Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2008 20:29:14 GMT
This discussion previously started over on the Un-tempered swords thread in the European Weapons category.
The SCA "assumed armour standard" is a Norman helm, with full drape and ventail, a hauberk of the era, and "boiled leather" elbow and knee protection. This was originally designed in the 1960's when far fewer basics of leather during this timeperiod was known. It is generally assumed to be the level of armour that was contemporary for an upper-class soldier/knight during the Conquest (aka. Hastings) to the First Crusade.
Armour standards are required sa being rigid material (18ga steel or equivalent, hardened leather/Aluminum/plastic etc) for the knees, kidneys, elbows, wrists, hands, and neck. The helm must be made of at least 16ga steel, and no opening may be larger than 1".
We use rattan simulators, both for safety of the combatants, and swords. These must be 1/25" in diameter, to prevent them going through the openings in the helms. Ours is a full speed, full force sport, with very limited grappling available. A fighter is able to grasp any part of a haft, or his own blade. He cannot grasp the shield or other person directly, or "lock" his opponents weapon against his body. In general, sword/shield/haft against sword/shield/haft. No direct body to body contact is allowed. A hit of sufficient force to a limb is considered disabling with the fighter losing the loss of that limb. In the case of the leg, a fighter is "highly encouraged" to place said leg on the ground, to prevent using it. If the strike was to the body or head, the fighter is considered to have lost the fight.
The target areas are 1" above the knee, and 1" below the wrist. It is "Highly Encouraged" not to intentionally aim for the groin or throat as both can cause severe pain. The hands, knees, shins and feet are inviolate, and if struck, have no reaction.
Fighters have experimented with steel swords against opponents who hve been wearing the "assumed armour standard" without the SCA's protective safety gear, and swung at them with a "calibrated blow". They have found the end result painful for the person being hit, leading to the general assumption that a person would be able to sustain no more than 5-10 direct hits against the armour before succumbing to pain or injury. Since we like our opponents, and want to play with them again, we go to a "First blow landed" instead. SCA fighters have had no trouble working with edge alignment or other supposed handicaps of working with rattan vs. steel swords.
Within its limitations, the SCA provides a unique insight into fighting in an age where the armour was a "last resort" rather than relied upon heavily. The shield was seen as the primary defense, and as such, several experts have through that grappling while in "full" armour was limited. With all of these criteria brought forth, the SCA's only difference would be the lack of targeting of the hands and lower legs. Depending on the fighter, several people have started to use cross-hilted swords, and have found them incredibly useful for blocking, as well as trying to actively not block with the hand. The overall reason given for not allowing lower leg targeting is more of a melee convention than a 1vs1 objection. Fighters swinging with halberds, bec de corbins or other long polearm objects at fighter's lower legs, when said fighter could be in the midst of chasing them down is dangerous. I personally dont want people taking golf swings at my legs with 7.5' clubs.
As stated earlier, the SCA gives a unique glimpse into armoured combat, without grappling, which may have existed before the advent of rigid protection
Comments?
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 7, 2008 20:56:53 GMT
You'd be surprised at just how limiting the rules in the SCA are. The shins are an INCREDIBLY important target in WMA, just as much as the head or chest. The hands are just as vastly important, as we can see in the fechtbuchs which are undoubtedly the best source of European fighting arts available. Taking away the lower legs and the hands is identical to removing the chest and head from combat, and maintianing that such an "combat art" is an accurate portrayal of anything remotely medieval is at the very best worthy of deirison.
The fact is, the SCA is not based on anything other than modern experience in a modern game with moderns ideas on fighting. What it is is giving a group of large football players weapons and armour that look medieval if you squint hard enough and telling them to fight it out - and calling that "WMA."
I am offended that one would even link the SCA, which is great fun but in the end an absolute lie as to european combat, to true histroical western martial arts.
They're wearing stop signs. No s---, sherlock, if you'll pardon my french.
It all comes down to this: You can't call something a "western martial art" if it is 1.) Not drawn from western sources in the slightest and 2.) a game meant to be played rather than an actual martial art.
|
|
|
Post by Matt993f.o.d on Feb 7, 2008 21:00:46 GMT
The esteemed Mr Tsafa might be worth PMing for comments. Isnt he an SCA fighter?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2008 21:07:42 GMT
Actually, they took their 14ga. helm, along with 14ga. butted hauberk, and were hit with that. Undoubtably heavier armour than was worn in period.
I do agree, that taking hands out of the picture is a disadvantage. However, most fighters do not block with their hands nearly as much as people think.
Maybe the intial point of this was wrong. I was not calling it essentially Western Martial Arts, but rather that the SCA can point out things that WMA groups can not always figure out. There is a freeplay aspect to training that is missing from most groups I have seen. There is also the problem of armoured combat pre-14th century. As far as I know, there are very few harnessfechten manuals out there, and they are only around after rigid armour has developed. There is a marked difference between armoured and unarmoured combat, and SCA allows a unique insight into what armoured fighting MAY HAVE BEEN during this time.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 7, 2008 21:11:41 GMT
I think it does create a good job at the physcological asepcts of combat, however that only works when one truely believes that the opponents swords are sharp. Frommy experiences in SCA style combat, everyone knows they are padded/safe weapons and won't actually lose their life in a suicide charge.
Then maybe they should start fighting in maille? I don't think I need to point out that maille moves and feels a lot different than the pseudo-plate that many wear.
But of course, then it may hurt getting wacked with a club like a baseball bat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2008 21:12:13 GMT
I will state here that I believe SCA heavy combat to be a highly chaotic form of sport combat. This is in part due to the restrictions in place. It is not WMA. There are a few reasons why I say this. The greatest reason being that the basic premise of Medieval combat is incompatible with the SCA mentality. The restrictions put in place are for safety and insurance. IIRC, anyone can fight in SCA heavy combat almost immediately, with a little training. Basically, "Oh, you can hit without hurting someone? You can kinda block? Your armoured enough? Off you go!". Medieval combat (and likewise WMA) use techniques that would be considered unsafe with the SCA's current standards. A man in combat was trying to kill his opponent by any means necessary, whilst avoiding death by the same means. Thus the most effective techniques used by medieval warriors cannot be used in the SCA the way it now stands.No lower leg shots. Those would have been some of the most common blows. No grappling. Also would have been used. Thrusts to gaps etc. All disallowed. You state that the SCA allows full speed full contact blows. This is required to be felt underneath the armour. In this aspect, the rattan swords are more like maces then swords. A sword doesn't require a full speed blow do do damage. Draw cuts, thrusts, etc would all be potentially crippling. Fighting from the knee? Don't make me laugh. If you had you leg lacerated, your mind would be completely off fighting. Arguably, you would freeze or be in shock. You certainly wouldn't be hobbling around trying to kill others. Another inaccuracy is the overwhelming use of shield and sword. The spear has always been the primary arm of any soldier. I have never heard of any army using sword and shields as their primary armaments except for the Romans. Of course, none of this is necessarily bad. I can see the reasons for it, safety and such. And I will agree that the SCA allows a person to experience a (almost) unique aspect of medieval combat, that of the meele. WMA can't provide this. Some eastern european groups do meeles with armour and rebated steel, but they don't have the insurance liabilities of us over here. Remember, this isn't a personal attack on any member of the SCA. I'm just pointing out how I see it. I personally might join the SCA someday, but probably not the heavy list. Edit: Ahh, I see I took too long. Well, I'm just reiterating.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2008 21:56:43 GMT
The esteemed Mr Tsafa might be worth PMing for comments. Isnt he an SCA fighter? Thank you for your Gracious introduction Matt. oswyn, you gave an excellent summery in you opening post. It is important that people realize that SCA fighting is Pre 15 th century. With regard to the restriction on the grappling. It does not mean you can't push or manipulate their weapon. It does prevent a stronger person from man-handling a smaller person. In that sense a 150 lb girl can compete with a 300 lb guy because it is skill based fighting. Yes, that is unhistorical. Historically might makes right. You need skill to win in the SCA. With regard to the lower leg restriction. I have been hit by a 7 year old kid, on my greaves and the bone hurt for days. The lower legs have the full weight of the upperbody on them and do not give to the impact at all. The risk of breaking a leg is entirely too high given the power we hit with. The low legs while being at risk of breaking if hit, are also a hard to hit area because they are mostly out of range. A persons head will come into range before their legs. If you get too close, the legs again fall out of range. For this reason in all the 15th century fighting manuals there is no example I can find of hitting the low-legs. Leg strikes are infact discouraged. The lower quadrant usually refers to the lower stomach. In the SCA you can hit above the knee. That is far more leg then most 15 th century manuals advise you hit. Very little is lost by the low leg restrictions. What the SCA does offer that most other WMA's do not, is full power strikes. This is by far one of the hardest things to master in a fight. It is one thing to sit calmly in front of a pell and hit it with power, it is another thing to hit with power through out the course of a fight. A sword is not a light-saber that burns on contact. Only blows delivered with speed and power have any effect. How about slices you ask? Even common medieval people wore 3 or 4 layers of linen. Slices are not very effective on a battlefield at all. Something that becomes apparent very quickly in SCA fighting is the first and second shot will likely be blocked. Those opening shots are a set up for follow up shots that must be executed with timing, accuracy and power. These are skills that take years to develop. It is a lot harder to learn these skills, then to simply aim you shot at someones lower leg or run into them and start grappling. People neither have sharp claws nor teeth, they can fight a lot more effectively with weapons then with their bare hands. Is SCA a WMA? It is a martial art no doubt because methods are deadly with a real weapon. You can use the methods for personal defense and on a battlefield working together with others. It is also Western in its nature. You can't base what is a WMA or not based on manuals. Many have been lost or destroyed, others have yet to be found. Most important, most medieval and ancient fighting systems were not put recorded. That does not mean they did not exist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2008 1:01:48 GMT
No offense intended. I think that it represents a difference in mentality, as well as focus. Medieval combat (and likewise WMA) use techniques that would be considered unsafe with the SCA's current standards. A man in combat was trying to kill his opponent by any means necessary, whilst avoiding death by the same means. Thus the most effective techniques used by medieval warriors cannot be used in the SCA the way it now stands.Yet how many of these WMA groups actually go through these killing motions? Most people I know will move into a move, and stop halfway through, as carrying out the full move would be damaging for their opponent. Really? As Tsafa has already mentioned, the head and body are much more likely to be targets than the lower leg. We do get hit bleow the leg, as incidentals, but most people will aim for that last 1" above the knee when swinging for the leg. Adding lower leg shots in 1v1 would not change the game dramatically. Thrusts to any part of the armour, gapped or not is allowed. We are not forced to aim for the gap, because under the "assumed armour standard" (reference OP), there are not really any besides the face. As far as grappling is concerned, there is no direct evidence that it was used at all during the period which is the SCA armour standard (again, reference OP). If you can show any period sources which mention grappling during the Conquest or First Crusade, I would be highly interested in seeing them. As stated above, when your primary defense is maille, throwing away a shield simply to grapple seems a bit foolish. Draw cuts against maille are completely ineffective. Thrusts are allowed in SCA combat and are quite effective, as they would be against maille. I think you are thinking more of swords against transitional armour as well as cap-a-pie. Swords used against primarily maille clad opponents would be instruments of blunt destruction. Yes, I agree. Some people swear off of knee fighting. Yet it allows people to stop simply aiming for the leg, and then sitting there while the opponent "bleeds to death". The same goes for any arm shot. It is a way to show that you have been handicapped, not that your leg has been lacerated. You are correct. The difference being post Roman the cavalry has played a major part in any battle. I can think of few examples where horses were not a major part of the battlefield. Yet to allow horses in among foot soldiers adds another safety concern to work around. Have you seen an SCA melee? They are quite decently spear/polearm heavy, compared to two lines of shields that simply bash at each other. They are able to work over the lines of shields, while still being protected. I did not take it as such. Any reasonable decent discussion between people will have disagreements, yet they need not turn into personal attacks. I am also trying to discuss, instead of attack, simply pointing out how if more of the SCA went to the actual armoured standard, it would be a lot easier. Rammstein, I as well as several others do wear maille in the SCA. It actually cushions some of the blow, especially where the maille drapes (around the legs, for instance). How many places can you reference where the lower leg is targeted in WMA, that is designed to be done in armour? As stated above, and by Tsafa, you can more easily be hit in the head, chest, or more likely armpit or inner elbow than the lower leg. Again, and this I HIGHLY STRESS, I think that SCA fighting is a decently good approximation of pre-transitional armour. Maille would have been the primary armour, along with a solid shield. Grappling would have been almost non-existent, as the primary reason for grappling was so you were able to put a dagger into a weak point in the armour. The entire armour would have been the same level, excepting the helm. When people are able to take sticks of grass, and cause concussions to people wearing helms which are heavier and sturdier than their medieval counterparts, it is entirely possible to stun or disable them with an actual sword, which would concentrate the pressure on an even smaller area. Swords were not simply cutting objects, but also other tools depending on the opponent. They are perfectly able to cause percussive force.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2008 2:09:36 GMT
Right, I keep forgetting that SCA portrays 11th and 12th century foot combat. Since many seem to wear whatever they want in regards to armour, it isn't hard to see why. You mention draw cuts being ineffective against maile. That's true. But not everyone on a 12th century battlefield would be wearing maile right? Since everyone in the SCA more or less portrays a noble, (and who blames them? ) this sort of gets lost. And drawcuts could certainly be effective. Drawcuts could be even more effective against padded armour then chopping cuts. As for leg attacks being less common, the viking sagas are full of them. The battle of Wisby graves show that many, many of the fallen had received serioud leg wounds. Tsafa, as for the fechtbuchs not showing leg attacks, I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. Joerg Wilhalm's fechtbuch from 1523 has several plates showing leg attack, including three to the feet. This ARMA page sums it up quite nicely. www.thearma.org/essays/LegWounds.htmAs for the rattan being less stunning then a sword, aren't ratten swords weighted and balanced differently? I would think they'd be more like a club then a sword. Perhapa I'm mistaken.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2008 2:21:07 GMT
Yeah, the SCA does seem to span a pretty big area. Even 21st century Mad Max armour is apparently "attempted pre-17th". However, the rules are what they are, and when you get certain people together, it functions much more correctly. At this last Pennsic, there was a Crusader battle (I believe it was originally supposed to be Franks vs. Arabs, but had to even out sides).
The "optimal" balance for a rattan sword (averaging personal preference), is roughly 4 fingers from the crossguard/basket hilt. I do get your point about draw cuts being effective to a degree against un-armoured combat, but by the same token, so is harnessfechten incompatible to blossfechten. Does it mean that one is "wrong" as not everyone would be wearing harness? No, it is simply taking out some of the variables to work on certain aspects.
I see your point that leg wounds can be disabling. I would hesitate to put Wisby forth as a definative battle site, even given the mass graves that were found. Most of them were not soldiers by profession, but instead armoured in poorly fitted gear from a town armoury, and then thrown against more well trained troops. I would be interested in seeing any translations of Norse sagas (A-Viking being a verb) that reference lower leg shots.
I am generally interested in the points you are bringing up. I do seem to represent a subset of the overall SCA mindset, that believes that there are ways to bring historical fighting into the SCA, and that the SCA can lead to insights into combat where little is known about the fighting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2008 2:34:19 GMT
Yes, I also agree that the SCA can be a great source for interpretive archeology, if it weren't so mired by the rules. Which, I understand, are there for safety. As I said, I might join the SCA one day. However, since I'm moving to Toronto, I hope to (as I've said ad nauseum) join the AEMMA. They seem to encompass a very large range of WMA. They do grappling, dagger combat, I:33 buckler and arming sword, unarmoured longsword, pole arms, and even harnessfechten (which, if I'm not mistaken, is actually full speed with rebated steel.) Apparently if you're cap-a-pie it's reasonably safe. I think they even allow thrusts during certain fights. They also do mounted combat and archery. Quite well rounded. Since my area of interest is primarily the 14th century, this fits quite perfectly. It may take some time, but mark my words, someday you will see a picture of me on this forum cap-a-pie in plate. In fact, the first piece is already on it's way to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2008 2:48:57 GMT
Wonderful! Some people on the Armour Archive have discussed why the SCA has not moved to a metal based simulator. One of the major reasons was that even for the 14th-17th century guys who wear harnesses which are safe enough, the amount of sword breakage would be cost prohibitive. With the exception of an open faced bascinet, I would guess that anything made for WMA protection would be close enough for SCA purposes. You might want to look at the Combat of the Thirty at Pennsic every year. There is a growing subset of 14th century people who, while in the SCA, attempt to make every effort to grow to almost a LH standard. They have developed their own scenarios, where the slogan seems to be "Nothing but the tape." Meaning the duct-tape on the rattan is the only non-historical piece out there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2008 2:53:01 GMT
14th century Mafia huh? I did read that thread, and found it quite interesting. It seems many members of the SCA are as critical of it's limitations as WMA practioners. In fact they may very well be WMA practioners.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2008 3:32:38 GMT
I don't know about other kingdoms, but the west do have scholar types who do use heavy combat as a way to learn. What I mean is, that we basically do a fight and then start to analysize it. Like going...umm yeah but that left his lower leg open...or that would have been a good time to grapple...or you know, you can't really do that shot with a real sword. Then we try to not use shots that can't be done with a real sword...or leaves unavialble targets open to try and we do it all over again. It's great fun really. That isn't to say ALL western fighters do this, but we have a good segment who find this to be their way to have fun with heavy combat.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 8, 2008 4:08:15 GMT
It's no wonder that WMA gets written off as clumsey and brutish what with that mindset towards combat.
All of the evidence we have from the period sources clearly shows that true combat is what the SCA is not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2008 4:10:08 GMT
Darkintruder: Exactly. It ain't perfect, but what is? The key is to recognize the limitations of each style, and the benefits. I personally hold the 12th as the key century, but that is personal bias . Honestly, some of the stuff I see really makes me think about doing a late 13th/early 14th century kit. The fact that I do quite a bit of leatherwork, and could make a set of matching shynbalds/cuisses/vambraces/rebraces that appeared to be splinted has nothing to do with it...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2008 5:42:10 GMT
Tsafa, as for the fechtbuchs not showing leg attacks, I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. Joerg Wilhalm's fechtbuch from 1523 has several plates showing leg attack, including three to the feet. Darkintruder, I stand corrected. I had not seen those plates showing low-leg attacks. I do know that Licheneur advises against them because of the distance issue. As for the rattan being less stunning then a sword, aren't ratten swords weighted and balanced differently? I would think they'd be more like a club then a sword. Perhapa I'm mistaken. Regarding the rattan-sword weight and balance... you will find that they are all over the board. I balance mine to one of my swords. My rattan-sword is 37" in length with a 31" blade and a POB 3.5 inches below the hilt. My rattan-sword weights exactly 3.0 lbs. I have experimented with as heavy as 3 lb 8 oz and as light as 2 lb 7 oz. It took me a while to find the right balance between speed and mass. Other people prefer lighter swords with a more forward balance. I suppose they might be similar to a falcon or a saber. On the fighting from the knees issue... It is true that if you are legged in a real fight you would not be able to continue. However, there is a good deal of skill to be learned from fighting from ones knees. Battlefields are rarely even ground. Ditches were often dug so that a charging army would have to fight their way out of a ditch. Fighting from ones knees is also a good simulation of fighting in a riverbank... or fight against a horseman. It takes both skill to fight from your knees and to fight someone who is on there knees. Lastly, in tournament, you don't have to fight from your knees. You always have the option of taking a legshot as a kill. 14th century Mafia huh? I did read that thread, and found it quite interesting. It seems many members of the SCA are as critical of it's limitations as WMA practioners. In fact they may very well be WMA practioners. I am one of those people. I practice, WMA with Longsword blunts, SCA with rattan and Rapier with flexi-blades. All of these fighting systems have safety restrictions in place that are annoying at times. My rapier fighting does not allow for percussive hits. SCA rattan does not allow for low-leg shots, WMA does not allow for full-force hits and they don't do any mass combat. By training in all these deferent systems within their limitations I am able to bridge the gap of the deficiencies within each one. You will find that a lot of SCA people, particularly at the higher levels, have WMA training and bring that into the SCA. Other have a kendo background and also bring that in the SCA. The longsword methods work very well in SCA Greatsword vs. Greatsword fighting. SCA rules are not set in stone. There is constant experimentation at higher levels to make the fighting as realistic as possible while being safe. One recent change to the rules is that you can now place your shield on the other persons body and manipulate them. It use to be that your shield could not touch their body in tournament. There was once a time when not even thrusting was allowed. They then found a way to do it safely and now permit it. Personally I would like to see the use of flails allowed. There are issues with the rope possibly choking people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2008 6:37:56 GMT
Being as how I have done real re-enactment and seen how steel swords and maille and things impact each other my concern with the SCA is that the rattan swords are to a real sword what a bokken is to a real katana, they are not really accurate representations but the advantage the bokken has is that is is not a perfectly rounded weapon. Rattan really doesn't give an accurate representation of what a sword is or how one uses a sword.
In the re-enactment fighting that I have done we do have rules for safety but leg shots and things are allowable as long as they aren't a joint shot or a lower leg shot. This is reasonable because your opponent would have to be really stupid to open themselves upto getting their lower leg struck.
Using real steel in a combat situation like a re-enactment group or whatever is alot harder than using rattan and just "having at" your opponent. A draw cut would actually probably not be that effective against a gambeson because gambe's are so damn thick and resistant to both impact trauma and cutting trauma. A draw cut is a fine thing in an unarmoured duel or a cut for the throat or wrists but thoroughly impractical in any type of battlefield situation. Also the rules we operate under in our re-enactment are "realistic" areas where you would be able to hit in battle and we are allowed to stab to the stomach and things like that.
Stabbing with rattan is impractical because you could break someone ribs or collarbone or whatever very easily with a rattan weapon. I think that the SCA needs to find a better medium than rattan, why not use wooden wasters that accurately represent a sword rather than rattan? The fact that the SCA uses rattan is of itself ridiculous, ok guaranteed that it is resistant to breaking and whatnot but it isn't accurate to anything in the slightest. You may as well give them weighted baseball bats and let them have at it.
I have nothing against the SCA I just don't think it is an accurate representation of what a WMA is, I can see some of the benefits to it but most of the time it is just two guys wailing on each other as hard as they can seeing who can cause the biggest bruises.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2008 7:16:31 GMT
Wow, leave the thread for a couple days and it turns into a pretentious argument over who can beat up who? Do we really need to unzip and measure to calm the rhetoric here? As a relatively disinterested third party, let me share a view of my own, namely: There is no black and white, correct/incorrect fighting philosophy or style. As someones who's spent most of my life studying fighting systems, the best thing that I can tell anyone, is learn from them all. Don't assume that whatever you are doing is the end-all, be-all champion art.
For elitists out there who say WMA is the only correct thing to study, who or what are you actually talking about? Do you adhere to dei Liberi, Liechtenauer, Talhoffer, Ringneck? If you say Liberi's 'Flos Duellatorium in Armis' (duellatorium, meaning duelists, by the way), which of the three extant manuscripts is definitive? Do we even know if there was another manuscript that said "Those other three are BS, to throw off my competition? Also, have you read them in the original Latin or Italian, so you know exactly what is being illustrated and described? And aside from all that, exactly what school and/or modern interpretation do you believe is correct? SSG, AEMMA, ARMA, SESH? No one can say with complete honesty that with all the posturing done in the WMA community, for all intents and purposes, that anybody knows what the heck is real, historical or not. The only thing we can be sure of is that if you use the monkey-see, monkey-do method,(which is all we have) you can strike a static pose just like someone in the illustrations.... Which in retrospect, is not really any different than mimicking something you saw on TV or in the movies.
Although I am not a SCAdian, I would have to say their fighting style has some things going for it, that are outside the bounds of WMA. First of all, it does replicate the chaos of battle more than the one-on-one training of WMA. Secondly, it probably more accurately depicts historic battles, precisely because it is not a rigid, formal fight taking place. For one thing, there were no standing professional armies as we have in modern times. While the nobility could be expected to have trained from childhood for the profession of arms, you can believe that the other 99% of a battle's participants were pressed into service from their day-to-day existence as farmers, tradesmen, etc. Finally, SCA does allow full contact of a sort, which is essential if you want to learn the fight, not just a stylized Martial 'Art'. Anyone truly looking for knowledge would be well served by studying a formal program and then taking it to the SCA lists to see how it works in the real world. I almost hate to admit it, but I was a USFA certified fencing coach before many of the membership here was out of diapers, and in sport fencing, we always said you could do all the practicing you wanted, but it didn't mean crap until you got on the piste, and saw how it really works (and that does not include bouts in the salle). I can honestly say the same for any other martial system I've ever studied, from Karate, to Tai Chi, to Wagi Kali Silat, even modern systems such as PPCT, they pretty much all fall apart, and you can only bring pieces here and there to the fight, until you see how to practically apply them. Its really only after the fight that you begin to learn.
While it is true that SCA limits exposure in certain ways, so too does WMA. Even with all the outpouring of love here for hacking legs and feet off, manuscript illustrations notwithstanding, I have not seen a full contact WMA bout where the participants used those moves, so you can hardly condemn anyone else for the same behavior. We really have almost no evidence for anything related to historic combat, other than artistic representations of battle in history, which for scientific purposes means squat. As anyone can tell you, eyewitness accounts of anything are the most unreliable evidence that exists, with the exception of here-say, which is pretty much the balance of the historic record that exists today. Besides, artists only record their impressions of life and events (Picasso, anyone?) anyway, so the best we can do is let our imagination play out what actually happened in period.
And for the rest of the discussion, let's all remember "Fas est et ab hoste doceri." (It is right to learn, even from an enemy.) And keep an open mind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2008 7:43:04 GMT
In the re-enactment fighting that I have done we do have rules for safety but leg shots and things are allowable as long as they aren't a joint shot or a lower leg shot. This is reasonable because your opponent would have to be really stupid to open themselves upto getting their lower leg struck. Umm you mean the exact SAME restriction that the SCA has? You can hit their upper leg all you want, the knee and lower is off limits due to safety issues. Some of the higher skilled fighters put on full greaves and remove this restriction at fighter practice sometimes to see how it goes. Umm I have done both. I don't think you did...or your SCA kingdom plays significantly different from ours. Going full force is NOT easy. It takes a lot more to be effective at full force then you think. I look a hell of a lot better when I do re-enactments at then I do at full speed and power. In the first case, I'm acting...in the second, I'm re-acting. You do realize that stabbing as long as your have thrusting point built IS allowed right? And that the basic basket hilt on a standard 1 1/4 inch rattan at 36 inches makes it weight around 3 lbs with a PoB about 4-5 inces from the hilt...right? Because you know, that's what a baseball bat is like . Much less when people usually shave the sides down and use counter weights to get better weight and balance and edge alignment. If you have actually done it, then I'm questioning your local group. If you haven't, then you need to try it before you talk. You don't even know the basics of it as it stands. I'm not saying that SCA heavy is all that great (it's not...it has limits)...but you seems to think it's useless (using baseball bats...please)...and that's not true either. The ability to see what happens to things you think are "realistic" at full speed is always a shock...trust me.
|
|