|
Post by rammstein on May 26, 2007 0:50:11 GMT
Wow I just went back and read my posts...
While I still think that I'm right...
I am being quite an a-hole, apologies proffered to the sbg sword community. I probably should think about what I say...BEFORE I type it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2007 0:56:34 GMT
That is quite admirable Rammstein.
Opps, time for dinner, an army does march on its stomach, you know...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2007 0:59:45 GMT
It is out in the shed in my armor box so I will have to go out tomorrow and measure it. Without an exact measurement at the moment it is about average in length a guess about 34 inches.
I wish we were closer Tsafa! It would be great to get together and exchange fighting styles and techniques in person. And of course do some full speed SCA combat, which makes the system so cool. I don't know of any other fighting system where two guys from different parts of the country could get together and fight using the same rules without risk of killing each other. Not to get off topic but one of the guys in my shire is a truck driver and stopped at a truck stop in Tennessee. He heard all this commotion and sure enough it was two SCA Knights (truckers) who were practicing in the parking lot. Of course my friend went over to watch and learn. Now he carries his armor everywhere he goes just in case he runs into some fellow SCAdians. No other system of fighting is that large and widespread!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2007 2:27:16 GMT
I have been in many brawls and it is chaos. Everything happens so fast and chaotic that you don't even remember half of it when it is over. I hate fighting on the ground it makes me feel too vulnerable and I panic. I will do WHATEVER it takes to get the guy or guys off of me and get back on my feet. I will squeeze and twist private parts as hard as I can, I will scratch and bite, eyegouge, anything and everything to get back on my feet. I have been jacked up a few times but I always take a couple with me. I even had one banger pull out a .22 caliber Saturday Night Special and shoot at me 6 times from 15-20 feet away and only hit me once. I was standing straight up out in the open and he missed 5 times out of 6. The bullet lodged in my chest bone and didn't cause much damage at all except for as permanent dent and minor scar.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2007 2:55:20 GMT
That is a pretty cool story Jason about the truckdrivers.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on May 26, 2007 3:01:42 GMT
Jason, that's awful! Hope you don;t get shot again, regardless of how stupid I feel saying that
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2007 22:31:42 GMT
I thought it was a cool story too (about the truck drivers).
I want to weigh in on the ground fighting discussion. Looking at it from a melee perspective it does have its uses. When in formation depending on the objective there are times when using a kneeling position is beneficial. For example when given orders to hold a position the front rank can drop to a knee and the second rank then adds their shields to the top of the front line shields which are resting on the ground. This creates a solid wall of shields with a very strong anchor that is hard for the opposition to punch through.
We used it in a bridge battle once where the objective was to take and hold the bridge. We initially charged over the bridge driving our enemies back and then used the above tactic to create a wall. We were victorious.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on May 26, 2007 23:04:09 GMT
This is true providing two very tough criteria are met (at least in battle, not mock battle of the SCA begause hey...you'r not going to die...usually ) 1.) Training. It takes peasants to field an army and not many people who have had the experience or discipline to hold such a formation without crumbling. Rome was an amazing exception because of it's rigorous drilling and refinement of its soldiers. 2.) Mental trength. In order to maintain a shield wall against a horde of screaming men (Iceni maybe ?) you will need more than physical strength and trasining to hold the line. You need to mental strength to act as a impenatrable human wall. This means that you cannot flee seeing savage tribesman with bloody axes running towards you. This means that you cannot have an ounce of doubt when doing what you are doing. You have to be mentally strong to know that whether you live or die depends on whether or not the line stays up and vice versa - the lines stays up because of you. Just thought I would point that out as reiterating my point that the SCA can a be unrealistic in the sense that everyone has some training and becauese you remeve fatality from the equation, people's moral and mental strength skyrocket.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2007 0:57:27 GMT
Armies were not made of all peasants and Medieval and ancient armies were made up of large numbers of trained warriors.
When fighting Boadicea 100 well trained and armored Romans held off thousands of screaming Britain Celts using similar tactics that we use in the SCA.
All I am saying is that the tactic of anchoring a shield wall with men positioned low to the ground is a viable tactic and was used much the same as we use in the SCA.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on May 27, 2007 1:08:02 GMT
armies were often made of untrained and poorly equipted levies. Large numbers of trained warriors? Defined train? If given a spear and told to kill someone with it, that's not trained and sadly, that is often the amount of discipline some had. If you mean a master of say, german longsword...Then I have to disagree. Large numbersmaybe, but certainly not compared to the vast numbers of untrained or "learn on the spot" men. By this I mean people who have only been taught through expeience a little of what works and what doesn't.
However, I believe your numbers are wrong against Boudica. The 14th gemina martia (victrix title was granted following this battle) legion, approximately 4500-5000 men at this time, a well as a handful of cohorts from the 20th augusta, not more than 2000 at most and almost certainly far less considering their losses in battles prior, took part at watling street. They fought against an unknown number of Iceni warriors - unknown because you should never trust roman historians on the numbers of the enemy. Imagine "300" more inflated than it is. Anyway, it is estimated that 80,000 (probably less) iceni were massacred compared to only 400 roman fatalities and a similar number wounded. What history books don't tell you is how the hordes of boudica annihilated the 9th hispana legion, well over 5000 men. They also (and this is in history books) razed london and colchester to the ground as well as one other city I can't remember at the moment. They put the people to some of the most grisly deaths ever recorded. If you are grossed out, don't read further. According to Tacitus, the entire population of london was massacred. The men were castrated and skewred on posts to roast over a fire while the women had their breasts cut off and sown to the inside of their mouths and were skewered lengthwise to be roasted over the same fire.
Ok completely off topic ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2007 1:47:43 GMT
I thought it was a cool story too (about the truck drivers). I want to weigh in on the ground fighting discussion. Looking at it from a melee perspective it does have its uses. When in formation depending on the objective there are times when using a kneeling position is beneficial. For example when given orders to hold a position the front rank can drop to a knee and the second rank then adds their shields to the top of the front line shields which are resting on the ground. This creates a solid wall of shields with a very strong anchor that is hard for the opposition to punch through. We used it in a bridge battle once where the objective was to take and hold the bridge. We initially charged over the bridge driving our enemies back and then used the above tactic to create a wall. We were victorious. I have read that the Romans in fact used such a formation very effectively. It was very useful in particular against Germanic cavalry. Horses will not charge into what appears to be a solid wall no matter how well trained they are. It is reasonable to assume that in many instances not knowing if the enemy might do next they may have held the formation for an extended period of time and fought off infantry as well as Calvary. I also agree that untrained peasants generally did not fight unless they were in a siege situation or their lives were at risk. This is one of the reason Vikings were able to reek havoc on peasants and monks. By contrast in Viking society all men were trained to fight. This did not changed until they were Christianized and then slowly started to adopt a farming only lifestyle.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on May 27, 2007 1:53:33 GMT
The romans used a wide variety of formations all very effectively. You can't conquer just about all of the known world with one repetitive strategy ;D
All I'm saying is that the SCA has the benefit of experience that not every soldier in the middle ages had access to.
At the battle of nevilles cross immidiately after crecy the scots tried to raid england. They got as far, but were stopped by a small band of archers and men at arms organized hasitly because the majority of the english force was in france. By comparison, both armies were comprised heavily of untrained soldiers. The british however had the advantage in archery being a popular "fad" almost and much of the town's militia used the longbow well even though they'd not been in battle. The scottish however had a huge number of unarmed tribesmen who fought only with brute strength. The only reason why they were there is because of their greed for english gold and their hate for english civilization. They were massacred because of lack of training even though they were "fearsome" warriors. They were shot to pieces on the middle and right flanks but were lucky enough to cause some havok on the left flank. However, the longbowmen who had the highground quickly saw this and devestated this rabble, even though both sides had roughly the same battlefield experience, the longbowmen used what had been shown to work well so could learn from centuries of combat even though they'd never taken part in battle. The tribesmen on the other hand had little experience fighting anything but small raids and other tribesmen.
By the way, this is the battle where king david the bruce of scotland (robert's son) had his cheeck shot off by an english archer and then taken prisoner at the end of the battle by english man at arms John Copeland.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2007 2:09:59 GMT
Oh sure, no doubt about that. To quote L.T. Lawrence.
[glow=blue,2,300]"After 2000 years of fighting, we have no excuse when fighting for not fighting well"[/glow]
The SCA covers Period from Ancient Greece to the 15th century and spans the Globe. We have European, Asian, African Warriors and also American and Australian Indian Warriors. While people are free to limit their fighting style if they wish to their persona, most people learn from each other and use what ever works.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that within the SCA you will find some of the best fighters that ever lived in the history of the world. We have studied the 15th century European manuals and added upon that knowledge from Asian fighting systems. We have added fighting skills not previously recorded too. The not for profit and just for fun nature of the SCA lends itself to people sharing fighting knowledge. Also modern communication and travel allows for a vast pooling of knowledge. We have had guys come to our practice in NJ from California, Texas, Colorado, Indiana and many more places and talk about how they fight out there. The regional wars are also a place where people share huge amounts of fighting knowledge. There is no money or prizes involved, just a love for learning to fight and experiencing an aspect of an age long gone, this is what people do in this society.
To be sure when Ancient and Medieval armies fought other peoples, they too learned other fighting styles and often adapted them into there own. But today, like everything else, we are able to gather and assimilate information faster.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on May 27, 2007 2:26:03 GMT
I tend to agree except for 3 aspects that are rampant in the SCA
1.) Recklessness - doing things for the thrill and risk involved instead of considering real life consequences.
2.) not having experience with real weapons - sorry but a strike to the helm is most likely not going to be lethal unless you're using an axe or a mallet
3.) Inability to grasp the idea that it's war - not games. Inability may be a strong word but I frequently see what can only be categorized as doing things for the sake of fun.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2007 2:53:33 GMT
A few counter points for you to consider Rammstein.
1) The good fighters don't want to be ever touched by another mans weapon. They will defend first and strike when the opportunity presents itself.
2) Shots to the top of the head are not considered good, even though a lot of people will often accept them. Rules say it has to be on the facegrill or side of the head. Me, personally, if I am hit on the top of the head with a shot so hard that it stuns me or knocks me off balance, I will take it as a good hit even though I am not required to. Very few men had the protection of the 9.5 lb helm that I wear and I like to compensate for that. That is a personal decision for me to keep it more real for myself.
3) Its as real as you want it to be. You can fight defensively as if you life is on the line and you want to live, or be some sort of desperado in a siege situation with nothing to loose. Thats up to you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2007 14:33:42 GMT
The SCA does have some faults inherent in a mock combat system where injury is trying to be avoided rather than caused, but I have seen SCA Knights that are so fast that I would pit them against their Medieval counterpart and think they would have a good chance of coming out victorious.
If you were to give a group of SCA members real weapons and armor and tell them that they had to defend their families and lands to the death. No choice to either fight or die. The training would come through for most and they would fight as trained. Just like with any battle ever fought, some might run or try to get near the back of the ranks, but I think most would show true courage.
I think the odds of surviving in SCA battle are very similar to those faced in real Medieval and Ancient battles. Recently I was in a battle at Gulf Wars and in the first battle I was in the front line. We were given orders to push through a breach in the fort wall. The opening was narrow so we closed ranks and I ended up being in the second rank. We punched through but those of us in the first few ranks were killed rather quickly, but it laid the path for those behind to get through and defeat our enemies. In a real battle it would have happened much the same way. If you were first in line you were probably going to die. And the thought going through my head was not (oh I will just get up when this is done) it was (I want to kill those guys and live so I can kill some more).
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on May 27, 2007 14:55:52 GMT
Tsafa, you know well my views on the sca so you're kind of preaching to the choir, yes?
Those are just the few things that I see wrong, but by no means does it hurt the sca.
Jason, I disagree with you about survival odds. In the sca you frequently see very high percentage of casualties. IN real combat, although high at times, it is more often for an army to flee than to fight to the last man. It is also likely that self preservation kicks in instead of glory and honor. Often times you see well over 70% casualties (and the other side is eliminated to the man) in a melee however you don't often find that in history.
I think you highly over estimate mental fortitude. I know for a fact that if I was forced into battle I would be doing everything I can to avoid getting killed, even if it means turning tail and running if thinghs get too rough. Courage is something posessed only by a few - the people strong enough to act as guardians to others and the people too stupid to run away. The average joe doesn't want to die and will do everything possible to avoid it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2007 16:01:22 GMT
I think you only need to look at our US and allied men in Iraq to see how truly courageous and brave men will become when called to action. You won't see it in the news, but everyday ordinary men are doing extraordinary actions to protect their comrades.
Not sure how a discussion on SCA turned into that, but I wanted to prove a point.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on May 27, 2007 17:01:09 GMT
lol
Anyways, they get payed. And have benifits. And honestly, what people call bravery back home is only self survival and a "them not me" attitude. That's what wins wars. Well, usually.
Here's a counter argument to your claim. Just look at how many people refused to serve in vietnam and how many draft cards were burned.
Also look at how many people are reservists who had not planned to fight and don't want to be over there. Then you need to also realize that they don't have a choice. They have to fight or face court martials and disgrace and even possibly criminal cases against them depending on what they did. The military is harsh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2007 20:35:01 GMT
Rammstein, your argument is shifting around a bit. It's true that a lot of people are selfish these days and care only for their own well-being. But you have to realize that people in Iraq today weren't drafted. They volunteered, knowing full well what could happen.
Most of those who refused service in vietnam didn't do so because they were cowards. Most objected to the basis of the particular war. They didn't believe in fighting for that particular cause.
If self preservation were to 'kick in' as you describe it, then I'm sure that a lot of the bravery that goes on wouldn't, regardless of court marshals or disgrace. by your argument, living is better than dead, period.
Money and benefits are not what motivates most people into becoming soldiers. If money and benefits is what they wanted, they'd pursue much safer, better paying jobs here on home soil. As for their bravery being only 'self survival and 'them not me' attitude, you sure speak as if you know firsthand.
What about my friend's cousin who died saving 5 men in his squad? That sure is a selfish 'self-survival' attitude, isn't it?
|
|