Go to page Previous  1, 2

There's no getting around it Ellis, you just can't reproduce the psychology and behavior of combatants. I've been mulling over ways to encourage SCA armies to actually break and flee when a battle is lost, because I think it would be fascinating to see an army spontaneously disintegrate in real time.
Gavin; Of course not. However, as long as you are aware of the shortcomings of your style or activity, you can look for answers elsewhere.
Gavin Kisebach wrote:
I've been mulling over ways to encourage SCA armies to actually break and flee when a battle is lost, because I think it would be fascinating to see an army spontaneously disintegrate in real time.


Simple. Just ban the dead from participation for 3 years. A much lesser penalty than for the historical dead, but should have some effect.
Timo Nieminen wrote:
Simple. Just ban the dead from participation for 3 years. A much lesser penalty than for the historical dead, but should have some effect.

Way too much grumbling and record keeping. :lol: Why not try taping ziplock baggies of buck scent to helmets and breast plates. NO ONE would want to be hit or killed! Talk about real fear...

Gavin Kisebach wrote:
Two years ago we had a very clever fellow who got behind our enemy and started shouting ridiculous orders. Their own leader was dead from an arrow, and they were just frozen there, practically milling about. When he started barking they followed , and they were utterly beaten.
Gavin, PLEASE tell me you have video of this.
Oh believe me Scott, I wish I had video of that, but it was in a wooded area and arrows were flying, so no cameras were around.

Now that I mention it a similar thing happened to me once. During a particularly messy scrap along a narrow road I got separated from my unit, and behind the enemy right as the lines backed away from each other during a lull in the fighting. Rather than go down gloriously I just turned around and stood there trying to look inconspicuous in my incredibly noticeable yellow and black countercharged tabbard and matching shield.

I wasn't about to say anything; so with a huge grin on my face I moved up to the front of the enemy and took up a position on the far right of the road.

As we (me and the foemen) were moving to re-engage my own men I remember desperately trying to signal to my men that I had hatched a plot, but it didn't work. They certainly looked puzzled, and I was still waiting for someone to club me from behind.

Anyhow just as the lines engaged I threw myself hard to the left of the line, tangling all of the enemy spears up with my big shield. Our side was able to wipe out that first row of spearmen, and I stumbled away drunk with laughter before the enemy realized what had gone wrong.
Gavin Kisebach wrote:
Oh believe me Scott, I wish I had video of that, but it was in a wooded area and arrows were flying, so no cameras were around.

Now that I mention it a similar thing happened to me once. During a particularly messy scrap along a narrow road I got separated from my unit, and behind the enemy right as the lines backed away from each other during a lull in the fighting. Rather than go down gloriously I just turned around and stood there trying to look inconspicuous in my incredibly noticeable yellow and black countercharged tabbard and matching shield.

I wasn't about to say anything; so with a huge grin on my face I moved up to the front of the enemy and took up a position on the far right of the road.

As we (me and the foemen) were moving to re-engage my own men I remember desperately trying to signal to my men that I had hatched a plot, but it didn't work. They certainly looked puzzled, and I was still waiting for someone to club me from behind.

Anyhow just as the lines engaged I threw myself hard to the left of the line, tangling all of the enemy spears up with my big shield. Our side was able to wipe out that first row of spearmen, and I stumbled away drunk with laughter before the enemy realized what had gone wrong.


That's great!

Was this in the SCA? You may have actually convinced me to join...
Yeah this was in the SCA, but I'm sure that similar things have happened in reenactment battles. The fog of war can be your friend if you don't lose your nerve :D
Gavin Kisebach wrote:
There's no getting around it Ellis, you just can't reproduce the psychology and behavior of combatants. I've been mulling over ways to encourage SCA armies to actually break and flee when a battle is lost, because I think it would be fascinating to see an army spontaneously disintegrate in real time.


To understand the psychology and behavior of combatants I look to letters from the American Civil War. The reason is because they still fought in tight block formations. They did a lot of hand to hand fighting with bayonets. They also employed the use of cavalry. Most important... they had a high rate of literacy and told us in writing what they were thinking.

The letters indicate that a soldiers knew full well that they would die and still held their position in the line. Not necessarily because the believed in the cause... Dieing was more favorable then being branded a coward. Prior the 1900's fighting units were raised and trained locally. They fought together under local banners. Most of the people in a unit knew each other from childhood. They were all family and friends. Abandoning ones position in line meant abandoning your father, brother, cousin, friend. It would have been impossible for a man to go back home and face his aunt when his cousin died in the line while he fled. That is what it meant to be a coward. This is why routs were unit routs rather then individual routs. Chances are that if your brother dies on the line, you will believe that you deserve to die too. That is what the Civil War letters indicate. I see no reason why it would not apply to the middle ages where fighting units was even more localized.

If there is anything we can not reproduce... its not the fear factor... fear can be instilled by wearing less armor and hitting harder.... Its the loyalty factor to the men around us that can not be recreated... the willingness to die rather then be shammed.

If we wanted to make SCA fighting more realistic, we might do something like call a battle over if any one side suffers a 20 % loss of men. Fighting to the last man only in cases were a unit is surrounded. Probably not worth the trouble, because if any one side manages to gain such a clear advantage where they kill 20% of the people on the opposing side they will probably win anyway. That does not change the outcome. Its just more fun to fight to the last man.



btw... the reason why armies started to mix their fighting units up after the Civil War is because very often units often did fight to the last man. Particularly units that went first into battle. That meant neighborhoods often lost an entire generation of men. They mixing the units up today so that if a unit is ambushed and completely killed the loss is spread out throughout the country rather then be burdened by just one area.
Here's a classic, from the Mougsaard viking battle in 2007, inspired by a historical roman tactic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynHONWYDWZ8&feature=related
The army on the left is deployed in two tight boar snouts or horns. As the enemy moves forward, his line is broken by the horns, and the reserves come forward between the horns to push them back out, each time leaving some of their warriors dead.
The entire battle lasted for about 25 minutes, a record :P
(yours truly was in the reserves, and died tragically on the third countrerpush)
Elling forgive my ignorance, but are these people fighting with intent, or is this entirely scripted, or a mix of the two? Do reenactors in general actually fight, or is it staged?
Gavin;
This is a free fight.
One should really seperate between "Battle Reenactments", which is recrations of historical events (like the Battle of Hastings), which are scripted, and "Reenactment figthing" which is the "sport" based on the rules first used in the afore mentioned battle reenactments, and are free form.

Shortly summed up, the reenactment figthing rules are made for simplicity, speed and low equimpent requirements.
Weapons are blunted steel, Target zones are torso and thighs (some places also upper arms) for cutting weapons, torso for thrusts, head and neck is a foul, all hits are good... and that is pretty much it, except for safety guidelines.
Realism wise it leaves a bit to be wanted, but for tactics, accesablity and fun it's great.

We compensate for the lack of head hits and so on by practicing with alternative rule setts, including full body targets and stricter QC for hits. This of course requires good gloves, underarm/elbow and knee/shin guards and hemlet or fencing mask.
Lately, there has been a trend to experiment with these rules for group combat in some places.
Thanks Elling, that gives me a better idea of where your experiences are coming from.

I don't know how much you could "learn" from reenacting the Battle of Hattin (for example) if you just fought the battle by script every year, so knowing that there is a free form competitive equivalent to the SCA makes much more sense, from a tactical experimentation viewpoint.
Gavin Kisebach wrote:
I've been mulling over ways to encourage SCA armies to actually break and flee when a battle is lost, because I think it would be fascinating to see an army spontaneously disintegrate in real time.


I just thought of something yesterday. In the past I have participated in a few LARP games and people do run away in fear there. The LARP game I participated in was run just twice a year and players would gather skills, titles and certain rights over time. If a player was killed he would loose all that and had to start from zero again. Players who had survived for several years would flee from a battle that was going badly to ensure they'd survive.

Could something like that not work for SCA? I'm not that familliar with SCA but I do remember reading that people can acquire rank, status, titles and certain privileges over time. What if (some of) these benefits were lost when an SCA player was killed? Perhaps that would prevent armies from fighting to the last man?
Sander Marechal wrote:
What if (some of) these benefits were lost when an SCA player was killed? Perhaps that would prevent armies from fighting to the last man?

That would not be an option. It (typically) takes years of effort to be elevated within the SCA. Your suggestion is very interesting though as historically your rank and achievements (e.g. life) could be stripped in just one moment.

I have seen an event that struck a nice compromise in the area of fighting to the last man / dieing foolishly. During an afternoon of various battle scenarios that moved from open field to wooded to hilly terrain, you were required to retain your "injuries" from setting to setting. If you were "killed" you did not get to participate again until the final melee of the day when both forces received "reinforcements". At that point, everyone wacked at each other until the last man was standing :).

Utilizing this scenario, you are much more aware of the consequences of your actions and are more likely to make intelligent decisions (like running away when all seems lost to fight another day / scenario).
Scott Hrouda, I notice you signature line "let em, and leave em". I don't know if you are aware, but the tactic was employed by Colonel Charles Scott, 3rd Continental Army against Geneal Cornwallis. He was quoted as saying "Leg em, damn em, I say leg em". We may do the things we do for different reasons, but I keep finding that just about everything we do in the SCA was used in battle at one time or another.
Bill Tsafa wrote:
I don't know if you are aware, but the tactic was employed by Colonel Charles Scott, 3rd Continental Army against Geneal Cornwallis. He was quoted as saying "Leg em, damn em, I say leg em".

I was unaware of this until you brought it to my attention. Thank you! :) I'll do some research over the holiday.
As I stated earlier, the unit I belong to concentrates on tactics within large battle formations. Too often we would see an allied unit stop in their tracks to wack at a single opponent who had been "legged" thus disrupting the larger formation's advance. We've taken to shouting "Leg 'em and leave 'em" to encourage allied units to keep with the game plan and let the reserves or archers pick off the wounded.

For those not in the SCA, a solid blow to the leg requires you to fight from your knees. It is a very silly rule as you should be writhing on the ground and screaming instead of chasing after an opponent on your knees. Think "Dorf does the SCA". :lol:
Scott Hrouda wrote:
Sander Marechal wrote:
What if (some of) these benefits were lost when an SCA player was killed? Perhaps that would prevent armies from fighting to the last man?

That would not be an option. It (typically) takes years of effort to be elevated within the SCA.


I don't know what the benefits are of being elevated within the SCA, but in the LARP group I participated, players also spend years to attain rank, status and privileges. And then a short battle later, they could end up dead, which meant they assumed a different name, different attire (if they had) and had to start over again from scratch. It sucks, but that's the risk of battle. Players could stand to loose years of investment in a character. That's why armies did break and flee :-)

There's probably a difference between the mortality rate in LARP and SCA though. the LARP I participated in ran twice a year. Average mortality rate was 25%-40% of players ending up being killed during a game weekend. I imagine that in SCA where you have more battles a year and more battles per event you'd get killed a lot more. The system would have to be adapted to fit that pattern of course. Perhaps tournaments and the like would not be to the death, just the battles. Perhaps there would be some chance that you were merely wounded in battle rather than killed outright. I don't know what could work in SCA.
Realistically, you can't have people drive 2 to 4 hours to get to an event just to fighting one battle and go home when they are killed once. Its just not fun and people will not do it. In order for a battle to as realistic as possible, you need to get as many people to participate as possible. The key ingredient is make it "fun" and they will come. Numbers are what make battles most realistic. Then you see how hard it is to command units.

There are two types of battles we fight. Resurrection and Non- Resurrection. In the resurrection, people usually have to take a long tiring walk back to their base to resurrect. In Non-Resurrection, they are out of the fight for that battle. But in the case of Non-Resurrection battles, there are numerous such battles in that day so that people can have 3 or 4 hours of fun. In the Non-Resurrection battles I do see people fighting noticeably more conservatively. This change alone does have the desired effect well enough in my opinion.

As far as recognizing different sorts of wounds and recreating the various types of wounds... it has to be simple. If you make complicated rules... things just get complicated and everyone uses their own rules. Its a mess. In the SCA they often run small scale battles among the knights and high level squires with different rules sets. An example would be the Battle of the Champions at Pennsic where they use "armor as worn" rules. It works in that situation because the participants are highly experienced and can incorporate new rule changes into what they are doing. Anytime you try doing something like what with less experienced people, they usually forget the rules as soon as they clash with the enemy.

To be sure, the SCA has no problem experimenting with different rules. It is done on a regular basis locally and over time the general rules have changed. The SCA is all for making fighting as realistic as possible without people actually getting hurt. Most of the things that sound like a great idea don't work so well when you have 1,000 people on each side. Communication goes out the window when your line meets the enemy. You can't hear what anyone is saying unless they are screaming in your face.
Bill Tsafa wrote:
Realistically, you can't have people drive 2 to 4 hours to get to an event just to fighting one battle and go home when they are killed once. Its just not fun and people will not do it.


That's not what I meant. During a LARP event when a player is killed, he'd go back to camp and he can start again from there. But he's a different character. A different name. Sometimes different clothing and armour (some people carry several sets) and they start at the bottom of the ladder again. No titles, rank or privileges.

Thanks for the rest of your explanation. I know little about how the SCA works so this is giving me some insights.
Thanks for your explanation too Sander. I did not know that is how you guys did things. Very interesting.
Go to page Previous  1, 2

Page 2 of 2

Jump to:  
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 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum