Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Galloglaich" data-source="post: 5372264" data-attributes="member: 77019">Just wanted to share this, regarding HEMA-istas not fighting hard, here is a video of a buddy from my fencing club Henry Rhodes, fighting in the steel longsword tournament at "Swordfish" in Sweden last week [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kJyRVtG4e0&feature=related]YouTube - Swordfish 2010 - Steel Robert vs Henry 2nd bout[/ame]This also gives you an idea of how fast real fencing was, and also of the effect of armor on a sword... we fight in these bouts with a minimum of protective gear, a fencing mask, strong gloves, a gambeson just like they wore beneath mail in the old days, and a few light pads.   And yet there were very few injuries at this event, one broken finger, a few minor gashes and a bunch of bruises.  Nobody missed work the next week.Now compare with this <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/NYHFA#p/a/u/1/HNEBpu8eDsU" target="_blank">YouTube - NYHFA's Channel</a>and this <a href="http://www.thearma.org/Videos/NTCvids/Thrusts_on_Maille_Pt_I.mp4" target="_blank">http://www.thearma.org/Videos/NTCvids/Thrusts_on_Maille_Pt_I.mp4</a>Put that together and here is the conclusion I come to:1) With correct technique, a longsword can easily cut a person to pieces without a huge effort (those tatami mats are designed to simulate human limbs, and there are plenty of nearly identical tests also on video done on animal carcasses and pork shoulders, sides of beef etc. I've done quite a bit of  that myself)2) Real historical type Mail armor will however completely neutralize the cutting effect of swords and will stop thrusts as well except to the extent that the point can get inside a link (which only works for very narrow point swords)3) The sparring we do in little more than a gambeson indicates that the impact effect of cuts from a sword is a negligible factor compared to the horrific effects of a cut with a sharp edge or a thrust with a sharp point.  4) The solution to dealing with an armored opponent was to cut around the armor or to use specialized armor-piercing weapons.  There is ample forensic evidence for the former and a preponderance of evidence for the latter which remained ubiquitous throughout European history.5) Therefore the whole basis for the SCA heavy-combat philosophy about mail armor is obsolete and should be revised.This does not however mean that swords were obsolete.  Head to toe armor coverage was extremely rare historically and did not exist at all except for a tiny number of specialized troops until roughly the 1300s, when it became merely rare for a while in Europe until roughly 1520 AD when armor use began to decline due to cannon and the rapid increase of the scale of warfare with massed guns and pikes.G.</blockquote>

Verification