| Author |
Messages |
|
Kristophe
Provost
Posts:82
 |
| 09/26/2006 8:26 AM |
 Alert
|
I'm curious what people think of the interaction of the rapier ruleset vs. the historical technique. Obviously there are certain actions/techniques which pose a safety concern and need to be limited - that is a non-issue. However. what other portions of the ruleset could be fundamentally altering the way the SCA recreates rapier.
Having recently returned from a WMA class we noted several disctinct differences in fight styles between the 'period' system and the SCA recreation. First and foremost was a difference in goals: the WMA class taught students to specifically target killzones such as the torso, head etc. While this is often discussed in the SCA, attendance at most practice nights will see people working very heavily to arm-snipe etc. Even at events such as the Coronet rapier tourney a great majority of bouts saw people getting limbed as a way of seeking advantage in the fight.
While there are documentable plates and text discussing attacks to the extremeties they are by far in the minority to outright kill strikes. This then lends itself to question WHY it's such a predominant part of SCA combat. In part it's likely the fact that it's an easier target, you can attack it without great risk to yourself etc. But I also think the rules give too much weighting to arm strikes by making you lose the limb in it's entirety.
It was interesting researching period plates and techniques pertaining to the use of the offhand. It was also interesting to note that you can't do half of them because a great majority of fighters won't commit to body/head shots while their opponent still has both limbs. It's hard to use an offhand parry if someone has spent the last 2 minutes sniping that hand until they finally got it.
I'm aware of the obvious responses: learn to block better, don't let them take the limbs, etc. My question is just whether our ruleset creates the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
Romeo13
Free Scholar
Posts:36
|
| 09/26/2006 9:10 AM |
Alert
|
Very interesting post...
And come to think on it a bit... I VERY seldom take someones hand, arm, or even leg... if I do its usually because my blade has been either parried into the extremity, or I just plain missed as they moved.... but thats more style and training from other things I would guess....
I think the SCA sit on yer butt when you take a leg thing is ludicrous, and does a diservice as well. It gives a tactical advantage to the one wounded, as he has less of an area to cover in defense, and the opponent is supposed to limit their movment as well... to be "honorable"...
In fact, I have gone so far as to recall leg hits on opponents, telling them to remain standing, especially when in reality it would have been a minor puncture wound... which while painful, would not have been crippling...
I was also recently having a talk with a couple of people about how the SCA rules have really changed available tactics....
Fabris and his high guardia starts to make MUCH more sense once you put cuts back in... and there are parries I learned fencing Saber which I never use in the SCA... and yet.... would need in a real fight.
Add in a lack of grappling, body checking, and leg work (kicks... sweeps...) and I don't think we have anything even close to how they actually fought.... |
|
|
|
|
Tora
Provost
Posts:105
|
| 09/26/2006 5:29 PM |
Alert
|
I think the SCA sit on yer butt when you take a leg thing is ludicrous, and does a diservice as well.
You cannot even begin to comprehend the level to which I agree with that statement.
Tora |
|
Tora
I'm the optimist who plans for when the pessimist is right. |
|
|
Tabby
Free Scholar
Posts:37
|
| 09/26/2006 6:00 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Tora on 09-26-2006 5:29 PM
I think the SCA sit on yer butt when you take a leg thing is ludicrous, and does a diservice as well.
You cannot even begin to comprehend the level to which I agree with that statement. Tora
Maybe he can't, but I sure can!
As someone who's had a wide variety of damage to the legs and feet, I tell you this truly: It is nearly always much easier to stand with at least one leg planted, than to kneel or sit on your bum, when you've just been injured. Like that 12th Night and Ursulmas two years ago, when I was fighting on a busted knee, because it was more comfortable than sitting and watching.... |
|
Lady Tabytha Morgan/Tanayle Haga
"There is no sin, except stupidity"
--Oscar Wilde |
|
|
Tabby
Free Scholar
Posts:37
|
| 09/26/2006 6:17 PM |
Alert
|
And for Kristophe: I think that the ruleset does encourage the situation, as well as group habit. People often think that taking limbs is easier, and in a way they're right, because many of us do not protect our limbs well, if at all. Why not? Because we're not taught to, or we get lazy, or whatever. Point being, when someone is uncertain of their ability to get in and go straight for a kill zone, they'll often try to pick apart their opponent.
Maybe they feel like it's less directly aggressive/confrontational, I know alot of people have issues with that. They love the fight, but have trouble committing to the kill.
Maybe they're afraid or ashamed of dying on the field, and they're using an allowed method to try to put the odds better in their favour.
Some have claimed to do it to make the bout last longer.
Some seem to do it because they're desparate to hit the first target they can, any target will do.
Some, I swear, seem to like the embarassment of a picked-apart opponent. That's not very nice, and only a personal feeling, so please don't try to make more of that comment on this forum, any of you.
I'm sure that many are like me, they're going for the torso and/or head, and just lack a bit of grace/measure/speed and catch the limbs on the way.
Regardless of the "why" of the matter, it's been allowed for so long that it's become a very deeply entrenched habit, one which I think pulls us further from the immediacy of a true duel or battle, and draws us back to the realm of abstractions. |
|
Lady Tabytha Morgan/Tanayle Haga
"There is no sin, except stupidity"
--Oscar Wilde |
|
|
MollyModine
Provost
Posts:135
|
| 09/26/2006 7:14 PM |
Alert
|
There is also the other option I have been hearing from a great many Dons. First blood.
There are some people out there who once they have been struck anywhere, yeild the round. I have tried this a couple of times in a real tourney, very hard to do as you have to rethink why you are there in the first place.
There is also the idea of leg shots as kills, I know of two Dons who fight this way. Because if I really did thrust into your thigh all the way, I'm sure you would not want to continue and so they yeild the round. Also another hard choice to make.
Anyhow I'm just tossing that idea out there, this seemed like a decent place to put it Kristophe. And hey it falls into the idea of don't get hit in the first place.  |
|
Molly Modine (GdS, Havoc)
Cadet to Monseignor Prospere de Montsegur
Thorn of the Sable Rose, Argent |
|
|
Kristophe
Provost
Posts:82
|
| 09/27/2006 8:40 AM |
Alert
|
Thanks for the reply all,
Molly: First blood is a neat concept but I think it defeats the purpose. Again, the easiest and safest target become the limbs because even the most minor wounds in that area results in a 'kill'. As long as the rules or TRP's give such weight to nonvital strikes the game is going to be unrealistic in my opinion.
I had heard about an interesting concept in which each person was assigned 3 ' life points'. Any strike to a vital area such as a head/torso would kill a person outright, but limb strikes would only count as 1 point (and you don't lose the use of the limb). After you lose all of your life points, you die. This of course diminishes the effectiveness of attacking limbs and would encourage body/head targetting in a more realistic period manner.
There are accounts of a modern sword duel at:
http://nadi.calpoly.edu/~fencing/video/cdImage/documentation/historical/nadi.html
What's interesting is that the wound count for the loser was 3 strikes to the arm (2 in nearly the same location) and 3 to the chest - at that point he surrendered and both lived.
Tabby: I agree with your assessment that it's been happening so long that it's now a prevalent situation. The question becomes whether there is any possibility (or desire) to re-assess the combat system with hopes of improving it. Every 2-3 years the R-ABC's get revised to include new armoring or slight modifications of the rules in the interest of safety. Maybe we should do the same in the interest of authenticity.
|
|
|
|
|
Guillemin
Provost
Posts:120
|
| 09/27/2006 9:38 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By Tabby on 09-26-2006 6:17 PM
Point being, when someone is uncertain of their ability to get in and go straight for a kill zone, they'll often try to pick apart their opponent.
Maybe they feel like it's less directly aggressive/confrontational, I know alot of people have issues with that. They love the fight, but have trouble committing to the kill.
Maybe they're afraid or ashamed of dying on the field, and they're using an allowed method to try to put the odds better in their favour.
Some have claimed to do it to make the bout last longer.
Some seem to do it because they're desparate to hit the first target they can, any target will do.
It's not that at all for me. I hit what's available, and I'm sure the people who taught this for a living in the 16th and 17th centuries did the same. If the opponents blade is an a position where I can control it and lunge for the torso, I will. If their guard is too low in third and not protecting their head, I'll try to get that in range without dying and go for it. I certainly prefer these over the alternative. However, if the "killing" avenues aren't available, and someone's closed a little too far, I'll take the hand above the guard or through the guard. Or if they lunge and I step back, I'll cut their hand on the way out. Whatever keeps me alive and the other guy not alive. I would contend that that's the most prevalent reason for attacking arms. They're closer to you, you don't have to extend as far (and endanger yourself as much) to get them, and they're frequently not guarded properly. As for leg shots, usually those reasons don't apply, as it's tough to not expose your face when you extend for them, but they're a different kettle, and I'm not gonna defend them.
As for the authenticity of losing legs or arms after being hit... for every article or fight account I see for a fight continuing despite minor injuries to the limbs, I'm sure there's another where only minor penetration of the blade severed something mucho importante and the fight ended right there. A person can certainly lose the use of leg or arm if the wrong nerve gets nipped by something sharp. So, while this may not be totally authentic, I'm sure there are situations where it would be. I think if we changed to a system that allowed shots to the limbs to count for naught, safety and fight control would suffer (opinion). Fighters would stride forward and catch lunges in the off-hand and use dangerous closing maneuvers that aren't practical if they cost you a limb. They would learn bad habits such as leaving arms exposed because they'll counter arm shots with offense to the torso. The effective range between fighters on most fights would decrease as both look for the torso, leading to harder shots on both ends.
As to the yielding the fight after taking any shot, it's a much better option, but it's just not my game. Kudos to those who do it, though.
|
|
Guillemin de Rouen
Cadet to Raoul Delaroche
Rapier Champion of Avacal |
|
|
Marten
Scholar
Posts:15
|
| 09/27/2006 10:23 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By Kristophe on 09-27-2006 8:40 AM
There are accounts of a modern sword duel at:
http://nadi.calpoly.edu/~fencing/video/cdImage/documentation/historical/nadi.html
What's interesting is that the wound count for the loser was 3 strikes to the arm (2 in nearly the same location) and 3 to the chest - at that point he surrendered and both lived.
I remember Maestro Nadi telling his students, including me, about this episode. He felt that fencing and dueling were 2 entirely different manifestations of sword play, with entirely different mindsets. We cannot capture the mindset of a duelist with the current restrictions on our game - viz, wearing a mask, blunted weapons, etc.
Nathan Bedford Forrest famously is quoted as saying, "War is fighting, and fighting is killing." The very nature of killing moves us to a series of neurological-endocrine responses that we cannot reproduce with the use of protective equipment.
I like to think what we do, either with the WMA or the JSA, and real sharp sword stuff, is the difference between playing paint ball and patroling Baghdad with the 101st Air Borne.
|
|
Marten Claeszen van Rosenveldt
Cadet to Maître Guillaume dela Rapiére |
|
|
Kristophe
Provost
Posts:82
|
| 09/27/2006 10:56 AM |
Alert
|
Guillemin:
"reason for attacking arms. They're closer to you, you don't have to
extend as far (and endanger yourself as much) to get them, and they're
frequently not guarded properly."
Granted, this is the reason most SCA fencers attack these areas - but I suspect (and could very well be dead wrong) that it was not so common in period. Firstly, the plates don't really portray frequent hand/arm attacks, nor is there any extensive textual documentation to support it. While it could be a case of the books only wanting to show the 'money' shots I suspect it's because of more subtle failings of our collective technique.
Some additional differences we noted. These are broad generalizations and obviously don't apply to more skilled SCA fighters. Similarly, perhaps not all WMA schools operate under the same concepts as those I'm mentioning here - it was only one class.
1. Many SCA fencers look for openings to attack, preferably with minimal risk. As such extended hands etc. are prime targets. Skilled WMA fighters distrust readily apparent openings because they could be invitations - as such they prefer to MAKE openings and exploit those. More specifically, they will stringere your blade to which you will respond in some manner. They will use the tempo of your response to gain measure and proceed to exploit positional, tempo or blade advantage to control the fight and seek killing blows. At this point they are into Misura Stretta and have no need to work on arm/hand hits.
2. Many SCA fighters use 'Hail Mary' types of attacks. Often, these attacks may be successful but are done in a manner which left the attackers body completely unguarded - hence the term Hail Mary because it is only through divine grace that you are not slain. WMA practicioners dislike attacking before they control the opponents weapon for safety reasons - hence again the use of blade domination etc.
3. Many SCA fighters drift between Misura Larga and Misura Stretta. They will come in, do a brief exchange and then retreat out. When I asked about this the WMA instructor said "Why on earth would I risk my life to gain measure only to give it up again without good reason."
So, to boil it down: I would suspect that in period there was little need to do arm/hand sniping etc. because the fight system ran differently. You would close, seek blade domination, execute various technique exchanges until someone obtains a dominant position and lands a killing or disabling stroke.
Responding to your comment regarding the real life effects of injuries - without a doubt there is variation in their severity. The Coup de Jarnac being a primary period example of a single limb attack ending a duel. Still, declaring the complete and total loss of a limb every single time is perhaps a bit excessive in it's severity.
|
|
|
|
|
warwick
Provost
Posts:125
|
| 09/27/2006 7:44 PM |
Alert
|
This topic came up when taking Leoni's class this year. He claims (and I hope I get this right) that Fabris didn't consider the arms a valid target because thrusting into one wouldn't stop your opponent from pushing his own sword though a kill zone.
|
|
|
|
|
Samauel
Free Scholar
Posts:58
|
| 09/27/2006 11:31 PM |
Alert
|
Warwrick,
I agree. I have not seen any period documentation that tells the fighter to pick an arm target as a primary, and if you look at the guards from period blades, for the most part they in no way protect the hand against thrusts. This leads me to belive they didn't have to. The swept hilt for the most part is good against cuts. It wasn't until the thrust became pretty much the only attack that the hand needed more protection. There are a few stop thrusts in period but they also have a stance that moves the body out of the way when the shot is executed (not common in SCA fighting).
A cut as a secondary intent is fine by me, and I think probably used if needed in period. From my Saviolo reading, he did a whole lot of cuts, but they were pretty much aimed for the most part. Not like a hail mary kind of way, wich means that the cut can be deliberate and done in such a manner that it does not leave the fighter open. The rule he had pretty much was that you cut if you miss your thrust, or if you move out of distance, just to get something. |
|
|
|
|
Lothaire
Novice
Posts:5
|
| 09/28/2006 10:30 AM |
Alert
|
Saviolo also talks about only the most experienced of Fencer should be messing with the cuts . . . as the tempo and timing of such an attack has to be keenly acknowledged and executed. You need to know exaclty when a cut would and should be used within your opponants time. Otherwise you just get stabbed and fall down dead.
The ruleset may garner this "take the limb" mindset . . . but how about altering tourney rules to try and counter this? Not having much experience with tourney rules . . . I leave it to others to try out the concept. But as the newest ABC's are about to be finialised . . . we may need an interm fix (if the majority agree this needs changing) until there are more solid rules put into place.
Lothaire |
|
|
|
|
Lessingham
Provost
Posts:121
|
| 09/28/2006 12:22 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Lothaire on 09-28-2006 10:30 AM
Saviolo also talks about only the most experienced of Fencer should be messing with the cuts . . . as the tempo and timing of such an attack has to be keenly acknowledged and executed. You need to know exaclty when a cut would and should be used within your opponants time. Otherwise you just get stabbed and fall down dead.
Lothaire Ummm.... the third, fifth and 6th actions in Saviolo's first play from the extended ward are all cuts. This is the first section of practical instruction. He immediately follows it by telling the instructor that now you should show your student the many ways to cut and the proper times to do so. Cutting is one of Saviolo's basic techniques. This is basicly a late sidesword system. Saviolo cuts alot.
|
|
"The Will is the captain general of our army and our fortress."
1587 F. Ghisliero pg. 108 |
|
|
Blayde
Free Scholar
Posts:56
|
| 09/28/2006 5:21 PM |
Alert
|
At my school/practice, we don't spend much time taking arm/handshots, because we all fight refused. It's much harder to do so. I have a feeling the SCA rules made that particular style more rewarding than it would be under WMA rules. So, what I'd say is ruleset definitely changes the style of play to a degree.
But, even when we are fighting people outside our school and they are much more snipe-able (is that a word), I don't encourage spending much time on the hand as a real target. I teach my students to use the hand to setup the kill shot. As soon as your opponent is focusing on keeping the hand alive, that's when you go for the kill. If you happen to hit the hand in the process, just use the same setup for the other hand. |
|
|
|
|
Alvarro
Too many posts...
Posts:301
|
| 09/28/2006 5:49 PM |
Alert
|
| The SCA rules haven't done a thing to damage authenticity. Each person makes a choice about how they want to fight, and how realistic they want it to be. NO amount of rules can change that...it's an attitude thing. You can either work on developing effective martial arts skill with a sword, or you can work on trying to be the big dog. The two games *do* clash, but the only thing you can really control in life is how you feel about things. Shrug and move along. |
|
Prudence. Temperance. Fortitude. Justice. |
|
|
Guillemin
Provost
Posts:120
|
| 09/28/2006 9:55 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Alvarro on 09-28-2006 5:49 PM The SCA rules haven't done a thing to damage authenticity. Each person makes a choice about how they want to fight, and how realistic they want it to be. NO amount of rules can change that...it's an attitude thing. You can either work on developing effective martial arts skill with a sword, or you can work on trying to be the big dog. The two games *do* clash, but the only thing you can really control in life is how you feel about things. Shrug and move along.
Yeah. Even if it's a given that hand shots and the like are damaging to authenticity (of which I'm not yet convinced ), there's little to be found in the SCA rules that promote sniping over much more solid offensive technique (imho). If I were to single something out in the SCA that leads to these types of attacks, it would be mindset and not the rules. Course, mindset is different for each and every person who picks up a blade, and the system as a whole (ie. SCA fencing, whatever that is) can hardly be blamed.
As to your comment about developing effective martial arts and being the big dog... Assuming being the big dog means winning lots, isn't the goal to do both? One definitely shouldn't preclude the other, or I must have really missed something. |
|
Guillemin de Rouen
Cadet to Raoul Delaroche
Rapier Champion of Avacal |
|
|
Romeo13
Free Scholar
Posts:36
|
| 09/28/2006 10:18 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Alvarro on 09-28-2006 5:49 PM The SCA rules haven't done a thing to damage authenticity. Each person makes a choice about how they want to fight, and how realistic they want it to be. NO amount of rules can change that...it's an attitude thing. You can either work on developing effective martial arts skill with a sword, or you can work on trying to be the big dog. The two games *do* clash, but the only thing you can really control in life is how you feel about things. Shrug and move along.
I would agree right up until you run into the "even a reseasonbly stout hit is tooo hard.... whine" school.....
From this forum you have much less of this problem in your kingdom, but as a traveling fighter it gets old.... |
|
|
|
|
Alvarro
Too many posts...
Posts:301
|
| 09/28/2006 10:33 PM |
Alert
|
Guillemin,
You can *win* with martially ineffective technique. Counting coup, if you want to be polite. I've lost lots of fights that I would *happily* redo with sharps, because I would walk away and the other person wouldn't...eh, scratch that, that's a bit of a wussy response. The game in the SCA *is* to win, whether you like it or not. The real difference is reflected in your long term approach to fighting. Do you feel like you need to win to feel good about yourself? That's the "top dog" approach.
Attacking the hands is very period. See Capo Ferro and Marozzo, or out of period but very revealing: http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/images/Starzewski.jpg or http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/zablocki_abstract.htm
The sweeps on the rapier are more designed to protect your hand on the attack than they are against a cut. The forte protects you against thrust, not the guard.
Blayde, with the solid majority of fighters up here fighting refuse, some of us are pretty good at sniping the dagger hand past sail guards. Usually a seconda fully extended with a little "pop" of the wrist up (or to the side) at the end of the motion, aiming of course for the forearm not the fingers, being careful all the time to void back or dagger parry the inevitable sword follow up. And yeah, like you say, even if they avoid it, sweet setup for a kill, or kill in the same motion.
Uhm...I mean...sniping sucks. Yeah.
OK, seriously, one comment on hand sniping. People that obsess over landing every shot as a finger, toe, or tip of knee snipe at full extension? Boring. Don't want to watch them make five million attempts until a successful one lands, aand then repeat like a timid sewing machine. Boring. Fight, don't play tag. Grunt. Arg. Grrr. |
|
Prudence. Temperance. Fortitude. Justice. |
|
|
Alvarro
Too many posts...
Posts:301
|
| 09/28/2006 10:46 PM |
Alert
|
Yeah... it does get old. But, you don't have to play with people who whine. I don't. It makes them happy, I'm sure... And me. More time to spend with the good fighters, eh?
|
|
Prudence. Temperance. Fortitude. Justice. |
|
|
|