Let's Redefine SCA Combat
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 02. 2018
- Update: CZcams ads? I do NOT MONETIZE SCA videos. If you're seeing ads thanks to Google's new policy, I apologize. I do not make a penny from these; that's not what they're for.
Please be courteous and respectful to each other in comments, thanks!
I have an argument for changing one important element of Armoured Combat in the SCA Marshal's Handbook, but it doesn't need to change how we fight or what equipment we use at all. I'd love your input. - Sport
OK, so I'm two years behind on this, but you make a good point. I've always felt that armor standard was kind of unrealistic. As someone who works with leather and has made armor out of it, there's no way a sword is going to shear through boiled leather cuisses made of 16oz leather in a single shot unless there's some serious power behind it. It takes me forever to cut through it BEFORE it's boiled. Other weapons...that's a different story.
The standard shot thing, I mostly agree with. When I started in the SCA I was in Drachenwald. Due to many military personnel being stationed there, the people are pretty cosmopolitan when it comes to where they started. We had to commonly tell certain kingdoms to "tone it down". I eventually moved back to the states and saw that the blows became relatively consistent, but the level of bodily contact allowed was changed. When I was in the Middle, clinching was pretty common and no one batted an eyelash if you put your shield in someone's armpit to control a weapon. When I moved to Ansteorra, I was warned that doing that would be considered "grappling" and wouldn't be allowed. Point is, things are different from kingdom to kingdom and it would be nice if more things were on the same page.
I like this notion quite a lot and agree that revisiting the imaginary armor convention is a very good idea.
That is a very interesting. As somebody who has also participated in HEMA, has done testing on mail with different swords here are my thoughts.
- a Type X sword with "multiple" blows would be effective in combat against the mail armor and a 2 lb nasal Helm.
-a Type Xa sword which has a lighter profile at the tip, would be less effective.
So heavier front weighted swords do make a difference. We use lighter swords because they are faster and speed wins.
We both agreed that we don't want to change how we fight. I don't think we should change what we call the armor standard either because by moving to slightly heavier swords and changing the fighting to counted blows, we would be right there with historical combat effectiveness. There are local tournaments where we experiment with both of these... even levels of grappling.
What I would like to see some more experimentation with is taking light blows to the basket and Greaves as legal target areas.
One more point... historical groups are still struggling to find a balance between safety and realism. They are not any closer then we are. I say this as a person that was very involved with such groups at one point.
The biggest issues HEMA groups have is that they are either hitting too light with no body mechanics and playing sword-tag... or breaking each other's fingers.
I'm 100% on-board with what you're saying here.
Ha. Just found this now....
Has anyone bothered to take a mannequin out in the yard, put a gambeson on it, and tried to cut through it? I don't think it's as easy as most people think.
I think more than anything it's important to have a discussion with new fighters about the mechanics of cutting vs. hacking vs. thrusting. I, once put my poleaxe thrusting point in the middle of a fighter's chest and pushed him back ten feet and he didn't take it as a valid shot. A sharp point would have opened up just about any armour and run him through... but because it wasn't a sharp blow, he felt it wasn't valid.
All the way through this I hear Gerhard's voice saying, "React as if the blade was sharp."
I think you're nailing the most important part here... test and experiment, don't take your intuition or what you've heard third-hand as evidence, and keep progressing our knowledge.
A pig body was dressed in a Halburk and steel swords were used to determine cut/hit strength.
I’m heartily in favor of any rules or equipment requirement changes that might bring a higher level of historical realism to SCA fighting. It’s unfortunately that the SCA’s style/system of combat has done effectively nothing (on an institutional level) to incorporate the research and/or experimentation that’s been done into medieval armored combat in the last 15+ years. The SCA was once the biggest/only game in town; now I see an awful lot of very eager and potentially skilled fighters realizing that if they want to do medieval sword fighting, they need to “graduate” out of the SCA in order to do it.
But that’s neither here nor there ...
Reforming/redefining SCA “armored” combat from the ground up is likely to be a big job. And, as many of the replies to Avery’s very thoughtful proposal indicate, a big first step would be simply answering the question, “What do we want to do with rattan combat in the SCA?” Redefine what we are currently doing? (Which is to say, admit that we are closest to practically reproducing UNarmored combat, and refine our blow acknowledgment and technique standard to be more in harmony with that?) Incorporate current understanding of medieval fighting technique and arms/armor performance capabilities into our current fighting system? (Which is, recognize that our current stick fighting game does a very bad job of simulating the performance of real swords and armor, and similarly does not produce a fighting style that replicates anything in historical documentation of armored fighting/dueling skills?) Or create a non-historical contact-fighting game based on experimentation intended to reveal the best application of our current fighting skills? (Which is, using weapons that are as realistic as possible, do some experiments with SCA fighting technique to see what the effects are on armored targets, in order to establish some consensus on what sort of martial application would result from our current fighting style/standards, regardless of historical validity or realism?)
While I certainly don’t have any suggestions or proposed answers to Avery’s inquiries based on any of that, what I would suggest is that anyone interested in adding a greater understanding of medieval sword combat might try any of the following:
1 - Get rid of your SCA sword (or, specifically, your basket hilt). My perception is that SCA fighters don’t realize how much the “invulnerable hand” rule distorts their understanding of realistic fighting. Even if you continue using a basket/cup hilted sword, try fighting for a while using the rule that “any hit on the basket hilt is a good arm shot.” Suddenly your fist-forward high guard (a perfectly valid technique - for 17th century English fencing, BTW) will shift into a much more solid blade-bind defense in order to protect your hand/arm - a much more historically correct style of medieval sword work.
2 - Try some armor-as-worn fighting. Cloth, and even heavy leather provides minimal protection against cuts; at the same time, it requires a very dedicated thrust to even begin to pierce mail; and if you don’t have a pollaxe, you ain’t ever going to land a “good” blow on plate armor. (At least if historical sources on sword fighting are to be believed - but, hey, what the heck did those guys know, right?) Yup, that means your helm is darned near invulnerable - at the same time, your armpits are prime targets for thrusts! Fighting really changes when your armor starts to do its job.
3 - Try fighting wearing your assumed armor. I hear a lot of fighters speculating about how they move, how they generate power, how they reach specific targets with blows/thrusts while wearing “SCA standard” armor, yet very few of them have actually every tried to fight in full mail, with a cross-hilted sword. Top level SCA fighters tend to do all manner of gymnastics and body mechanics that you can do in modern sports pads, plastic “armor,” and even look-alike aluminum and titanium armor, that you just can’t do when encumbered by the level of mail, hardened leather, and quilted arming coat that we are “assumed” to be wearing. Giving a try to fighting in real armor helps you recognize the artifacts that creep (or flood) into your fighting technique due to the fact that the tools you *are* using do not perform like the tools you are *simulating.*
Again, none of these are offered as a solution to Avery’s proposal. But I’ve found that the above experiments/exercises can result in a more thorough understanding of historical medieval combat, and how it does, or at least could, be reflected in SCA fighting.
I agree with everything you said except the part you said about cloth armor not being effective. After having seen some testing of cloth armor I found it surprisingly effective. Two good channels for testing this stuff is Skallagrim and ThegnThrand.
I'll admit, i watch Skallagrim's tests and have reached out to ask where he gets his rubber torsos!
I am going to go the other way. I want the CREATIVE part back into the SCA. The historical accuracy is fine if you want it - but we are dying as a group because we seem to expect fighters to be in full period armor. That is not the direction the founders of the group took and the growth of the organization was rapid and varied during that time. I look around now and see a codified and stodgy bunch of 50+ year old peers dictating how to have "fun."
I realy like this answer and idea
If im not mistaken he makes them himself. There are many videos on youtube showing how to make ballistic gel targets, including on skallagrims channel. You would just have to troubleshoot it, find some material "similar" to a skeleton/torso/organs and find a gelatin you like. most woods and plastics seem too strong. I have only made gel blocks to shoot, but really you just need to find a mold you like. or make one with body casts.
Skallagrims video is called: "Made a Budget Gel Torso - Let's Wreck it with a Sword!"
Well thought out. I was in the East Kingdom from 1989-95, fought in Pennsic19 and 21. I fought mostly polearm, some spear, liked sword and shield the least. As I recall, the claims by those older than I were that they did experiment with swords against mail on hanging sandbags and the like. The only problem was that it was butt-linked mail, not riveted, and it was suspected even then, that riveted would probably hold up much better to both hacks and thrusts.
One thing I though was interesting, though. We made a pilum/angon and tested it against a 55 gallon oil drum, thinking that would approximate a lot of the period plate. It did shed flat axe and sword blows nicely. However, the nail like point of the pilum punched through with little difficulty, far easier than say a thrust from a migration period sword. We also found that boiled leather was extremely hard to cut through with an axe or sword, and seemed better than plate against the pilum. We ascertained that the spear thrusts we were delivering on the field were likely more than enough to run a person through and our typical sword thrusts were good for plate, and incidentally, that boiled leather was actually quite good armor.
That's exactly the sort of experimental thinking we have moved away from, I think.
Looking into getting into the SCA after years of observing, and I really appreciate the thought and care that you (and others) clearly put into the hobby.
Brennan Gill Thanks for the kind words
Excellent video, thanks for posting this! Sincerely, an SCA Vet 1980-2007.
I really like the intent of this video, thanks for posting! I thought I should point out a selection bias in your data collection. By only asking knights, you're asking people who were successful within the system as it is. People who were physically predisposed take and give at the popular calibration. I also agree with your observation about the imaginary armour standard, so I've always taken it tongue-in-cheek to play the game and get along. It's just more fun that way. Your idea is likely the only action that can realistically be taken since increasing calibration increases injuries and decreases participation, and decreasing calibration goes even farther from an already low standard and moves us farther from historicity. We are where we are. Maybe we should change where we pretend we are.
Reading some of the comments below, armor-as-worn, attacking armpits or locations that are difficult to armor as medieval combatants would have done, that's just too dangerous. Too historical. Not fun. SCA is trying to find a fun balance. I love the diversity of historical options now available to cover the spectrum. HEMA, LARP, ACL, BofN etc. We are lucky to have such options available to fill our varied tastes and learning intentions. SCA fills a certain role well, in my opinion. It's my personal favorite option among the choices.
Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply! I agree with you entirely, and admit that a lot of my proposal is based on a hunch about "how much change is actually possible" within SCA armored combat.
Interesting, and I'd love to talk about it in person. I've been an SCA fighter for 36 years, and done some personal experimentation with real swords. There's no doubt that our standard "killing" blow would not end the fight if it were a steel sword against the armor described in our standards. It makes sense people didn't go to such expense and bother to have armor if it wouldn't do the job of keeping them alive.
When I accept (or deliver) our "standard blow" and acknowledge my opponent's victory (or, sometimes, my own), I generally think of it as being a demonstration of one fighter having defeated the other fighter's defensive skills. But adjusting our imaginary standard armor configuration to make sense with what we're physically doing suits me, and certainly the experimentation would be fun.
Note: In the 1980s, it was definitely true that standards of force were different in different kingdoms. In Meridies, we had a reputation for hitting lightly. Whenever I went to Atlantia to fight back then, I received blows that felt excessive to me, and found my own "standard" blows being ignored. It's a good thing if we've become more standardized Society-wide.
A few years ago I was wondering just how realistic SCA calibration was, for both heavy and fencing. At the time I ran a quite unscientific test at Raglan one year using a small (dead) pig, butted mail and various weapons, no gambeson. The standard armour against a standard blow would vary greatly with the weapon I think.
I still have the photos and notes, although I never have got around to writing it up. A good thrust with rapier or heavier sword made it through the mail, whilst cuts ,ade no difference to the mail. HOwever, the heavier a weapon got, the less that mattered. A mass weapon broke bones even if the mail stayed intact. A warhammer went through the mail like butter, with a spike and the hammer made a mess in the mail and broke bones. A low end SCA helm (which was all that we could find to sacrifice) also fared badly, acquiring a large number of diamond shaped holes (it was a popular trial) without any great force being required.
It very much emphasised why fencing rules are positive pressure. With a rapier (and no mail), there was a little resistance from the skin, and then no resistance at all unless the blade hit bone.
Another thing we tried was weapons against shields, and the big difference that heavy combat doesn't really pick up, is that sharp weapons tend to get stuck in (non-metal) shields, rather than always bouncing off.
Thank you for all this information! Experimentation is exactly the sort of thing that I believe ought to inform our simulation rules. Aside; I was told 20+ years ago about a rapier experiment with extant blades and uncooked pig cadavers experimentally it took 9 pounds of pressure. Given that the hydrostatic tension of living flesh is higher, they calculated about 12 pounds to penetrate living pig or human skin, also finding it was bone or skin on the other side providing the next significant obstacle. Most fabrics did not seem to matter much.
CZcams ads? I do NOT MONETIZE SCA videos. If you're seeing ads thanks to Google's new policy, I apologize. I do not make a penny from these; that's not what they're for.
I think you have brought up valid points. I also imagine that experimentation will show that heavily padded gambesons and a helmet, like we use now, are going to be the closest to what we do now. Tiernan, An Tir.
Miranda & Todd Brothers I've watched some cutting videos online against linen hacketons and even those were surprisingly strong... But I certainly wouldn't withstand hard shots through them without going numb!
Just running across this video now. I'm perfectly fine with changing the imaginary standard for how much armor we're supposedly wearing. The issue, though, is that we are basing this off of how hard a blow is hitting, as opposed to how well a blow was executed. Swords aren't blunt force weapons. Their job isn't to break bones on impact, their job is to slice through things. Hitting things harder doesn't cut through them more effectively, proper edge alignment does. Grab a steak and hit it really hard with your knife. Now try slicing through it gently, pulling the blade across and making sure the edge is pointed in the right direction.
Thank you for your thought-provoking comment! That's one problem, I agree, and encourage people to invest in cutting practice if they can. However, unless the armour standard is changed then sword blows are definitely not about cutting techniques. Hitting bare meat is far removed from hitting multiple layers of armour. Also, as popular as sword-and-board may be, what about maces, axes, glaives, spears, pikes, halberds, bardiches, and so on? There's a variety
I agree with pretty much everything your saying here. -Duke Konrad, Northshield
I like your conclusion!
Thanks!
Hello I'm a teen and I would like to get in to fighting so this video is pretty cool
Hey, I'm glad to hear it! Fighting is a lot of fun, and I encourage folks to give it a go.
Aint for everyone but its fun
I enjoyed this video, Thank you. I semi retired in early 2014 and am working to come back. Knowing things have changed while away I contacted my kingdom EM to make sure I was up tpo date on things. Funny story about blows. I have fought kingdoms where I broke a stick on a guys thigh and it was called light. Then as Prince went to that kingdom and was told I hit too hard. Lol. Going to GW this year. Yay me Earl Krotuas Trimaris
Hey, thanks so much! I'm sorry to hear that Gulf Wars didn't work out given everything going on - but I eagerly support your comeback regardless. Battle fortune, sir!
Love the idea of experimenting to find out what our calibrated blows actually would defeat. The current standard did always strike me as odd, as chain is very effective to stopping cuts and the blow itself may not be debilitating. Reminds me of the early days of rapier when we argued about how much pressure the thrust needed to have to be "good"...sharping a blade and having it go through bone like it was butter was very eye opening.
Yeah, I heard it was only 12 lbs of pressure!
When fencing started in the Midrealm I took a bunch of watermelons to a practice. I broke the tip from an old epee and had people thrust the melons which have a much tougher skin than ours - they went through with almost no effort. This wasn't a sharp sword - just took pliers and snapped the tip off.
Sir Avery I like your ideas for possibly upgrading the (Imaginary armor standards)
If you choose to stay, (in the circle), then I have nothing to say. BUTIf you are talking about ALL SCA fighters regardless of rank then I must object. It is well known that belted fighters, Knights generally, as you are sir, hit with a much faster blow, meaning that when it lands it has to have much more force.As there are at least 10 times more unbelted fighters as there are belted, I have to believe that there are 2 very different levels of calibration.Its also well known that Knights will question the intensity of a blow givin by a unbelted fighter many more times oftener than a unbelted fighter will question a Knights strike. Knights are/were taught Not to accept a doubtful blow, where unbelted fighters are/were taught to accept a doubtful blow, which means that the odds in combat favor the belted fighter, as if they needed it due to their better training.You read in the rules, (Resisting cuts by the mere touch of a bladed weapon) MANY times I have heard fighters declare that the blow to the face was too light, OR too heavy.I hope my comments have not offended, and I remain. Lord Wilhelm Da Chelsea 1979, to now, at 70yrs old, and Still a damn good defensive fighter. Wish I still had good lungs lol.
Thank you very much for sharing your perspective! I happen to agree with most everything you're saying, as well. I train all fighters (including fellow knights) to take any blow they are not quite certain wasn't good enough. In other words, 'you're dead until proven alive'. Experienced fighters are better judges of when a blow isn't good for certain, and are thus more able to be confident to call it ineffective. However, that doesn't have much to do with having a belt.
That said, I'm not really talking in the video about taking iffy shots. What I'm discussing is where the line for iffy is. Does that make sense?
I know I'm a bit late to this party at over a year but, don't your suites and knights teach your unbelted fighters?
I haven't been in for long but it only took me about 4 practice weeks before I was calibrated to the standard.
That said, I'm still very new, so I could just be getting more preferential treatment than I realize.
I think you make a good point.
Thanks much!
Persuasive points, I like the idea of redefining assumed armor standards to more accurately reflect our calibration although I've always thought of SCA combat as tournament fighting because shins knees and hands don't score points and assumed armor standards are too high
writingworks I'm with you, but only maybe for 1-on-1 fights. What about wars? If we simulate honourable foot combat instead of sport, it's more flexible I think.
Well, the middle class actually has LESS disposable income for travel, compared to income level, than we did years ago. Most households HAVE to have two incomes now, just to survive. This was not true in the 1960s, only sometimes true in the '70s. What IS true is that more SCA members have moved from one part of the country to another, as the SCA has grown. They have taken their fighting styles with them and they have melded. I will say it WAS true, back in the day, from my experience, fighters in the West would normally hit harder and call harder blows than say those of us in Trimaris (those macho bastards). ;) I did fight in inter-kingdom battles at Border Wars, Salt War, Pennsic and at TYC (Twenty-Year Celebration, held at the Houston RenFaire site), during the '80s.
The point about watching videos of fights from other kingdoms is VERY true. I only wish we had internet (and CZcams) back when I was fighting.
Two points you did not make are 1) mass weapons...maces and axes. The blows we throw (or, in my case, THREW, way back when) would be MUCH more devastating with a heavy axe or mace against flexible armor such as cotton or horsehair padding and mild steel riveted maille. I'm a little guy, only 5'8". I weighed under 160 lbs. back when I fought. Even so, I regularly threw blows that, if thrown with an actual mace or axe, would have broken ribs or crushed hips, right through the armor. However, in the SCA, all weapons are presumed equal, so as not to give one style an advantage over the others. And 2) padding in helms. In the middle ages, there was only rudimentary padding in helms...leather and perhaps some packed wool. When I was taking blows to my basinet, I had two layers of different density closed cell foam absorbing the blows. A good blow could move my head a foot to one side without me even being close to taking any actual damage. In medieval combat, a blow we consider(ed) good against a helm would have likely concussed the wearer of the helm without ever penetrating.
i.imgur.com/IAy8Smx.jpg
Formerly Lord Aeduard ÓDonnubhain
Shire of The Ruins, Trimaris
(ghods, that was a LONG time ago) :)
I think you raise really insightful points, thank you for sharing! I suspect there's a good chance you're right about changing economics. I'd love to get my hands on some data about how often and far people traveled for events historically vs. now.
Around different weapons types, I agree. I left out that little snag from the video to keep people from getting distracted - but it was on my mind. Ultimately, this is a place I'd recommend that experimentation and changing our imaginary armour would simply need to match up with how we fight. Maces are very effective against maille (though what you were swinging was a light club), and I suspect we'd need to use heavily padded linen armor with some hard point protection to simulate that effectively.
Helm padding is something I think about a lot! I saw some liners at a museum in Vienna that were later period but looked pretty significant. Even with modern padding we see people knocked out by very heavy blows. I suspect we'd need to do lots of ongoing research there as well and be willing to re-examine what our imaginary standards would be several times over the next few decades.
Overall, I think you'd be a great asset in discussion if we ever manage to get experimenting again.
You make a good point - the Imaginary armour should be just a Gambeson and No Helm.
Anything more than that and SCA strikes become Unrealistic as you stated and negate the entire purpose of authenticity.
I'm not convinced that we shouldn't consider a padded or maille coif or some such, but most helms would be pretty effective wherever they cover. Remember though, it's not just swords we recreate.
@@AveryCloseCall
I understand that - but any sword strike to ANY metal helm isn't going to do ANYTHING but damage your sword...
An Axe/Polearm strike is an entirely different kettle of fish though.
You are right also though that a Padded or Maille Coif may be sufficient armour yet not over kill...
I could picture that working.
I stand with you! Huzzah!
I agree with you Sir Knight! Hail!
Thanks for the feedback!
100% agree. I actually wrote a paper on this. In my opinion we should do a leather cuirass.
That's interesting! link?
Very good points! I agree with pretty much all of them and I think it's a good idea to change the imaginary standard.
I should preface what I'm about to say next with the disclaimer that I've been out of the Society for a year or two, so I apologise if I haven't taken any recent major changes in to account.
With that being said, I'm curious to know how this proposed change would affect lower decision fighters. When I was a wee lad just getting into fighting, the king of fighting and weapons I was working with at the time were only a step or two above NERF sword slappy fights from what I remember. Since lower younger and lower division fighters are expected to hit significantly softer than their older high decision counterparts, how would changing the standard affect them?
I think the easiest way to avoid a big confusing mess for everyone is to make different standards that are scaled down to be equivalent to the higher divisions.
If the basic idea you're proposing is to alter the imaginary standard so that the baseline for blows is actually effective against it (which is my understanding of what you mean, I'd love to know if I've misunderstood), then making sure the imaginary standard also compensates somehow for lower devisions not hitting as hard is a good idea.
That's just my two bushels of apples, I think it's a bloody good idea and you made your point quite well.
CH1CK3NW1N95 Thank you for your thoughtful comment! To my mind, the main thing would be for us to say "nothing changes in how hard you hit" clearly to everyone. Then we simply imagine whatever protections that's appropriate (once we know what that is). To my mind, that doesn't change how different skill groups fight.
You are 100% correct about the shots we throw and how the "imaginary" armor is incompatible. The problem I see is that many people don't know this.
If we change the rules to say that our imaginary armor is a padded gambeson, I think a lot of people will be confused and think that the shots now need to be lighter.
It's a problem because it should have been done right in the first place and I don't know we can fix it without causing extra issues and confusion.
Don Reynolds Can I ask, do you think that could be solved by clear communication from the society and kingdom Earl Marshalls?
It could be. I'm our kingdom cut and thrust marshal. We made a change to our kingdom rule book a year and half ago and I'm still explaining it. So, getting a rule change both disseminated and understood is difficult.
Honestly, the best way would be to change it without telling anyone. That's because this isn't really a rule that needs disseminated.
The main reason for it to be changed is for people coming from HEMA who read the rules before trying to play and then deliver actual shots which would go through chain maile as that would be very excessive.
I hear that. An Tir made some rapier changes back when I fought there and I think they were successful because all the "movers and shakers" and "popular kids" were on board. They pushed it socially, so the rule actually got through to fighters.
Hi, I am a Norse-Angle Bard but I have observed that during battles, the armor can get excessive and realistically, fighting in chainmail and leather armor using cane rattans seems a bit absurd. Why not just don hockey gear when doing practice and battles? The issue I am pointing to is overheating. Europe tends to be rainy as duck and is more forgiving to armored fighting. The American Indians would fight with spears and wooden sheilds with very little armor. It is because North America and South America have been quite a bit warmer than Europe in the summer, when all the raids and wars would take place. I agree, new standards are needed. Let's leave medieval armoring to Renfaire and to the "blunt edge fighters" and stick to modern safety equipment that won't cause fighters to overheat or get heatstroke during practice or the SCA events like Gulf I and II and Pennsic.
You raise a good point and the good news is that people can use whatever gear they want so long as it's hidden.
I know that this video is almost two years old, but I'm watching it for the first time. I agree 100% with your assessment: based on our current "average calibration," the imaginary armor standard in the Marshal's Handbook is too high.
I've been thinking about this topic quite a bit over the past couple months and I think that your suggestion near the end of the video is spot-on:
Head: instead of a conical iron helm with a mail drape, it should just be a mail coif.
Body, upper arms, and upper legs: instead of a padded gambeson with mail hauberk, it should just be a padded gambeson by itself.
Lower arms (and lower legs, too, but they're not a valid target) = possibly boiled/hardened leather as stated in the Handbook, or possibly just normal, un-hardened leather.
I haven't done any experimentation to confirm if this is accurate. This is just what I think might be accurate, and I think it's cool that you also had the same idea.
Hey, thanks very much for the input!
So... When do we experiment?
@@AveryCloseCall I was going to make a Facebook post and see who among my SCA friends wants to help.
This is the Facebook post I just made. I included a link to this video. I tried to add you as a friend but it said you had already reached the 5000 friends limit.
Image link: i.imgur.com/Bypm5El.png
"Basically, the idea is that a blow struck using our 'average' calibration level for heavy combat (i.e., not a light blow and not an excessively hard blow) would not deal sufficient damage to end a fight against an opponent wearing the 'presumed armor level' from pg. 12 of the Marshal's Handbook.
An iron helm with a padded coif underneath it (and maybe a mail coif as well) would require an excessively hard blow to injure the person wearing it, especially with a sword, but even so with a mace or axe. Likewise, a one-handed sword cannot penetrate a mail hauberk with a padded gambeson underneath it, and even a two-handed axe would probably have difficulty, and in both cases, a non-penetrating blow would have to be excessively hard to injure the wearer (i.e., broken ribs or damaged internal organs). In other words, armor WORKS, and when the Marshal's Handbook was first written in the 60's or 70's, those original marshals probably underestimated how effective medieval armor actually was.
Rather than trying to change the 'average' calibration level across the Known World to match what is in the Marshal's Handbook, let's just change pg. 12 of the Handbook to match the 'average' calibration level. It is clear that we are not simulating unarmored combat, or else 'light' blows would still be called good. The image above shows what I think the 'presumed armor level' should be based on the calibration levels that I've seen.
The idea now is to undertake an Arts & Sciences project where we confirm through experimentation if the armor level in the above image is accurate or not. Is there anyone interested in assisting me with this project?"
@@ErikMikkelsen1 Fantastic, please let us know how it goes and what you find. You've got my full support!
Honestly, no sword blow to the helmet would have any effect. No sword blow to chain mail over gambeson would have a disabling effect, only bruising.
The imaginary armor that would be defeated by the current strikes is likely only gambeson and padded arming cap.
By the end of the video you had already said everything I pointed out, IMHO. Agreed completely.
I didn't want to say that too loudly, because...
1) It's not fully tested, so just a reasonable guess
2) If I say "this is all unarmored combat" then 5000 knights will only see red, assume I'm saying we should be fencers, and not listen to the argument.
Let me add a few points from a potential sca combatant -
Hema and other fighting groups have evaluated many armor types already and have come to the understanding that even a padded gambeson is resistant to almost everything but a dedicated thrust. It was essentially the medieval equivalent of modern soft body armor.
A layered defensive garment to protect against common threats that could be cheaply produced.
The next areas I’d like to touch on - helmet and shield.
Helms and helmets were practically impossible to penetrate with a sword. Full stop, end of story.
Shields were much more than defensive only. They were used to bash helms/arms, get inside a guard and turn an opponent, and to some small effect as an offensive weapon to attack joints and other lightly padded areas.
Lastly throws/binds etc. in watching LOTS of sca combat videos you almost never see a bind. This alone should tell the viewer how much rattan tag they are watching.
I’m not advocating for every sca fight to turn into an armored judo match, merely for the shoves and other basic fighting methods to be allowed.
@@Daytonaman675 while I can see where you are coming from but I have to disagree on the shoves and some binds. Technicality our rules don't allow binds or "active" shoving. I learned a long time ago about some of the passive shoves and binds that work quite well in the SCA. I fight in a 11th century Andalusian Moor kit. I do not use a basket on any of my weapons and only use full gauntlets. I found the cross guard on a sword is very effective for a multitude of tiny things. Like slightly nudging shields, deflecting shots, catching blades. So while a great many of the older knights and fighters don't do a lot of active shoving or binds I can almost guarantee that they are very good at the passive shoves and binds.
InqWiper, you say, "Honestly, no sword blow to the helmet would have any effect." See my comment about padding. You're judging from the shots you've taken with a foam-lined full-sized HELM (not a helmet). Try it with only one layer of leather, in a light helmet such as a Norman with nasal or Sutton Hoo style, over a quilted cloth coif. See how many hits you can take THEN. You'd be out of the fight with a concussion LONG before the blow ever penetrated your helmet.
Historical nasal helmet weight less than 2 lbs... not the 7 to 10 pounds that we use. Straight on Blow to from a Type X sword to a 2lb nasal Helm will have anybody seeing Stars.
Type X sword strike to mail. The fresh blow might not be crippling but multiple blows will be. Eventually an elbow or collarbone is going to get hit.
As someone who fights in very light Gladiator armor I am against heavier hits, thankfully most people have the common sense to know they don't have to hit me as hard as someone in regular armor. A gambeson standard would be ok. The only thing that needs to change is indestructible shields. A couple good hits by great weapons and shields would be splinters. A falx will cut a Roman scutum almost in half as well as the arm under it in a single blow, yet shields are still the go to since its invincible in our game. That's what truly needs to change.
redcorsair14 yeah but then the romans starting putting metal edging on their shields
Yeah, I'm not proposing that people hit harder or have to change their kits. I'm proposing that "we call a spade a spade" and admit that we like how hard we hit and pretend circumstances that make that actually wounding.
Insurance would be the only things stopping any changes that you guys would like to make.
Good news, as I don't think that boogeyman has any care about this
Is this video extremely low volume for anyone for other then me?
I've not heard that from other people, sorry. Maybe it's mono?
Wow, this has been out there for 5 years and this is the first time I have seen it. Interesting piece, but I guess I would go with IF we are all throwing at an acceptable level across all Kingdoms, why change anything? Been fighting 40 years and my spiel when I explain a good blow is it is about the penultimate killing blow, not necessarily the actual killing blow. If this blow puts your opponent at enough of a momentary disadvantage that ending the fight would be easy for you, then *that* is what we take as a "killing blow". I sometimes describe our combat as recreating tournament combat of the middle ages and the fight is over with a blow that causes the spectators to cheer, or a blow that draws blood and demonstrates victory without necessarily "killing".
I live in Australia so my experience outside my Kingdom is necessarily limited, but I *have* been to about 20 Pennsics and fought a LOT of people. Not sure I actually agree that all Kingdoms hit and receive at the same sort of level but I WOULD love that to be true!!
Sir Agro, Kingdom of Lochac.
I agree with the issues. I believe the fix is to simply remove the imaginary armor standard and teach responsible fighting and good calibration. - Sir Gunnar Redboar
Patrick Hayes I'm interested to hear more of your thoughts. Do you think we should try to recreate combat?
I think we already do that in melee. We tell people to fall down dead. In tournament however I have always viewed it as being bested, not killed. I personally don't fall down dead in a tournament. I kneel and salute my opponent. So like you say, we should look at the practices we actually do instead of arbitrarily creating standards. Tournaments are are treated as a non-lethal combat, whereas melee's generally are "battles". Now it could easily be argued that even in period they had non-lethal tournament melees.
Regardless I believe the idea of an armor standard is malarkey. We wear armor for personal protection and for aestethic, not to be in accordance with some mystical striking standard. We should ditch the armor standard all together and simply teach responsible, fair fighting with sane and safe calibration. Which my contention is, that's what we are already doing. I have had two squires knighted, and I teach dozens of students and I have never once in 20 years explained the mystical armor standard to any of them.
I sort of agree with you - however, not on the "arbitrary" part. Unless we want different calibration and standards and rules for wars vs tournaments, we should be using the same systems. We all basically agree 16th C plate is basically invulnerable to single blows from swords, and we all know that a naked fellow is dead meat versus them. Let's just find out what level of armor actually loses to single sword blows as hard as we throw them, then apply it!
I am curious Sir Avery as to why we need a standard? You actually explained quite well in your conversation why we don't - travel is easy and we often cross borders for events. I commented earlier - if in doubt ask for a calibrating blow - that makes a safer and less frustrating fight. I agree with Sir Gunnar.
What games have you developed?
Don't want to post here, but I think my LinkedIn is mostly up-to-date!
As someone relatively new to sca fighting, i believe this basically needs to happen at some stage. If the rules as written do not make sense, they should change. It could make calibration much better and less arbitrary for new people. I also quite like the idea of a standard that isnt armour based, but more in terms of a good tehnical sporting blow, or based on what would End a fight with unarmoured participants, or something.
Glad to hear it!
Unarmored combat is HEMA, though.
InqWiper indeed - my background is in HEMA and i'm expanding to SCA, and there's certain concepts and comventions which obviously don't exist in one but do in the other and vice versa :)
Just looking to understand what i'm getting into more fully, hopefully for the benefit of both communities :)
+George Barone
Sounds good. I've only been training SCA for around 9 months and looking through youtube at various other different styles like HEMA, M-1 and MAC I can only think that people from other styles will help improve SCA.
I'm a big believer in getting people working ACROSS groups to share. Basically, my suggestion here is a pragmatic approach to make SCA combat more realistic without changing the way it's actually done. However, HEMA at present tends to be done a bit differently.
I'm not sure i understand the point. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you are proposing boils down to, "We don't change anything at all about what we are doing, we just change how we describe it." Is that the gist? I think you have it a bit wrong though. I think our blows are more likely to be disabling to a fighter wearing a maille hauberk without a gambeson than in a gameson without maille.
That's the gist! Basically, fight and armor the same, but instead of pretending we are tanks we pretend we are a bit more vulnerable. You may also be right about maille without a gambeson being a weaker defense... let's test it!
During my first SCA training I got hit with 100% force by a two-handed sword wielded by an experienced figthter. The strike landed right on the thigh protected by only 1 layer of sleeping mat. It hurt like hell and the thigh was severely swollen the day after, but I don't think the effect of a one handed sword blow through only maille would be worse in real combat. Basically it just hurts really bad but does not disable you. A head strike against only maille would be completely different, though IMO.
The thing is that I don't think it makes sense to simulate only maille because only gambeson seems much more realistic. Correct me if I am wrong.
My intuition points the same way, though I'm all for testing it to find out!
I watched this all the way through. I felt that the statement of fighting is off a little bit. Yes we try to fight as if we were in real combat. However do to safety concerns fighting with a shield is off limits. That is in the effect that a shield is offensive and just defensive. I would like to see even a minor change in that point. Is is used in the other groups that you mentioned.
I fight mostly pole arm - shields are used against me offensively all of the time. I don't mind and understand the need to close quickly and put the shield in the way - I don't want to see edge punching but really don't care if I get flat bashed.
I'm with you on this, and that's another (though, to me, separate) issue I'd like to see resolved. If we can safely use a technique they could use in period, then we should be using it too. I believe shields can safely be used for offense, based on combat in the EMP, ACL, HMB, and others. However, in the effort to "get things done" in the conservative SCA I've decided to constrain this one suggestion down to one little area. There are lots of other things I'd like to grow as well.
so going on this then all sca heavy combat should be limited to at the latest is the late 13th Century so all the coat of plates brigs and plate armor is out ?
I'm afraid I don't quite understand your question, but I'll try to answer. This wouldn't change what armour people can actually wear nor how they look - it's just the standard for blow calling. This is ALREADY the case that we have a specific set of armor we call blows to. If anything, this proposal would WIDEN the times and locations that'd have appropriate armour of that standard.
I have been giving the SCA the benefit of the doubt and tell the reenactors I talk to, that perhaps SCA is plausible as Im sure Knights faught in tournamnets with clubs.
I didnt fully realize that you were trying to recreate actual combat. Im not sure sword slashes would do much against Mail and Iron. I suppose its possible if you hit hard enough?
Even with what I said, I am looking to get into the SCA. To be more realistic I thought it would be good to fight with a mace. I am considering sword but since swords cant slash through plate I would have to pretend I am at a tournament and while they both sound grand immersing myself into warfare seems more fun. Unless i can pretend a full armored man is only wearing a tunic or gambeson wich is possible.
I will SCA seems a lot more plausible then HMB and seems closer to acutal combat.
There's strong evidence of that, and our polearm combat is pretty reasonable as well. However, as a martial art I happen to think the SCA needs to keep updating to match with the safety and technology of the day - it's no longer the 70s.
@@AveryCloseCall Yea, Do you think knee and lower leg shots should be legal? I would think it would be more fun it they were but not critizing
@@BrandonHeadley5 I absolutely think we should allow full-body targetting. Plus get rid of knee fighting.
@@AveryCloseCall SCA is cool but knee fighting looks really really silly. Like something out of Monty Python. If you got a cut or a mace to the leg, you'd most likely be on the ground on the battlefield, trying to keep your shied up, but ultimately probably trying to not be crushed to death by both sides.
@@AveryCloseCall "I absolutely think we should allow full-body targeting" sounds an awful lot like "I don't think we're crippling people at nearly high enough rates".
I can see your points but I don't understand how changing the imaginary armor standard improves the combat.
If anything needs to change it is the format of the tourneys. One shot fights are so boring, not to mention a poor showcase of fighting skill. Anyone can get a lucky shot off, but 5 clean blows is another story.
Melee field battle is different as it would be impossible to count 5 blows for every combatant so the one and done is more appropriate for that situation.
FYI, there's nothing stopping anyone from hosting tournaments or practice with counted blows, in cooperation with local marshals.
What changing the standard could do for combat is shift the thinking from the activity being a sport with arbitrary rules, back into being a re-creative martial art. The distinction may seem subtle, but can express itself in myriad ways.
I haven't seen any results yet from SCA people here so I think we should also test with those G-force tags the Mythbusters used to use. Those are already used to simulate how hard a blow has to be to maim or kill a person.
Anybody know where to buy a boatload of them? I might not have a true gambeson. But we can for sure test it on various creative anachronistic armors.
That's a really neat idea, I haven't seen that. There's an MMA/boxing sensor for punching bags I was looking at though...
@@AveryCloseCall that would make sense too, I'd be tempted to say that to get a good sample size of both belted and regular fighters we should have dummies that go to the biggest tournaments. (Ie pensic, gulf wars, panhandle skirmishes)if we hooked up an accelerometer to the weapon, and at least one form of blow sensor we could take accurate fighter stats. From then it's a question of what kind of damage that average does to the different armor types
@@AveryCloseCall oh, and maybe we could host an a&s competition for armor... I know a few fighters that would enter a&s for armor
I like where you are going with this. if you make the rule change happen, I really think it needs to be accompanied with a "this is only a change in description" disclaimer.
I am a newer fighter, and despite that newness I have seen issues with a fighter coming from one of the real steel fight leagues with a drastically wrong calibration level. perhaps if said fighter had read a different description of our imaginary armor level, he wouldn't have rhino-hided his way into trouble.
WestCoastGio Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I honestly don't see any harm in an update, despite some folks feeling it'd be hard to do or accomplish little. Still, let's get it done!
Seem reasonable - it wouldn't change our praxis, just adjust our lexis to actually reflect it.
Excellently put, good sir.
Interesting...let us remember part of the fantasy is Real swords. We would need to experiment with that and it could be dangerous. Would need to start with too much and "work down"
Agreed! Also, we have too much now, so let's start working down!
I'm down for going in a backyard with a variety of test mannequins in different types of gear and seeing what takes what kinds of damage. I don't know where we'll get funding, though. Anybody know how to write a grant?
Thegnthrand and Skallagrim channels do some armor testings to give you an idea. Long story short: swords are not effective against proper armor. The calibration likely lands at the gambeson level like he said in the video.
@@InqWiper that's why war hammers, maces, and spikes to either hit Armour hard enough to dent it and break a bone or rattle someone's skull, punch through with a spike. Get them on the ground and finish them off with a dagger in a gap in the Armour.
I wish this were true but the reality is there are groups that set the hit level so high they drive prospective new people away as they put them in loaner armor and send them away bruised up.
Apologies, i think i ran multiple SCA clips together into one quick reply. To split them back out, trying to get new people into the fold was an issue with several fighter practices i visited while in Meridies as i watched potential fighters get nothing short of clobbered almost as if to teach a lesson which led to them politely saying thank you and excusing themselves to leave. In regards to the standards of "good blow" that is another area I completely agree is getting to be an issue as the more people pad the legal areas the more they say "I couldn't feel it so i didn't call it" and once you get the blows level ramped up you start to get injuries ( as in my case, nerve damage to my thigh , strange i know lol) and arguments.
My previous reply, accidentally deleted: "Not to call that into question, but I don't quite understand how to tie that back to what I'm suggesting. It seems sort of a separate concern to me. Are you saying that what is the minimum standard for a "good blow" isn't at all similar?"
My new reply: It is never, ever acceptable to go ham on a new fighter. It is all our responsibility to behave courteously and chivalrously. Now, if a new fighter simply hates being hit in the helm at a moderate power and quits, well then there's not much to be done for it. But in my opinion there's no excuse for a seasoned fighter hitting a new fighter at practice anywhere that really causes significant pain.
Personally, I am of two minds.
One, I would rather the stick tag. Getting knocked around and concussed for no reason sucks.
Second, I am actually in favor of Battle of Nations rules. If we're gonna fight, let's fight!
I can see both levels of rules having a place in the SCA.
The second part is fine except Battle of Nations don't fight - they do greco-roman wrestling in armor. I don't have to have any skill whatsoever with weapons to defeat you - I just have to knock you down or trip you. The weapons just appear to be there to add the chance of a concussion or serious injury to the mix.
Ironwolf Gaming you must be one of those fellows who haven’t watched it enough. There certainly is skill. And it’s most realistic than playing stick tag.
I personally would love HMB to get rid of the "ground is lava" rules.
If a person does not want bruised dont fight...
I agree 100% with all your data points but to me they don't point to your objective. This is as it was in 1989 when I joined. Even then most people knew the "armor standard" was just a curious cultural SCA thing and not a real guide to how to fight. One learns blow calibration by fighting and observing and getting feedback from other fighters... It will ALWAYS be that way. No change to the rule will ever change the process of learning to call blows or the way we all agree to play. So why bother? Any alternate rule you present will not actually "fix" anything if there is anything that needs fixing... Instead it would just begin a new learning process and a new round of arguments. A tiny fraction of people will still look at it and try to use it as a weapon to get their way, just as they always have. I say leave the rule there as an example of how a bunch of geeks writing rules isn't really a measure of what we do in the real world.
Thank you, Your Grace. As you know, I admire you and I'm grateful for all your wisdom and training. We talked a little elsewhere about this, but I think it boils down to this... Getting any such change done would be tough or even futile, but I'm an optimist and a rules guy so I still want to try for incremental improvement on this - though I don't have the power.
Okay, so you're saying that in SCA too, it doesn't matter at all what armor you wear, your always considered the same as lesser-armored soldiers/knights? Historically, that is wrong. Yes, people need to be safe, but what about armor grades or armor classes? For example: Light armor (make a definition) is 1-2 successful hits to "break" per part of a fighter's armor (shoulders, knees, arms, legs, head, etc). However, medium grade/class armor takes 2-3 successful hits to "break" through, and heavy grade/class armor takes 3-5 successful hits to "break". If I'm going to spend a great deal of currency on decently crafted metal armor, I'd expect that something like this to be implemented into the rules. Think about a Knight in heavy steel plate armor verses a soldier in light leather armor... regardless of experience and skill, who would have the armor advantage? The Knight, right? Experience and skills are different for every individual. But think about it... It's not likely that the soldier wearing light leather armor is going to survive a one-on-one sword duel with a heavily armored Knight. Back to the topic of money: if I'm going to spend much time and effort into wearing armor, the last thing I want is to be no more than anyone else in lesser or even greater armor than mine. It doesn't create emotion when you're faced with a more heavily armored foe than yourself (on the battlefield) if everyone is the same. I would prefer to have that same scenario, except that his armor IS better than mine and I have a choice to make (fight or flight)... It creates emotion, makes you think or question your ability to take him on or not.
That's a totally valid view, and some groups do that, at least some of the time (Example: the EMP). The SCA uses the same standard for all calibration for a few good reasons on the other side of the argument, but there's no "best" answer.
The SCA wants all fights to be as fair as possible given anybody can fight anybody with any approved style. Having an advantage for being wealthy (or simply having a late period persona) isn't considered egalitarian. Also, there are some concern that if I crank power way up to blast a guy in heavy plate, then hit some lightly armored person next then I may hit unnecessarily hard. That comes down to control, to be fair.
I do like to play in some special scenarios that count armor differently, but honestly my thesis here is that armor worked pretty dang good!
I have been in a tournament where that is exactly what we did. Armor counted. For instance if your helm was a full faced helm...thrusts didn't kill. Plate gave you three hits before becoming "too damaged to continue". Vital shots in the weak spots were good. There were a bunch of supplemental rules like that, and it was fun. However, it was SO MUCH to keep track of that it became very difficult for anyone to keep track after a few hours of this. It was great, just not sustainable.
why make it so wishy washy how about a device like fencers use.
Note long soapbox speech removed to avoid the ire at its context.
Jeff Childers Do you mean, like, a device that uses an authentic weapon on authentic armor?
nope I mean a device that would electronically "measure and score a blow".
I think that would lead to much lighter blows and honestly sounds cost prohibitive