Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2008 19:25:45 GMT
While i agree that the lower leg or thigh isn't the most tactically sound maneuver possible, and voiding it isn't the most difficult thing to do in fencing; nonetheless by removing it completely is still removing an aspect of combat. It's still one less thing to worry about from a defensive position, and one less target from an offensive position - especially when people start getting tired and sloppy. It is for those reasons that they should be included - not because they are primary targets, but because they are still targets. Well thats why I said that manuver to get the lower leg only works when the shield works start to get sloppy . The thing is overall, it's just not generally useful for the in general SCA fighter. You have to realize that the west is the only kingdom that favors smaller shields (I think...any SCAers from other kingdoms correct me if I'm worng on this). Most other still use heaters in general and with 2 heaters facing off, the lower leg just isn't a target anymore. Between their shield and YOUR shield, your just not gonna get it without some contorting and getting bopped in the head. When using this style, the safety benefit of not allowing the lower leg shot vs the very VERY rare realism of getting an opertune attack at the lower leg is very minimal. The way we fight in the west however, it does add a bit extra so in fighter practices we do allow it if both parties agree and have greaves on.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 12, 2008 20:17:41 GMT
How could you know that they're not practical if you train with swod supwards of 5 inches too short?
Most rattans are far too short to be effectively used in this purpose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2008 21:44:38 GMT
How could you know that they're not practical if you train with swod supwards of 5 inches too short? Most rattans are far too short to be effectively used in this purpose. If you bother to actually read the arguments the argument is that it is ineffective when using sword and SHIELD...namely bigger shields. IF you use pole arms and longswords, then yes, it could be a possible target AFTER the shield user tired out since very little motion is required to negate your attack. However, the chances of that happening in ideal situations is not likely. IF it is 2 longsword users, then why yes, it is a viable target and you would be using the german or french techniques from talhoffer or fiore or whoever you want...but THAT IS NOT WHAT THE SCA FOCUSES ON. We could...but we DON'T. Stop applying techniques and weapons and styles from 200-400 years AFTER what the SCA is trying to recreate and say the SCA is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 12, 2008 22:17:08 GMT
Aye, because it was "certainly" common place to use 30 in. swords in the 12th c.
What a scathing arguement, so easily dismantled.
I don't care if they're using shields the size of missouri, it's irrelevent to the argument I've presented - had YOU cared to read it rather than simply quote it.
I think people are under the delusion that the MSs that we have spontaneously arose as soon as they were written. Longsword fighting existed well before the 15th c. and I.33 sword and buckler fighting predates the 14th c. These arts all derived from earlier combat and the simple fact here (that no one has yet to counter) is that WMA approximates historical combat based on what they know as fact (with much interpretation of that fact, but fact nonetheless) where as the SCA limits themselves to create and unrealistic fighting system.
Battle of Visby 1361 - Countless bodies uninterred with severed feet and horrific wounds to the feet. They obviously had nmo idea how to fight, maybe they should have taken lessons from their local branch of the SCA?
To get all offended and say "Aw man, you're wrong because I can't pull them off in a sport that fundamentally varies from historical combat is huge areas" isn't a very strong argument.
(I'm not denying they are harder - but they are certainly very usable as targets and we've got plenty of proof that they were).
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 12, 2008 22:31:01 GMT
www.thearma.org/essays/fullleg.htmI implore you to actually read that article. notably: "Examination of historical arms and armor alone reveals that the lower legs were protected more than not and weapons were usually designed with the length to strike them. It's worth recalling the interpretations of the battle of Visby remains. As well, listings of early Frankish military equipment specifically included lower leg armor (mail chauses) along with helms, and mail coats. A good deal of Medieval artwork shows figures wearing leg protection as their only apparent armor defense. To be sure, there are also plenty of illustrations of armored warriors without leg protection. This would indicate that, like most choices of personal weapon and armor to use, it is a matter of what advantage to balance with what handicap." and "In one sense, it's arguable that lower legs can sometimes be more vulnerable when a shield is used than when fighting with sword alone. A shield user can often be made to lift his shield and momentarily blind himself, thereby becoming vulnerable to an incoming blow changing its line of attack downward. Anyone who really believes the lower legs are irrelevant should try fighting with someone good at hitting them there. They themselves may not bother striking their opponent s lower legs, but they will fast learn the mistake of exposing their own." Keep in mind this guy is one of the most famous people in the sword world (Though many, like Adam, dislike his vehemence and poor attitude).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2008 23:18:43 GMT
Adam, the SCA does allow targeting of 1" above the knee and up. So the thigh is a target, just not the knee or shin.
Ramm, swords a totally a personal preference. My personal sword has the EXACT same blade length as the Hanwei's H&H, because I have held them right next to each other. And it is a one handed sword.
No one is saying that the MS spontaneously sprung into existance. We are saying that the ones that we have, dealing with armoured combat involve armour that is different enough in its use that the conclusions drawn are difficult. The battle of Wisby involved local mitilia, who (you are right) had no idea how to fight. Have you compared the number and type of leg wounds vs those of the chest or head? Just saying people got hit there could have meant that they were hit, but it was a 1in20 shot, compared to the head. I can hit you anywhere, some places are just more difficult. Do you have any ideas where he is drawing the "Early Frankish equipment" from? I can think of no more than about 5 examples pre-dating the 13th century which are held as authentic. Simply being able to quote someone does not make their arguements right, nor does the fact that they tend to specialize in later periods of fighting.
After reading the article, it sounds as though the author is highly biased against several forms of combat practiced. He does bring up good points, yet the things both he and you are bringing up are not "given". I don't have to fight toe to toe with you, and frequently dont. I can hit you from farther away. To hit the lower leg, with a one-handed sword of "average" medieval length means that you are standing decently close to the other person. Hence you would find even more of the toe-to-toe mentality that you apparently so despise.
The problem with the "shoulder to shoulder" and "lots of legs exposed" arguement is that there are several effigies with shields which stretch from their shoulders to their feet. This is obviously because in a press, it is possible to get hit there, and it needs to be defended from spears and other weapons of longer reach.
Again, and this is an arguement that the "esteemed" Mr. Clements neatly sidesteps when talking about safety problems, how do you allow 7.5' polearms (historically valid lengths) with lower leg targeting? Do you really want a guy taking a golf swing at you with a 7.5' polearm as you charge at him? I personally do not, and can think of no safe way for them to target the lower leg without running the risk of broken bones or severe tripping.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2008 2:54:40 GMT
I can attest to the fact that even at half speed a polearm of that length would be devestationg, one of our guys put a blunt poleaxe through another guys shield at half speed! You get so much leverage with a polearm it isn't funny, even in JSA we have to be very careful when doing bo work when doing some of those strikes, to the point where we pull them complete. I definitely wouldn't want some yahoo trying to belt me in the lower legs with a polearm thank you very much!
Ramm: You can keep siting sources and people but your argument was flawed from the beginning because of the era we are talking about. Also toe to toe fighting is ok in some circumstances but not when "dueling." Incase you haven't realised mate, we are talking about a specific era, the upper thigh is a target in our re-enactment group but most of the guys don't go for it because it is bloody tricky to pull off when in full armour and shield and helmet. Not saying that they couldn't but it is easier to scone a guy in the noggin then try to chop off his leg.
Incase you were wondering the guys in my re-enactment group do not use swords as much as they use spears and axes and maces.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2008 3:19:38 GMT
"In one sense, it's arguable that lower legs can sometimes be more vulnerable when a shield is used than when fighting with sword alone. A shield user can often be made to lift his shield and momentarily blind himself, thereby becoming vulnerable to an incoming blow changing its line of attack downward. Anyone who really believes the lower legs are irrelevant should try fighting with someone good at hitting them there. They themselves may not bother striking their opponent s lower legs, but they will fast learn the mistake of exposing their own." Keep in mind this guy is one of the most famous people in the sword world (Though many, like Adam, dislike his vehemence and poor attitude). Umm you do realize that he IS talking about a different era then the SCA assumes. Also a GOOD shield user will negate a leg attack (or any attack for that matter) by punching the shield out to meet your attack in a very large area WITHOUT blinding oneself to change in attacks or follow up attacks. If this author assumes worse shield usage (like rotation blocking which does leave you blind and opens you up for follow up attacks like nobodies buisness...then I must wonder about his assumptions. I personally believe that people who had their lives depend on shield work WILL use the one that even a layman can see works better.). I'm sorry but even the I33 pictures support punch blocking and I have yet to see any that would difinatively support a rotation block over a punch block. Why yes, if we assume that fighter back then knew less about how to effectively use a shield then the average SCA fighter, he may very well be right and the lower leg shot is a viable tactics in the 1000-1200 era.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2008 3:48:06 GMT
Hey bloodwraith, how far apart were his hands when he put it through the shield. With exceptions (as does anything), the farther apart your hands are, the more leverage you have, while losing the speed for momentum issues. Think baseball bat vs mortschlang. Just something to keep in mind, and look at. Perhaps there is a way you could move towards something a bit less accurate, but more safe?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2008 6:49:37 GMT
Aye, because it was "certainly" common place to use 30 in. swords in the 12th c. My rattan sword is 37" long with a 31" blade. One of the most common mistakes beginners will make is that they will stand with their feet side by side. This is referred to as standing "square". If you stand like a fencer with one foot forward and one back, one shoulder forward, one back, leading with the shield, you present a very limited target area. A good guard is also one where you are squatting a little so you get as much of your body behind the shield. You can't hit anything unless you break a person out of that guard. Rammstien, this issue of low-leg attacks keeps coming up. Can you understand that if low-leg attacks were allowed, I would use a historically accurate kite shield that comes down near my ankles. I think people are under the delusion that the MSs that we have spontaneously arose as soon as they were written. Longsword fighting existed well before the 15th c. and I.33 sword and buckler fighting predates the 14th c. These arts all derived from earlier combat and the simple fact here (that no one has yet to counter) is that WMA approximates historical combat based on what they know as fact (with much interpretation of that fact, but fact nonetheless) where as the SCA limits themselves to create and unrealistic fighting system. I actually agree with you, Rammstien, that Longsword and buckler combat would have predated the time of their initial recordings and I have posted this opinion in other places. Given that longsword techniques can be applied to two-handed axes and two-handed maces I would say that some elements would go way back. They probably practiced bits and pieces throughout Europe. I am confident that the Crusades served a vital roll in consolidating the fighting systems across Europe. That said, I can tell you with great certainty that a longsword against sword & shield is a loosing proposition. A longsword is good from horseback or as the sidearm of a commander who does not plan on being on the frontlines. It is good for dueling against other longswords but it is not a primary battlefield weapon. I can attest to the fact that even at half speed a polearm of that length would be devestationg, one of our guys put a blunt poleaxe through another guys shield at half speed! You get so much leverage with a polearm it isn't funny, even in JSA we have to be very careful when doing bo work when doing some of those strikes, to the point where we pull them complete. I definitely wouldn't want some yahoo trying to belt me in the lower legs with a polearm thank you very much! I totally agree that polearms can devastating weapons. They can generate enough force so that if a person is holding there shield up, the polearm can knock the shield down and still have enough inertia to hit the guy on the head and knock him out through his helmet. I find that they are manageable in a one on one situation because if you close in on the polearm, it is in big trouble. However a line of polearms is another story. The axeheads and glaives just keep going up and down side by side like pistons so you need a very coordinated effort by shieldmen to close in. They usually don't, they let the spearmen with their longer weapons pick them off. The shields in this case are only on defense. The spears are on offense. Polearms in formation tend to do only vertical downward strikes to the head and thrusts. These strikes do not interfere with the polearm next to you and you are working with gravity on you side. To strike the legs you need a horizontal strike. This is a problem because your polearm will go into the airspace of the polearm next to it and gravity is not helping you. If you try to make a short cut so you don't go into your neighbors airspace, you loose your power advantage. I have a question for you guys. I can't remember the source. I read somewhere a while ago that the middle ages plate arm first developed in the legs. Primarily to protect the legs of knights on horseback from footmen. From there it latter spread to protect the upper body as well. So the image I have is of knights with mail covering their upperbody up to the waist and plate from their down. Has anyone else come across this information? Can anyone verify it? I found one link that dates greaves as early as 1250 AD. www.simutronics.com/etimes/et6/armory.htm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2008 14:23:56 GMT
Yeah, they came in earlier than that.
You want to start your own thread, with references and such, so that people looking for it can find it later, or do you want me to?
Quick answer, yes. As early as 1188 (IIRC for the date), on the seal of Richard I. There are also several debated effigies and wall frescos from the 13th century showing something covering the leg.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2008 15:07:29 GMT
The first leg mail for cavalry was actually built into the armour if I remember correctly.
We did some interesting fighting where we did one againt two, one guy held a long kite shield which protected most of his body and another guy behind with a poleaxe. I felt sorry for the guy who kept getting hit in the head with the poleaxe because that ringing would have had to hurt his ears. A line of polearms with pavise style kite shields would be devestating as hell. The polearms strike over the top of the guy with the shield, cleaving their way through anything in their path, whilst the guy with the shield pushes the enemy backwards with their shields.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 14, 2008 20:18:02 GMT
That's an interesting subject in and of itself. 11th c. kite shields were entirely different than those in the 12th and 13th c. It has been said that earlier kite shields were so flat that they could be used as dinner tables, and were used in a very flexible and fluid fighting style. THe later kite shield was said to be a bit more static due to its size and was greatly curved so much that it could cover the shoulders from the sides and the chest from the front. These shields were also pretty tall, tall enough to cover the chest and lower legs pretty decently.
However that statement seems to me that you're denying that the SCA is historically accurate. Which I agree with.
I strongly disagree, but it's not an arguement I think I can win with you. Maybe if Adam would like to shed some light.
One can thrust to the legs, and there is ample evidence that it was done. The ancient greeks/macedonians did this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2008 21:43:19 GMT
No he is saying that he personally does not use a historically accurate shield. Several of the shields from this time go from the shoulder to the knee, along with from the shoulder to the floor. Most of the kite shields that we have seen are both flat and curved, for almost the entire time. Over generalizations like this are due to interpreting the illuminations literally, where they show absolutely no 3d effects at all, even when one is necessary physically. There is no real difference between 11th and 12th century kites, simply in the overall types of shields used. You start to see the development of the flat-topped kite shield, the triangular shield, and a proto-heater being used.
Stating that other cultures thrusted towards the legs does nothing regarding THIS culture. The greeks and macedonians had an entirely different fighting style, due to the type of armour and cultural mentality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2008 0:39:58 GMT
Your weapons and armor need to match together in the right combination to optimize your defense and offense. If you have a long kite you don't need any low leg protection. By 1300, which is pre-platearmor and within the SCA period, greaves started to appear. So if a person was to have mail up to their knees and greaves, they could use a heater that comes up to their knees. The advantage is you can go over things easier with a shorter shield.
It is worth mentioning that thrusts to the legs are hard to make with spears. They often miss small targets or often glance if there is any type of hard leather. Spears are great for opposing mail. The rings lock the point on target. A spear has enough force to break even riveted mail. Test shows that the mail and padding may keep the thrust from being lethal if the spearhead is wide enough but you will be wounded. Your shield is your best defense against a spear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2008 0:47:39 GMT
Actually greaves started showing up right at the end of the 12th century, and by about 1260-1270, all the cool kids have them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2008 2:21:59 GMT
The ancient greeks and macedonians didn't use long weapons, they could have done it with spears I guess but I think we are talking about swords. The 11th century kite shields, at least in and around Constantinople, were more of a tear drop and didn't have quite as much length as a kite shield but they weren't flat. I agree with Tsafa, do you know how hard it is to learn to use a spear properly and be able to hit a target as small as the leg under high stress situations?
I've noticed a pattern Ramm, when you aren't getting your way in a discussion you change the direction of your argument until you think you can win, but in this case it won't work.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 15, 2008 3:10:33 GMT
Picking our arguments carefully aren't be BW.
Incorrect once again, please look at effigies which DO show 3d.
No, but and nor do you, apparently. As I've said many times just because you can't recreate something in a modern polluted envirnoment doesn't mean it's not possible. There is more than enough evidence that such attacks existed in many cultures not just west european, so if you'd like to pick a fight over that, then you're burying your head deeper than heavy.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 15, 2008 3:12:58 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2008 3:23:15 GMT
Look at the effigies for what? Flat or curved shields? My point was that earlier shields were slightly curved, as well as later ones. There are shields that have a more defined "wraparound" feature, but it is incredibly hard to get shields that have more than about 5-6" of depth of curvature to them, and they are currently made by boatmakers who use wood that is about 1/16" thick, and laminate it up to about 1/2". That, and special modern glues are about the only way to get shields that curved without carving them out that way. Using plank construction (as they would have), it would be almost impossible. 2-4" is about the most anyone feels comfortable with, before it becomes too curved, leaving less of a chance to block the shot farther from the body, and resulting the the "rotational blocking" mentioned above.
A curved shield is a good thing. It allows your elbow to sit directly at the center of balance, making the shield far less tiring on your arm, allowing better control, and less feeling of it "pulling away" from your hand. My point was that I doubt highly that flat shields in a strapped kite form existed for very long, without them gaining some amount of curvature. Granted, the curve may have changed over time, yet it was still more of a personal preference than a "standardized" change in mentality.
Can you point me towards a source for your statement below:
"It has been said that earlier kite shields were so flat that they could be used as dinner tables, and were used in a very flexible and fluid fighting style. " I am unaware of any references talking about a "flexible and fluid fighting style" (part of the reason behind this whole thread), and have not heard any references towards shields and dinner tables.
I can list several effigies as well as illuminations depicting length of shields, which stretch from the shoulder to waist, all the way to shoulder to ground. It is a personal pet peeve of mine, when people tell me that "your shield is too big". Part of it is that I have a 24x42" flat-topped kite, but I am also about 6'6". I need the extra shield to cover me. When I am in a fighting stance, the point ends about the middle of my knee, and the upper right corner is about chin height or so. Off the field, when held against me, it is about shoulder to thigh, and the points of my shoulder. Has about a 3-4" curve to it.
|
|