History, Mythology, Art and RPGs

[Galloglaich]

How would you suggest this being done? Strikes on the unarmored parts are lethal?

SCA heavy combat, as I understand it (it's been a while since I talked to any SCA people about this) is based on the premise of a 10th or 11th Century warrior wearing a mail hauberk with an open-faced helmet and possibly some shin-splints. They have a theory that you should hit hard enough to do damage through the mail, which I think is unlikely.

So in theory every fighter on the field, whether they are wearing a full milanese harness or a bare minimum helmet, kidney belt and gloves, is supposed to be wearing mail hauberk etc.

So yeah, I would say if they are holding fights under that assumption, you should have to go around the armor to score hits, the face, the lower legs, the forearms. They could armor up those spots.

Or if they want to pretend everyone is unarmored they could just wear the armor and fight more or less as they do today.

Or they could assume harnischefechten (everyone is armored, like in a 15th Century battlefield) and allow grappling, half-swording, throws, etc. It can be done, there are re-enactment groups in Eastern Europe who do full contact battles with steel weapons and include punches kicks, throws etc. There is a group at the Ren Faire in Louisiana which does basically kick-boxing with SCA style rattan and padded weapons and they don't get any serious injuries. I know the guys we trained some of them in fencing.

Ultimately I don't really care how SCA runs their battles, I realize it's challenging making fighting rules for battles involving thousands of people, I just don't want them to keep disseminating half truths about historical combat to rationalize how they want or need to structure their events.

G.

 

[Votan]

According to some tests I've seen, a well-placed blow from a sword, even against a foe in full armor, can deliver enough force to render a limb nerveless, opening the foe to more lethal blows, and in rare cases, could initiate a hydrostatic shock wave strong enough to disrupt cardio-pulmonary functions.

I wonder how practical such hard swings are in real combat. It seems like if it were to be dodged then the person swinging the weapon might be seriously unbalanced (or else it would suggest a very limited number of angles of attack).

I do note that blunt weapons tend to be unpopular as melee weapons when alternatives are available (excepting when armor is very heavy) suggesting that blunt force trauma might be the hard way to go?

I am not sure and I admit that I can't imagine a safe way to practice with real maces or hammers to find out.

 

[Galloglaich]

Flails are even harder to do, even padded ones are dangerous.

On the other hand...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLCLljsihzk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLCLljsihzk[/ame]

G.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I wonder how practical such hard swings are in real combat. It seems like if it were to be dodged then the person swinging the weapon might be seriously unbalanced (or else it would suggest a very limited number of angles of attack).

I do note that blunt weapons tend to be unpopular as melee weapons when alternatives are available (excepting when armor is very heavy) suggesting that blunt force trauma might be the hard way to go?

I am not sure and I admit that I can't imagine a safe way to practice with real maces or hammers to find out.

According to some documentaries, things like hammers, maces and axes were the preferred weapons to use against heavily armored foes, while swords were moire favored against lesser foes (both in terms of armor AND status). Some have even posited that many artistic depictions involving heavily armored knights in battle with swords were inaccurate- that most were actually using maces, etc., and were depicted with swords to denote their status (swords being a status symbol).

 

[Votan]

According to some documentaries, things like hammers, maces and axes were the preferred weapons to use against heavily armored foes, while swords were moire favored against lesser foes (both in terms of armor AND status). Some have even posited that many artistic depictions involving heavily armored knights in battle with swords were inaccurate- that most were actually using maces, etc., and were depicted with swords to denote their status (swords being a status symbol).

That seems plausible. With a heavily armored opponent, it would be tough to actually cut them so blunt force would be the only way to go. Plus, the heavy armor would mean you could risk throwing a heavy swing.

On the other hand, I suspect the medieval knight was an anomaly in history. I note that solider in the 1800's (Napoleon's era or the US civil war) used sabers and bayonets in melee so they seem to have reverted to type when armor got light again.

In a similar sense, is see a lot of swords, spears and axes in Viking images but few blunt weapons (am I looking at a poor sample?). Or Greeks/Romans had medium armor but used either pointed or edged weapons.

So maybe it was just the case that the Knights got so well defended that unusual tactics made more sense?

 

[Votan]

Flails are even harder to do, even padded ones are dangerous.

On the other hand...

G.

Yikes. There is no way that is safe , , ,

 

[Galloglaich]

Yeah, Eastern Europe, what are you gonna do.... but it does make a point. You'll notice they are using not just swords, but also axes, even halberds and pole-axes. Sure the weapons are blunt but not very, there are plenty of sharp edges. And I don't think anybody died in that even though I'm not going to stake my life on it....

Still, it does show you how effective armor really is and was. I mean the reality is in the late 15th Century they were making bullet proof armor which, from the figures I've seen, could stop a .357 magnum at close range. They could certainly stop pistols of their day and even an arquebus ball. Armor worked, that is why they wore it in spite of the enormous expense. Even dedicated armor-piercing weapons were not automatically effective against armor.

I think, however, that it's going a bit too far in the other direction to suggest that warriors, professional and otherwise, didn't use swords back in the heydey of armor. It's quite obvious that they did, that swords were in fact the ultimate prestige weapon and not just for fashion. Swords show up prominently in records, they are among the first things required for a muster, they show up in large numbers in excavated battlefields, they are all over period art and not just art depicting rich and famous people. Every armed mercenary in any drawing I've seen had some kind of sword, a messer or a falchion or a baselard or a katzbalger, (or a longsword which seemed to be quite ubiquitous in spite of being difficult and awkward to carry around when not in use.)

All this stuff is a bit more nuanced than our modern minds want to admit to, we tend to think of things in very black and white terms, either a sword worked or armor worked, since they worked against each other one seems to have to cancel the other out. From what I've learned in the last ten years of plunging into the history of swords and historical fencing, they both worked extremely well.

Guy on the left, in good shape, the guy on the right, having a very bad day

The fact is though that very few people ever had total 100% armor coverage, and the best way to kill somebody in full armor was to use an armor-piercing weapon. Since armor-piercing weapons were in many ways (in every way except for armor-piercing, generally speaking) inferior to swords, wearing armor generally allowed you to use a fast, deadly and versatile sword and forced your opponents to a disadvantage with a less ideal weapon. If you faced another fully armored opponent your sword was still effective using half-sword techniques and / or your would draw your dagger or pull that mace out of your belt.. but the sword could do the job against any opponent, if you had the right skillset.

G.

 

[Galloglaich]

Some harnischefechten techniques, to give you an idea how they actually used to fight in armored duels 500 years ago

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsh0aQTIg9g&feature=related]YouTube - Some techniques from Hans Czynners treatise[/ame]

 

[Jon_Dahl]

I'm sorry if someone has already mentioned him, but I think one of the greatest hand-to-hand-combatants is left unmentioned:

Dioxippus, 4th century B.C. LN
Greek martial artist, Olympic Champion, duelist.

Dioxippus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marcus Claudius Marcellus, 268–208 BC (60 years old). LE
Roman elite soldier, military leader, politician, priest

Marcus Claudius Marcellus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Galloglaich]

Those are fantastic examples, I'll definitely add them to the permanent list. The truth is there are really thousands and thousands of amazing warriors like that in the historical record, but I never get tired of learning about new ones (and I hadn't heard of either of these men).

G.