clean hit. We also sometimes go the other route, and use the "stun" factor of a clean strike to grapple our partner. This forces you into the mindset of "it may not yet be over." |
Yes. As I mentioned earlier, I've done basically the same thing. Instead of stopping after getting tagged, I might become wildly aggressive while counting to ten. (Even a perfect thrust might give the other guy ten seconds of activity.) This resembles the account of the Battle of Lincoln, in which the count of Perche strikes three mighty blows after being mortally wounded in the eye. I've found this sort of sparring much more intense, perhaps a bit alarming. I wish I had done more of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Sat 06 Sep, 2008 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I thought I would list and classify the main shields types. The significant characteristic that defines them is how you block with them and how much help you need from your sword to block. There is no hard rule as to their exact size and their characteristics can be somewhat mixed.
1-Heater-(24"x36") shield 100% defense and sword 100% offense. Corners are vital to blocking.
2-kite- (22"x40") No top corners so you must punch block or sword-block to cover your head.
3-round- (24") no bottom corner so sword has to do more defending then kite
4-targe- (18") smaller then round so sword has to do even more defending.
5-buckler- (10") sword has to do even more defending then with targe. At this point the sword is almost on 100% defense. You have to be very conscience of closing off incoming angles of attack with your sword as you attack.
6-two handed weapon- The sword or polearm is your only shield and must close off incoming angles of attack in every instance it attacks.
The pattern you see in the manor I have have listed these is that as you move from large shield to smaller one, the sword must be dedicated more and more to defense. With larger shields you have to actively work your offense around your shield (not move the shield out of the way of the sword). This takes a lot of training to do. Without doubt a large shield will restrict you offense in favor of defense.
It is interesting to observe that while the smaller shields give more range of motion, and thus easier offensive capability, they are also self-restricting in that they become more and more dedicated to defense.
The two wild cards here are a scutum (square) and two-weapon forms. I classify a scutum in the same category as a kite. The reason is because the scutum gives good leg protection (like kite) but is too bottom heavy to efficiently bring the top corner up to block your head (like heater), so you have to do some sword blocking for your head. So a scutum defense is more kite-like. A coffin shield would also require a similar sword defense as a kite.
I regard two-weapon forms (two swords, two axes, mixed) in the same category as buckler. After all the buckler makes a good iron-fist for punching too. It is a similar situation where both hands are almost 100% dedicated to defense. So it appears to me that two-weapon forms are more buckler-like in their defense.
The way I am currently fighting with my heater is... the heater is 100% defense and sword is 100% offense. This is the standard I gave above. My training is about to move in a direction where the sword will now be on 95% defense except for that moment that it is actually attacking (shield still 100% defense). This is done by fighting from a guard with the sword blade blocking the opening on the right side of my shield. The sword attacks from there and returns to there. The effectively gives 195% turtle defense. This is the standard of the knights who are training me and why they are able to beat me 95% of the time.
note: there are some very good reasons to also fight from a "sword back" position and a shield. You can use the shield to hide the position of the sword. You can also generate more power. This might be useful with a heavier sword, mace or axe.
Heaters
Kites
Oval
Rectangular
Round/Wankel
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Shira
Location: California Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 39
|
| Posted: Sat 06 Sep, 2008 11:35 pm Post subject: Shields for Offense |
|
|
.
| Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: | | 1-Heater-(24"x36") shield 100% defense and sword 100% offense. Corners are vital to blocking. |
A heater is 100% defense? Not true.
You can shield punch your opponent--send that forward corner straight into his face.. You can hook with a shield. You can pin down with your shield. Shields are not 100% defense. While a shield punch is not SCA legal, I have seen tons of SCA fighters grapple with their heaters, prying open a hole in their opponent's defense with the edge of their heaters and blasting a shot in the nook. I've also seen people using the shield to forcefully pin down both arms of the fighter and arrest his movement and take a free shot at the exposed target. The idea of 100% defense for a shield, heater or otherwise, is lazy.
Size does not contribute to the offensive nature of a shield. I have seen large barn-door sized heater shields and even large Roman-style shields being used very offensively in the manners described above (minus the shield punch, being an SCA event). The giant judicial shields in the German manuscripts were used for murdering the opponent just as frequently as the club or sword in the other hand. Small or large, a shield can be very offensive.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Sun 07 Sep, 2008 12:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe the defensive use of a shield being defined as 100% defensive is just a definition problem as any shield can be used to stop attacks but also used to attack: Maybe, what Vassilis means is that with some types or sizes of shield the sword is not or little needed defensively as the shield can take care of the defensive 100% or almost so ?
Not sure if one can say that the sword should be reserved only for attack even if the shield can take care of most of the defensive ? If one neutralizes the opponent's sword with one's sword one could either wind with the sword or use one's shield very aggressively while not having to worry about any danger from the opponent's sword. ( Not sure but asking ! )
The problem is also that SCA sword and shield is not really fighting with no rules and the shield's potential is seriously limited compared to it's historical use.
I imagine that SCA fighting has some commonality with the real thing but is only useful in a discussion about real fighting if one can discard the safety rules.
One problem with trying to see how SCA fighting matches up to the historical stuff is that even if one tries to " play without the rules " an SCA fighter will have trouble not falling back on habits learned and programmed in !? A bit like playing soccer with football equipment or mindset ...... even if you tell the soccer guy to play differently while wearing football equipment it will be very hard to judge how good are football tactics applied to soccer or how useful the skill acquired by the soccer player will translate into football effectiveness? ( How much does a skill in one sport helps or hinders learning another sport distantly related ??? ).
Now, someone trained in sword and shield using historical techniques ( well, difficult as little has come down to us ) observed a lot of SCA fighting he might be able to recognize some things that he does or might see something useful that he doesn't do like wraps !? He might conclude that the wraps are worth trying out or would already know why they wouldn't work in a real fight with sharps and no limits on how to use the shield.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anders Nilsson
|
| Posted: Sun 07 Sep, 2008 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
About wrap strikes.
In Medieval swordsmanship on page 140 John Clements describes wrapshot.
And quickly dispatches of them. They canīt be found in any medieval sources. They can be found in reneissance text thou, There they are used to cut at the knees and wrists. So itīs plausible that they where used like this durin medieval times aswell. Note that they where used for drawcuts and not for swings.
He also makes one interesting detail, that many today overlook.
The use of the shield.
A shield is NOT a static defensive tool.
Itīs an offensive weapon that works well on defence.
Itīs not held in fornt of you, itīs mainly held with the shields edge pointing at the opponent.
A shield is used like a boxers jab. (As to be seen in manuals, Roman and greek pictures, vikingsagas etc) You constantly jab at your oponent, trying to get past the shield to deliver the killing blow.
The shield is also great for binding. If you look in I.33 you see that you never make the killingshot until you have bound your oponents sword and shield. (This can also be seen in later manuals)
Clements says that to deliver a wrapshot you have to be close. If you try to get that close you will get a shield bashed in your face.
So the answer to the wrapshot is the use of the shield.
Against an opponent that doesnīt use the shield correctly you can walk in to deliver a wrapshot. But I wouldnīt suggest it. Itīs better to use your own shield correct and deliver a hard binding shieldjab that binds his shield and weapon and make a proper cut.
As for the fighting clips. A longsword was by many considered a better weapon than a sword and shield. But you have to know how to use the longswords whole potential. Against a sword and shield you should use it in halfsword. You could try and use your reach at first, but ones the opponents is closing, you have to switch to halfsword. In that grips itīs much faster and more versatile.
Silver claims that the staff is the best weapon, a longsword in halfswordgrip i a shortstaff, so it can work wonders.
If anyone is interested my friend and mentor Martin Wallgren is holding a seminar on Talhoffers halfsword at Swordfish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anders Nilsson
|
| Posted: Sun 07 Sep, 2008 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just a question to the SCA guys out there: Why is a medium, fairly light, round shield (i.e. a target/rotella) a bad design? Authors such as Agrippa, Digrassi, Marozzo, Silver, Page and many more teach its use as a feature of their system, therefore, it couldn't have been too bad in period. Yet I see SCA people all the time disparaging this type of shield in favour of a heavy, large heater shield. (Plus, Marozzo's sword and rotella system that I saw being used in the video I posted earlier seemed viable...)[/quote]
The use of shields has not been properly examined.
There are some clues thou.
The first clue is not to strike past you own shield, cover you swordhand all the time. This makes sence if you look at crossguards.
The larger crossguard appeared when the heathers appeared. SInce the heather is strapped to the arm you couldnīt protect your swordhand as well as with a centergripped shield.
The shield is also commonly belived to be a static defensive tool, thatīs completly wrong.
It was an offensive weapon, you fought with the shield and killed with the sword.
There are lots of pictures of this, from greek and roman times up to the reneissance.
The shield is used like a boxers jab. You strike with the shields edge, trying to get a bind or an opening.
Vikings for example had roundshields 70-100 cm across.
I have a 100 cm shield, since itīs centregripped it gives me 50 cm more reach with my jab. I can bind or punch my oponent in the face at a safe distance.
A smaller shield doesnīt have that reach, but its faster and nimbler, and can be used for grappling, while a largeshield has to be dropped in grapplingrange.
|
|
|
|
|
Gavin Kisebach
|
| Posted: Sun 07 Sep, 2008 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Just a question to the SCA guys out there: Why is a medium, fairly light, round shield (i.e. a target/rotella) a bad design? ... Yet I see SCA people all the time disparaging this type of shield in favour of a heavy, large heater shield. |
It's not a bad design, I don't think that anyone I know holds that opinion. It's not as popular as the heater, but that may be only because the heater is what most people learn to fight with; it's self perpetuating. The center grip round is wildly popular here in the northwest, possibly even more so than the heater.
| Quote: | | The shield is also commonly believed to be a static defensive tool, thatīs completely wrong. |
Passive is not the same thing as static; again I don't know of anyone who is using their shield in a static fashion barring a pavise perhaps 
| Quote: | | It was an offensive weapon, you fought with the shield and killed with the sword... The shield is used like a boxers jab. You strike with the shields edge, trying to get a bind or an opening. |
Shield to body strikes are proscribed in SCA combat. I'd allow it myself, but I'm not in charge. Of course the first time some 6'4" ogre with a scutum rammed his shield rim into my grill at full force I might revisit the rule.
| Quote: | | A smaller shield doesnīt have that reach, but its faster and nimbler, and can be used for grappling, while a largeshield has to be dropped in grapplingrange. |
Grappling is also proscribed in SCA combat. I'd allow it myself, but I'm not in charge. Of course the first time some 6'4" ogre in 80lbs of armor body slammed me .... 
Let me put it another way. Below is a picture of my friend Jerry. He's an ex biker and power lifter. He is 6'4" and weighs just under 300 lbs. In a bar fight, he likes to pull people's arms out of their sockets. In the SCA he fights with a 6' danish axe, and he can toss you and me around like we were toddlers.
Do you really want to include grappling and shield strikes into a full contact fight?
 Attachment: 62.15 KB
There are only two kinds of scholars; those who love ideas and those who hate them. ~ Emile Chartier
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You 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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic