Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2008 3:40:13 GMT
Umm ramm, you'd better re-read what Mr. Hand wrote. He says that he can't be sure as there are no existsing specimen and that they could have a slight curve (and he actually believes that they did)...aka exactly the OPPOSITE of what you claim of flat as a dinner table.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2008 6:51:51 GMT
I want to say that I have no problem with Rammstien's current approuch. As long as there is some logical or historical basis to his comments then I am happy to consider them. The fact is we need Ram and Adam in order to have a discussion. It's not fun if we all just agree. We need an opposing side. One side is not going to convince the other, but it gives us a chance to better organize our own thoughts and reasons.
In the SCA we use both curved and flat shields. Flat is just easier to make. A slight curve will be stronger then flat. If it is very curved you may have better protection on your sides. If a heater is very curved you loose the effectiveness of corner blocking. If a kite is very curved you can't shift it side to side as well. There is give and take on costs and benefits.
Some people hold them flat against their body other lead out with the edge. Most are will adjust depending on their opponent. I lead out with the edge against like-handed fighters (righty vs righty). I go flat against off-handed fighters (righty vs lefty) and also against polearms and two-weapon fighters.
Rammstien, there is something that I am not clear about that I want you to explain in detail. I know that you think the SCA fighting is an inaccurate depiction of pre 15 th century fighting (pre-plate). I want to understand what you think fighting in this time period would be like. I want to hear everything from top to bottom in one post.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2008 13:44:12 GMT
I agree with Tsafa on Ramm's current approach. Having documentation to back up his arguements, even if it is stated by someone else, is a level that some in this conversation have not done. If anyone would like me to cite references for my past arguements, please let me know.
Ramm, the deeply curved shields he is implying are only about 6-7" of curvature at the max. I have held the one stated earlier, and it was able to "curve" around me. The other way possible to achieve a look of those illuminations is by having a much wider shield. This allows it to cover more of your body. Having held and fought with an "overly curved" shield, I agree with his comments that it is almost impossible to be killed. However, short of a spear which leaves the hand protected by virtue of it being able to be behind the vertical plane of the shield, the arm is exposed drastically on every shot. This seems counter-intuitive to the earlier forms of shields, which were able to offer some protection for the arm.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 15, 2008 20:28:26 GMT
I never insinuated that you're shield was too big.
Maybe you should learn to read. Mr. Hand clearly states that earlier shields were of much flatter build than later ones.
Everyone my indesputable point is this - earlier kite shields were MUCH flatter whereas later ones where more curved.
They may not have been totally flat (but they were certainly very close), but I wasn't clear when I made that statement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2008 22:32:19 GMT
And my point is that even later, there are flat shields shown, as well as curved ones. Blanket statements seem to be against the norm, especially when there is so little to go on. IMO, he is pointing out that there were not uber-curved shields earlier, but is not pointing out that less curved shields were not later as well. Aka, Early-less curved, Later-less and more curved. I am basing this statement off of reviewing for myself hundreds of illuminations, effigies, and other source documents from the timeperiod.
(I wasn't saying you were telling me my shield was too big, others in Real Life frequently do.) I was just providing an example based on experience.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2008 23:29:07 GMT
Rammstien, there is something that I am not clear about that I want you to explain in detail. I know that you think the SCA fighting is an inaccurate depiction of pre-15 th century fighting (pre-plate). I want to understand what you think fighting in this time period would be like. I want to hear everything from top to bottom in one post. Ram, I think you missed my request. After all this discussion so far, I know what you are against, but I don't know what you are for... I'm not being a smart-ass either. I genuinely want to understand your point of view better.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 16, 2008 0:50:43 GMT
Karma to you oswyn When making statements in history, there are no such thing as blanket statements, and there are always numerous exceptions. But for the norm, earlier shields were flat(ter) while later ones were more curved. Tsafa, I'll get back to you on your question, but the quick answer is - We can't ever reconstruct it perfectly with the information we have now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2008 2:14:52 GMT
(The following is not directed at Ramm, even though I am posting right after him, but as anecdotal in general) Just as a quick aside, after using a shield with a much bigger curve than normal (tried a friend's 24x48 rectangle with a 4-5" curve), I quickly saw what Stephen Hand was referring to. I was keeping it close in, guarding most of my body with it, and using the sword to ward off attacks towards my head. The reason I bring this up was that it was almost impossible for me to target my opponent below about mid-chest. Try placing a hard object right at your collarbone level, and see how comfortably you can swing over it aiming low. You might be suprised.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 16, 2008 2:55:12 GMT
page 8 of DK's "Knight" shows a bronze 12th c. knight with a shield stretching from his neck to his ankles. The shield is curved and he is almost completely covered behind it.
Period work, btw.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2008 3:23:05 GMT
DK's Knight? Can I get some more info on this? Maybe it was me who was doing something wrong...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2008 4:42:12 GMT
Okay ramm...the whole shield thing aside, even Mr. Hand does agree that eariler shield are used in the punchblock method right? Which practical use of said shield techniques, I can tell you that I don't care where they attack as it is stopped before it gets anywhere. I mean I just need to know which quadrant you attack from. So with that, lower leg shots are kinda a moot point.
With the later styles, with heavily curved shields...if two of those are facing off, go ahead and see HOW they would make a lower leg shot. It's just not a very feasable target between your shield and theirs.
So unless you start to mix periods, I just don't see it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2008 7:02:04 GMT
Tsafa, I'll get back to you on your question, but the quick answer is - We can't ever reconstruct it perfectly with the information we have now. Hmmm... you just made me think of my accounting experience. Accounting is suppose to be a historical record of a companies activities. Despite that we are only working in historical terms that only go back a few months, it is well know and accepted that no financial statement is ever a "perfect historical representation". Some revenue or expense is always forgotten or mismatched. There are plenty or estimates in there too. If we could close the company and spend the next year working on financial statements we would be more accurate. However, the additional accuracy would be immaterial and would not help management make profitable decisions. At some point we have to draw a line and work with what we have and make the best of it. It's true billion dolor companies run on only partially correct information and its usually good enough. The same principal applies to the SCA, WMA and other groups that have some historical basis. Internally, we can keep nitpicking at a historical record which is still unfolding. We can nitpick at the different rules and safety protocols. We can do it forever as new historical data comes to light. In the meantime there is no fighting, our basic attack, blocks and overall reflexes will suffer. That would result in a net loss rather then a gain for historical fighting. It is better to draw the line somewhere and work within those criteria. As new information comes to light or new technology to allow for safer fighting, we can make changes as we go along. Your response is a perfect example. You don't know every detail with 100% accuracy so everything is on hold. Nothing happens in the meantime. No fighting at all. We all just sit on the couch and talk about how nice it would be to know everything. Your too deep in this discussion Rammstien. You have to come up with an 11th century fighting model based on what you do know. p.s. I know you did say you would get back to it, I was being a drama queen
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2008 5:24:11 GMT
I got a chance today to feel out the following Sallet from mac-armour.cz www.mac-armour.cz/index_en.htmOne of the guys in my WMA group paid $1,500 for this. It is spring steel, 16 gage and tempered. My friend told me he has struck it on the side with a sword and it barely scratched. He showed me a very minor indentation. You can barely see it. I am told this helmet is made to exact historical specs based on a museum sallet. It suprised me how light it was. I would say 3 lbs, no more. It was padded on the inside with cloth. The bottom edges are rolled for strength. Now here is the interesting part. I put it my head and gave myself a good, palm strike on the side. It shook my head pretty good. I did it a few times to be sure. If this is in fact 15th century head protection, you don't want to get hit on the head with a sword or even a club for that matter. There is no way a person could depend on this helmet as his primary head defense. He must use his weapon for primary blocking. I was really taken by surprise today. I expected a historically accurate sallet could absorb impact shocks a lot better. I think 15 th century armor is over-rated by most people today. I also heard another interesting opinion within my WMA group as to the benefits of expensive armor. If you are surrounded, it screams out to the enemy "don't kill me... ransom me instead". If you have armor, you have money. We also considered that sword strikes to an armored head would be a good way to knock someone out for the purpose of ransoming them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2008 14:38:16 GMT
Anyone? DK's "Knight"? The sooner I get more info, the sooner it comes via ILL.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2008 15:10:06 GMT
I don't know what manual DK "knight" stands for. Ram will have to clarify that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2008 15:18:02 GMT
BTW, Tsafa, I think part of the problem with doing things out of spring steel, and then comparing how they react in combat situations vs. authentic ones, is the fact that spring steel is incredibly hard. I dont think that their helms and other "high" impact areas were designed to go through the incredible workout we ask of our gear without breaking. Perhaps the lower quality steel would have dented, allowing some dissipation of the blow?
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 18, 2008 15:32:38 GMT
It's a chilrdren's book with crappy information but absolutely amazing pictures of historical artifacts. This particular book is about the knight and they do a very good job or removing some unfair misinformation about that knight while still making it entertaining for kids. But I'm talking about the pictures which are just as relevent as anything. www.amazon.com/Knight-DK-Eyewitness-Books-Publishing/dp/0756606969/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203348771&sr=1-2This is it (search eyewitness knight on amazon). It's rather short but I heartily recommend it - and if you've got kids who are interested, even better.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 18, 2008 15:35:54 GMT
2 simple answers, both valid. 1.) It's not custom made for you. Duh 2.) A sallet was a very light piece of armor often used by lighter armed troops instead of heavier ones. While the sallet is often found on heavy german armour as well, it was often used with a bevor and other devices which changed the sallet's form and function a bit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2008 16:12:41 GMT
Any chance that if yu have it, you could cite the reference for me? I probably have it in another book, or could find it online. And here I was, thinking Ramm could read at a 7th grade level,...tsk,tsk
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 18, 2008 16:56:18 GMT
Sadly no citation is given.
|
|