I am fairly new
to SCA Combat but I have been studying Medieval sword fighting combat for some time. I saw your question and answer page and I have a few questions to ask. Thank you.
Q: Why are hits below the knee prohibited? Wouldn't greaves with padding on the inside protect the shin area?
T: Good question.
The short answer is "perhaps" but it's nearly impossible to armor the calf area with anything less than a full metal greave which is not period armor for the majority of SCA combatants. Protecting just the shin, more importantly the tibia, is a good idea regardless of armor type. It should be noted that the combat rules in the SCA are dynamic, meaning they have changed over time, although there are truisms and themes one of the enduring themes is no striking below the knee. It does simplify the rules for most. Another consideration is it's nearly impossible to armor the ankle appropriately from a concussive blow, removing the ankle from the potential target area is therefore a prudent choice.
Q: The SCA theoretical stance on armor is that the fighters are wearing mail and the hit
would have to be hard enough to cut through the mail. I am not sure that the blows we are delivering would cut through riveted mail or do much damage through the gambeson underneath. Wouldn't it be easier to say that we are assuming that the fighters are just lightly armored in leather. It might make explaining things easier to spectators as well as other fighting organizations that question SCA historical accuracy. I think the historical accuracy would be
more accurate if we set the period fighting further back pre-mail.
T: But then you would potentially be putting it back into the Dark Ages and arguably the Stone
Age. Pre-mail period is, well, nearly prehistoric. Mail as an armor type existed nearly as long as we had metallurgy.
But back to the question at hand, blow calibration. You're right. We generally don't hit hard
enough to penetrate mail. This is a truism, that can be backed up with empirical evidence. The prevailing thought is that you might not damage the armor, but you could damage the man. I have broken ribs on a side of beef covered with a moving pad and chain mail, so I personally know it's possible. Additionally mail was not nearly as effective versus thrust, from my testing
experience.
Q: What do you think of allowing for a tip at the pommel end of greatswords. A pommel hit
would only be good to the head as a kill, and not allowed anywhere else on the body. I think this might allow for greatsword combat to start to reflect more the fighting as it is depicted in 15 th century fighting manuals.
T: I think they are effective as a real fighting technique. From my martial arts studies in
Kenjutsu and other forms the pommel/buttend strike is marvelously effective. Within the realm of the SCA it has merit as we do perform buttspike thrusts with polearms. On greatswords it's less effective because of the limited handle lengths (less reach).
Q: In the SCA we have Rapier group that fights with no armor other then head protection, using
mostly controlled thrusts. What do you think about having a live steel section, also depending mostly on controlled hits and emphasizing the various 15th century techniques shown in the various fight books. I think this would further grow the SCA.
T: The short answer is the SCA as it is currently configured will probably never do live
steel. It's an insurance issue.
As a practice, it's fine. I find it less exciting than Heavy weapons combat because of the
control issue. I fence schlager also, and that is evolving into something different than what SCA fencing was 10 years ago. So you might just get your wish.
Q: I know that archery in not your area but I thought I might share my thoughts. Most archers
use light 30 lb bows to be as target accurate as possible. I prefer to use a 65 lb, hunting strength longbow, so that it is period accurate. I am also buying a 130 lb warbow so I can be even more period accurate. My thoughts are that the competitions should be arranged in some manor so that it is advantageous to use the heaviest bow possible. That might be a matter of consider the amount of penetration in a thick, dense foam target and moving the target distance to 200 feet, perhaps enlarging it.
T: Actually I'm a Master Bowman in the SCA, have been involved with target/hunting archery since I was 10 and graduated college with a military history degree, so I have some
experience in this area.
You may want to consider that it's about accuracy than anything else. Historically speaking
period bows were all across the board when it came to draw weights. From the light stick bows of the Native Americans (who are period in both time and historical context) and African tribes, to massively heavy composite bows of the various historical peoples a heavy bow doesn't necessarily mean a better bow.
To put it in a historical perspective Harold wasn't killed because his armor was penetrated,
He was shot in the eye. The French lost Agincourt and Crecy not because their armor was penetrated, (nor did the English have the heaviest bows on the field) but because their bloodlust for the English made them make really bad tactical decisions. The bow of the Mongols wasn't nearly as powerful as the bows of the Arabs and Persians, but why did the Mongols defeat the Arabic and Persian so handily? Better tactics, leadership, and a focus on accuracy and speed.
From a practical modern standpoint, most archers don't have the time, or desire to develop
themselves physically to shoot anything more than a 20-40 lbs bow. When 85% of the shooters only shoot royal rounds there really isn't a need ballistically speaking.
Additionally modern forensic science has shown that most medieval armors were proof against
hand bows. Heck, well made chain mail with a padded gambeson was proof against most
archery fire at range. There are many historical accounts of mounted fighters wearing chain mail and bristling with arrows.
The historical fact was hand bows were a great weapon, but they weren't effective versus the
armored warrior. It was very effective against the lightly armored levees and men-at-arms, and as weapon to control your opponent's movement and protect your flanks at range.
Further evidence against the superiority of hand bows was this: Only crossbows were declared as illegal by the Holy Catholic Church and the Pope. Why? Because only crossbows could regularly kill armored warriors (armored and mounted nobility for the most part).
I personally understand your bias (I shoot with a nearly 50lbs draw weight bow myself), but
it really doesn't stand up historically either, because no hand bow is more powerful than the heaviest of crossbows.
Thank you kindly for taking the time to look over my questions.
Bill
Nutley Practice
Fighter
You're quite welcome Bill and Thank You for asking.
Cheers,
T
No comments:
Post a Comment