I started doing SCA heavy weapons combat about a year ago. One of the reasons I was so impressed with TROS was the real research that they did into actual historic fighting - and how similar their game mechanics were to what I do every wednesday night.
I'm not that much of a historian, and there's another thread discussing this from a research perspective. I'm curious if there are any other people who actually fight who can comment on their likes and dislikes of the game mechanics according to their actual fighting experience.
I'd be especially interested in talking to someone trained in Eastern sword styles who plays TROS - because I'm trying to adapt a katana style for my own game.
My instructor is teaching us about the German School of Fence. (name dropping time) Lichtenauer, Talhoffer, Lekeuchner, I.33 and so on with all the neeto Italian stuff thrown in to make it interesting, like Liberi.
Quote from: SalamanderMy instructor is teaching us about the German School of Fence. (name dropping time) Lichtenauer, Talhoffer, Lekeuchner, I.33 and so on with all the neeto Italian stuff thrown in to make it interesting, like Liberi.
Dude, that's awesome. It's a different game that what I do. I fight mostly with broadswords and weapons a centruy or more earlier than what you describe. However, that's cool because you're going to have a perspective that I don't - which is what I was looking for when I started this thread.
So please enlighten me with your experience! How do you compare the TROS mechanics with you own fighting expereince?
Fellow SCAdian here. I fight two-handed bastard sword, though of course this weapon is most accurately a hand-and-a-half sword.
And yes, there are quite a few actual swordsmen on this forum. Jake Norwood not only researched western european martial arts, but he is a licensed practitioner in the ARMA.
You may notice a slight amount of condescension toward the SCA's style, in general, as what we do is more of a sport than a martial art. It is deserved, however, so please do not take offense. As what we do has an entirely different focus from serious martial arts organizations such as the ARMA, the general organization lacks much of the technique practiced in the middle ages. I know, however, that individual practitioners within the SCA take things much more seriously, so it would be unfair to say that the SCA lacks serious martial artists, and Jake is always quick to acknowledge this.
As for the focus, most of the swordsmen here are of a western style, but I believe we've a couple who are in kenjutsu, kendo and/or similar styles. Go hit up the thread about real-world swordsmanship and TRoS for some interesting discussion.
Hi Zeke,
No katanas here, but I study a rather obscure art known as pentjak silat. It moves nothing like kenjitsu or japanese arts, but may be of interest to you anyway.
1)Weapons range from knives to a one-handed 3 foot blade(pendang)
2) The pedang is 1 edged, dull side is a heavy spine for parrying and bracing your arm, hand or shoulder against to support a strike
3) At distance, tip is kept pointed towards foe, moving as a distraction/threat
4) At close, the blade is almost always kept directly against the body or arm to support strikes and allow swordfighting at incredibly close ranges
5) 2 types of cuts are used: snappy chops(supported and "flung" off the arm, shoulder or body) and long drawing cuts across the enemy("washing the body")
6) Primary targets are the weapon arm and legs for a disable before finishing
7) Unlike the kendo I've seen, silat is about getting in, and cutting, cutting, and keep cutting until you're sure your opponent isn't a threat(or one of his buddies becomes a more immediate threat).
Chris
I have heard that many people do look down on the SCA, but I think that they have the rules they do in order to meet the goal of the SCA, to have fun whilst beating on your fellow man. That way after the fight, you can still go have beer with buddy afterwards...
Granted that's not my thing, but I'm not gonna knock somebody cause they have fun doing it.
Quote from: zeke023
Dude, that's awesome. It's a different game that what I do. I fight mostly with broadswords and weapons a centruy or more earlier than what you describe. However, that's cool because you're going to have a perspective that I don't - which is what I was looking for when I started this thread.
So please enlighten me with your experience! How do you compare the TROS mechanics with you own fighting expereince?
I actually have to admit that it was the game that turned me on to the Sword Academy. Jake and I both learn roughly the same schools but he can seriously kick my ass, from what I can tell (for now). A few others here can as well I bet.
From what I can tell, Jake did a real good job with the game. I have found it really helps me to have an idea of what is really going on in a fight. It allows one to use the tactics and tricks learned in Fecht Schule and apply them in novel and evil ways during play. I am expecting my wife will clean up once she gets familiar with the rules of TRoS. She comes to fence with me as well. She can be downright viscious when she gets into it. Milan just stands back and laughs when she starts to bounce from foot to foot...
I've done quite a bit of kali, which is a martial art from the southern Philipinnes. Started with stick, then moved onto double stick, stick and dagger, then learned how to use those techniques with swords, knives and chains. Footwork is kind of like renaissance fencing, and the terminology used for techniques is a pastiche of the local tongue, and old Spanish and Italian terms. It is also very, very loosely related to pentdjak silat, and in fact the full name is kali silat.
Anyway, with weapons longer than knives it is predominantly a slashing style. So you have tons of different cuts coming from different angles. Control of these angles and cross-relating them with the footwork is key in kali (well, it is key in other styles as well). Empty handed techniques are considered the advanced stuff, since in the Philipinnes everyone used to carry something.
These days it is pretty popular, but I remember the good, old days when it wasn't. Nothing was more fun than having a kendoka get embarressed because you knew how to step off the line and punish him in the process. Or showing an aikidoka a thing or too about redirection. Ahhh.... reckless youth!
The name 'kali' comes from a bastardization of the word 'kris', which is that wavy bladed sword weapon you sometimes see.
Kali has some interesting historical notes to it:
The famed explorer, Magellan, was killed by Lapu Lapu, a chieftain and swordsman who led the defense of the coastland against the rather bloodthirsty spaniards. Or at least that is how the Filipinos will tell it to you. Lapu Lapu is regarded by most Filipinos as being the real national hero of the land.
When the Spaniards invaded the Philipinne islands, areas under their domination had restricted weapons laws punishable by death. So the Filipinos went to batons, or sticks. Some of them are nicely heavy and would smash through Spanish armor just like a mass weapon is supposed to do. Which was good, because Filipinne steel sucked, in fact, quality swords sold by Arab traders were prized. Sadly, my favorite practice weapon, a 'heavy stick' shaped like a sword broke a couple of years ago.
Anyway, while in kali there are technically no forms, you do have sinulog, which are martial dances in which warriors hid their fighting moves. Sort of like the Okinawans, but much better documented and preserved.
Moroland was never quite conquered by the Spaniards. It took the Americans to do that, and they needed to get better guns to do it!
Kalista and other eskrimadors fought against the Japanese in WWII. They trained with and fought with Americans in the jungles and cities. The Americans tried to teach the Filipinos the bayonet, but they insisted on their heavy slashing blades. In any case, the Alamo Scouts and company only had good things to say about their Filipino mates, and reunions between Filipino and American vets of the war occur every year.
I've seen pictures of real bloody stick fighting matches taken in the 1970s in Hawaii and California. These have been replaced by the efforts of the notable Dog Brothers. If I had a budget and time and a wish, I would do a John Clements seminar for a week, then go get my ass beat by the Dog Brothers the next week.
Kali, Arnis, and Escrima are pretty much names for the same family of fighting styles, and explaning the differences always sounds silly when you try and explain it to others. There are tons of family styles in these martial arts, and the differences between styles are huge. Two general constants is that training starts with a stick or two, and empty-hand techniques are considered the advanced stuff.
I like the stuff because it has roots in both the East and the West.
Ooh! Ooh! ME memememememe! I'm a swordsman. And a ninja. Ninja's are awesome....
Seriously, though, part of why I'm so scarce lately is I'm training for my Prize-playing for the rank of Senior Free Scholar (it's a big deal), which is going down this coming weekend in New York. Wish me luck.
Jake
Quote from: Jake NorwoodOoh! Ooh! ME memememememe! I'm a swordsman. And a ninja. Ninja's are awesome....
Seriously, though, part of why I'm so scarce lately is I'm training for my Prize-playing for the rank of Senior Free Scholar (it's a big deal), which is going down this coming weekend in New York. Wish me luck.
Jake
.... I did already... I also told Milan to say "hi" in his special way...
;)
I personally am rather fond of the Chicago-land style martial art, first practiced on the south side circa 1920.
It usually begins with an introductionary "hey youze guyz...reach for the sky"
And typically ends with the "rata-tat-tat" finishing move of a drum full of .45 rounds.
Lead trumps steel 9 times in 10 ;-)
Quote from: ValamirI personally am rather fond of the Chicago-land style martial art, first practiced on the south side circa 1920.
It usually begins with an introductionary "hey youze guyz...reach for the sky"
And typically ends with the "rata-tat-tat" finishing move of a drum full of .45 rounds.
Lead trumps steel 9 times in 10 ;-)
*groan*
Yeah, did that already... I've used the stuff ten years back you are just now seeing in the movies. And lead trumps steal 0 times out of ten. Tactical ops are a smart man's game, why do you think the Average Spec-Ops guy has a 130 IQ? It's not the weapon, it how it's used.
Here's a link to a game more along the lines of that idea. It's called Millenium's End. I believe Darth Tang uses the missile weapons rules from there and the melee rules from here in his Fading Suns campaign.
//www.millenniumsend.com
Of course you're right. After all we did just invade Iraq with an army of swordsmen. And I did recently hear that the NYPD was planning on replacing officer's service automatics with rapiers except that they were in a big debate with the cut and thrust guys over which was more effective.
My comment was meant as a bit of humor, but you might want to consider that your average spec ops guy *IS* the 1 time in ten exception rather than the rule.
Valamir,
Now those are reflexes.
I was editing to add some info for you on the end, but did not change the body of the text.
Sorry, I did not take the humour aspect of it. A lot of people have been making fun of my martial art recently and having been one of the guys who has used firearms, ALOT, I begged to differ. As for that charming little comment, I feel that this board is not the time, nor is it the place.
Hi guys,
Sigh...even though this is a friendly miscommunication, it also points directly to the general problem with discussing combat. Folks can talk about what works, over and over, but until it sees (bloody) usage, one never knows for sure.
This has cropped up more than a few times in various ROS threads, usually either in the East vs. West stuff or the "What really works" kind of stuff. Sadly enough, most of it becomes a big ego pissing contest about my theorhetical fighting is better than your theorhetical fighting, which, of course, can only be proved in action.
What might be of more use to explore, would be to look at what methodology each particular school or style uses to determine "what is combat effective", in this day and age, considering that most of these weapons are no longer a mainstay of warfare.
For instance, I'm aware that many of the ARMA type folks are using traditional manuals and lots of sparring, but I'm not aware of the details or much else. For myself, my particular style comes from a screwed up 3rd world country where most people just have knives and machetes and use them on each other far too frequently, so I'm taking as a matter of faith the "effectiveness" of such methods. I'm interested to see what criteria folks are using here.
Chris
Quote from: SalamanderI have heard that many people do look down on the SCA, but I think that they have the rules they do in order to meet the goal of the SCA, to have fun whilst beating on your fellow man. That way after the fight, you can still go have beer with buddy afterwards...
Well - it's full force/ full contact melee combat. There are a few rules made just to maintain a modicum of safety. You can't fight with live steel at full speed and full contact unless you're staging the fight. It's just not safe - especially on a battlefield with 3000 other soldiers such as what happens every year at Pennsic War. Even with the rattan swords we use, a lot of thought goes into maintaining the safety of the fighters.
so yeah - it's to have good, hard, safe fun. However, I would also argue that this demands a considerable amount of discipline. Most of the good fighters I know have at least one black belt in another art.
I would accept arguments about it being somewhat non-historic (it is influenced by all other martial arts that are brought to it by the fighters)- but this is a martial art which is tested on the list field and on the battle field every week all over the world. I took Kempo, Jeet Kun Do, and Kung-fu for (all added up) over eight years - and nothing prepared me for battle like linking up in a rank of 2000 soldiers and stratigicly moving at an enemny line.
Quote from: BankueiHi guys,
Sigh...even though this is a friendly miscommunication, it also points directly to the general problem with discussing combat. Folks can talk about what works, over and over, but until it sees (bloody) usage, one never knows for sure.
Yes, discussing combat can be a rough thing on everybody. Even as a soldiers we have been the pawns of many theorists. Sadly it only gets sorted out through the spilt blood of soldiers.
Quote
This has cropped up more than a few times in various ROS threads, usually either in the East vs. West stuff or the "What really works" kind of stuff. Sadly enough, most of it becomes a big ego pissing contest about my theorhetical fighting is better than your theorhetical fighting, which, of course, can only be proved in action.
A double bonus, colourful language and a valid point!
Quote
What might be of more use to explore, would be to look at what methodology each particular school or style uses to determine "what is combat effective", in this day and age, considering that most of these weapons are no longer a mainstay of warfare.
Yes, but those who really know are not willing to share. With good reason too.
Quote
For instance, I'm aware that many of the ARMA type folks are using traditional manuals and lots of sparring, but I'm not aware of the details or much else. For myself, my particular style comes from a screwed up 3rd world country where most people just have knives and machetes and use them on each other far too frequently, so I'm taking as a matter of faith the "effectiveness" of such methods. I'm interested to see what criteria folks are using here.
Chris
ARMA seems to take the particular books, studies them and tries to put them into practice. If it works well, great! If it does not work well then its back to the books to figure out how it works.
As for Valamir and I, I feel we are intelligent and mature enough to deal with this in an appropriate manner (Glove goes down... Whiskey and cohibas at dawn Sirrah!). But thank you for your erudite response, it is always good to know more...
Let's either get back to answering the question--"How do you compare the TROS mechanics with you own fighting expereince?" or close the thread.
Jake
Okay...
Well, kali stick fighting is usually done with very light sticks, and goes very fast. You basically run into the other person and wack them fast and hard. Not much finesse and people often ignore defense. Disarms happen periodically. Once you get into footwork and classic strikes and learn to use them, you can start to feel some of the flow of what a swordfight could feel like. Think Steve Jackson's Brawl. It's fun, but doesn't prepare you for much besides getting hit by sticks.
But things change dramatically when you ramp up the weight of the rattan. The hits actually hurt, and the super-quick splatter of strikes with lighter weapons changes into careful strategy. Footwork becomes more critical, and controlling the fight's distance becomes its own art. The classic kali moves you disdain with the lighter weapons suddenly become awesome techniques that allow you to score a solid hit on your opponent while they miss. And people tend to back off and try and defend once they take a hit or two to the hands, even through hockey gloves.
The one time I played with SCA folks 14 years ago I found my classic kali techniques allowed me to dominate the field. I felt unstoppable and beat the stuffing out of many, until a spearman nailed me in the head and I fell onto a rock that popped a rib. I remembered missing that deflection and realizing I executed it wrong a split-second before he nailed me. Until I took that hit, it was probably my best day ever. Ahhh... youth.
TRoS gets that feel across to me, that feel you get when you use heavier rattan. The classical moves have meaning, and are backed up with natural talent and a bit of luck. You get a feeling of flow and control of the initiative. Evasive attacks, counters, beats, and double attacks come alive. This is why I like TRoS.
What TRoS doesn't cover is the world of footwork. Terrain rolls do so abstractly, but that doesn't accomodate the differences between linear and non-linear movement. The lunge, or advante in kali, is not covered either, although one could argue that it is done so abstractly by the commitment of more dice.
But such detail isn't necessary. Adding in footwork rules would bog the game in complexity. Determining the angle of the strike would slow the game to a crawl. Figuring out if people have a good day or not is adequately covered by the luck of the dice.
What is important is the sense of flow, control of the initiative, the desperate clunk of having a strong hit take the fight out of you.
Having sport fenced and studied some of the heavier weapons, as well as rapier, I have to say that TRoS captures the feel of actual combat rather well.
I think my favorite idea is that initiative can be preempted. Two people attacking at exactly the same time that no game that I can think of before this ever handled well. Why? It is a staple in a lot of early rapier (and even modern sport fencing), jockeying for adventure before diving at the opponent. Just the fact that Jake included the skill Read Body Language made me happy in that most good fencers/fighters do this to one degree or another, be it an attempt to determine when an attack is coming to trying to figure out where exactly an opponent is going to go during an attack.
I'm not going to pretend that I know what it feels like to take a level four wound to the head, and I hope I never get to, but I think it's fair to say that just about everyone has hurt themselves at some point, and you just don't move as well as when you are at 100% effectiveness. None of this, you were just hit in the head for 12 points of damage but can still fight fine. Bah.
Quote from: AshtonNone of this, you were just hit in the head for 12 points of damage but can still fight fine. Bah.
Agreed.
I really felt that the "facing off" part of a duel (which can often be longer than the actual fight!) was captured in TROS. When I'm on the list field against an opponent, a good deal time is spent moving around eachother and trying to control the movement of the fight - which is immediately followed by a hail of fast and furious blows and if none land properly one person will pull back to facing off again to try to get a better position.
This system covers that nicely, and gives the player the feel of a real duel.
The only thing that I use a lot in fighting that I don't see a lot of here is offensive shield work. Although there is one maneuver in Sword and Shield that uses it somewhat. I'm not sure how historic offensive shield work is though - Can anyone speak to this?
Quote from: zeke023Quote from: AshtonNone of this, you were just hit in the head for 12 points of damage but can still fight fine. Bah.
Agreed.
I really felt that the "facing off" part of a duel (which can often be longer than the actual fight!) was captured in TROS. When I'm on the list field against an opponent, a good deal time is spent moving around eachother and trying to control the movement of the fight - which is immediately followed by a hail of fast and furious blows and if none land properly one person will pull back to facing off again to try to get a better position.
This system covers that nicely, and gives the player the feel of a real duel.
I have found that during dry runs the people I was going to Seneschal for were pretty eager to resolve the situation as quickly as possible, while they did try to use movement to get close in, the weaker fighters were using cover and trying to restrict the movement of the other, more able swordsman. This has led me to believe that the very mechanincs of the game itself forces people to think more like a real swordsman and less like an abstract gamer. It was quite interesting to see the players thinking about what they should be doing and how fast they could run, how fast the other guy could run and how far each could go etc.
Quote
The only thing that I use a lot in fighting that I don't see a lot of here is offensive shield work. Although there is one maneuver in Sword and Shield that uses it somewhat. I'm not sure how historic offensive shield work is though - Can anyone speak to this?
I think that offensive shield work is covered somewhere here in another thread.
If I can recall, the suggestion was that you can use a shield to bash an opponent with either the edge for Str+1 or the flat for Str-1. I am sure there are other maneouvers to be done, but I am not going to be training in Sword and Shield (buckler) until after rapier. Does any one have any ideas? I would love to hear them.
As far as offensive shield work goes, I understand the tendancy was to keep the shield defensive and the other weapon offensive, but that if the opportunity presented itself, why not bust the other guy's chops with a shield edge to the head, or a flat in the face etc. I am not aware of historic examples chronicled of offensive shield use, but I think a few people on this thread may know whether such examples exist.
Jake? Valamir? Anybody? You know of any examples?
From what I've seen (which is admittedly less than your year's fighting) using a shield offensively against an equal opponent, or in a melee is an effective battle tactic, but a good way to get wounded or killed. In the SCA, where winning is more important than not getting hit, this is okay. Getting hit only "wounds" you for the duration of that battle, and death lasts about as long. In real life, it's your own life you're playing with. You get hit, even minorly, and you could die, permanently. If not, you still might end up a life-long cripple. These things do not encourage brash action, and sacrificing oneself for the victory was probably not a widespread thing, whereas in SCA combat, if you die, but you successfully "break the shieldwall" then you get kudos, not mourning.
Mind you, this is just my take on why you don't see a lot of historical examples of offensive shield work. I could be wrong, but I've a feeling I've hit fairly close to the mark.
I'm sure Jake will chime in with more details before long. But over several conversations with him just this past weekend he pointed out several times that the manuscripts all treat a shield like a weapon and not like armor.
I was already aware of the concept that the masters strongly discouraged any sort of "block" with a weapon where the enemy weapon is stopped by imposing your own. Nor do you ever wait to recieve the enemy strike, you actively move to intercept it. All parrys are deflections where the enemy weapon is allowed to continue harmlessly on while your own weapon continues on to the target.
What I didn't know and which is germain to this question, is that the same concept applies to shields and the shield edge was routinely used as a weapon.
In fact Jake demonstrated a buckler technique (I can't recall who from) where the buckler actually followed the sword, tracking along side the sword hilt very actively rather than being used to reactively block with.
Let's see I have a three to five pound object that might be metal with a flat edge in my hand and I'm not going to hit my opponent with it?
If it puts me in a situation where I am no longer guarded, than no, I'm not. But if I end up in a situation where bringing the edge across my body hard into my opponents arm is entirely feasible, than why not? Shield work is a lot more than just interposing the shield in between you and an opponent's weapon.
This thread http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=5642&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight= has the topic partially covered on shield bashes. I would not be surprised if more digging brought additional info. I would think at a certain point people on the field of battle came to a point where they were not sticking straight to training, but were improvising a bit as well. You almost have to in WMA which is why there are no katas. Oh sure, some techniques work better against other attacks or defenses, but there is not always a set "if you see this attack, then you have to do this". Maybe my particular training is influencing my bias, but there you go.
I did not mean to imply that shield-bashes and such were not used. Of course they were. But I don't think that many styles which incorporated a shield would put a great deal of emphasis on them, as they'd likely be entirely attacks of opportunity. If you have the ability to strike with your shield without opening yourself up, you do it. But as for technique, I would think that most technique would involve hitting your opponent with the weapon which is designed for the purpose; ie, a sword, axe, mace, etc.
[quote="Salamander]
I think that offensive shield work is covered somewhere here in another thread.
[/quote]
I was speaking more of offensive shield work such as when I take the tip of my shield and push in the bottom of your heater shield. This tables your shield and gives me just enough time to hit you in the head. I belive that this one is covered (I have to start writing these from home where my book is, rather than here at work).
There are ways to completely control your opponent's shield with your own rendering it mostly useless. This involves a lot of close movement and can open yourself to attack if not done well and quickly.
however, the more and more I think about this... the more I think that the game mechanics in place take care of this in a simple manner. I think that anything more complex would involve specific shield types (heaters, round, kite, etc) and would really bog down play.
-Z
Okay, yeah. Sounds like you're talking bind-and-strike type of stuff there. I don't believe it specifically says that you can choose to bind an opponent's shield, but as a shield is considered weapon, it's valid to do. I believe I once suggested that it could be a good tandem maneuver (when fighting with a partner) for one person to bind their shield, leaving them open to the other person's attack.
Hello I am involved with live steel combat, a small Canadian group that travels all over Ontario . Our fighting "styles" have little historical training, but I have noticed recently that some basics seem to translate from most martial arts. (Footwork,stances, basic attack and defence routines etc). Our original training was SCA based.
The SCA was the reason why our group got started, several years ago(1994 to be exact) we hired the local SCA chapter to perform a tourney at a local Medieval festival. They backed out at the last minute leaving the event organizers high and dry. Instead of just cancelling the entertainment the organizers figured we could do this our selves, out came the hockey gloves,padded boffer weapons,crude helmets and so on.
For several years we did local events mostly Highland games,fairs and street festivals. Anyways to make a long story short as the years past our costumes improved, real armour was added and eventualy live steel weapons.Our bouts are full contact timed combats that last approx. 2 to 3 minutes using a point system(person with most points wins). We use a variety of swords(long,short,Bastard and Great ),hand axes,flails(wooden ball),daggers etc. Fighters are restricted to basic sword and shield for the first few months(depending on skill level) and are then encouraged to experiment with different weapons & fighting styles.
Regretfully aggressive shield work is not legal in our group, no shield bashing. We felt that the risk was not worth it.
TROS appeals to my martial side, and recently I have introduced it to other members of BOG(Blades of Glory). They all seem intrigued bye this game.
Combat flows with this game, much like a real fight it has highs and lows strategy is very importent as well.
Anyways sorry for rambling.
Re: Shield as Weapon
First off, there are no existing manuals detailing the use of heater shields or other "standard shields." What we have are manuals on use of the buckler, and use of the duelling shield. Talhoffer's 1467 manuals shows both for the interested.
The buckler is ferociously offensive, and in addition to the tracking mentioned by Valamir (found in Legnizter and other manuals) strikes with both edte and point of buckler are common in most manuals, especially against head and hands.
A larger shield (something of a reasonable size--a heater or a round), in our experience, is just mean when used to edge block and edge strike. Understand that this is only apparent when the rules of fighting/combat/competition are minimal, and allow things like closing, grappling, and throws. SCA fighting, for example, doesn't allow many things that make shield attacks worthwhile. Because of the inherent danger in hitting someone with the corner of a wooden or metal shield, it's understandable that few people do it well (no practice, no skill).
Jake
QuoteA larger shield (something of a reasonable size--a heater or a round), in our experience, is just mean when used to edge block and edge strike.
A fighter would have to be careful about edge blocking with metal shields though... catch the sword ege and it could start a tear in the metal that will want to keep right on tearing. It'll due worse than make your shield useless, it will make it a liability. Just my two cents though.
I wouldn't over estimate a swords ability to cut metal, in all honesty. Any damage done to such a shield wouldn't be enough to ruin the shield that day.
Jake
Quote from: Jake NorwoodI wouldn't over estimate a swords ability to cut metal, in all honesty. Any damage done to such a shield wouldn't be enough to ruin the shield that day.
Jake
I'm thinking in terms of edge of sword vs. edge of shield scenario and done over the course of a battle. Better to absorb the shock on the flat of the shield so its disbursed over a greater area, and yes while using the shield in an active as opposed to passive manner. I'm also not talking about swords that cut so much as function like flat hammers with a small point of force.
Admittedly I haven't attacked my own shield in quite this way to test whether the metal would split, but then I like my shield.
You probably also like your sword. I imagine that would put some serious nicks in the blade that you'd have to work out.
Do we want to war over what was done historically? Or over semantics?
Fact: Active edge blocking with the shield was a common tactic.
Fact: Active deflection using the flat and boss of the shield was a common tactic.
Fact: You want to damage your opponent's blade. If it did cut in any significant way, then the sword would be momentarily lodged in your shield, giving you a prime window of opportunity. Shields are cheap.
As for hammers...I'm going to edge block and deflect out against something like that before receiving anything on the flat of my shield! Yikes! Talk about broken limbs...
Likewise, you're assuming that an edge-block would meet the sword edge-on. Given many circumstances, that's unlikely.
Jake
I've been meaning to get into heavy weapon's fighting, but I dont know where to go. Does anybody know any good places to get started in the Salt Lake City, Utah area, or even in Davis County?
Jake himself lives in Provo, which I'm told is rather near Salt Lake City. I'm sure he could give you some information on local trainers.
Krammer-
Email me at arma@theriddleofsteel.net and I'll hook you up with the SLC study group.
Jake
Quote from: Jake Norwood
Likewise, you're assuming that an edge-block would meet the sword edge-on. Given many circumstances, that's unlikely.
Jake
You are right I was assuming this, and I was not trying to argue semantics but rather what might be more effective. My apologies then. Personally, its not easy for me to have this kind of debate without physically demonstrating what I mean. Words fail in certain respects.
I'm also thinking in terms of long-term mass combat
not one on one duels. Anything where the blade lodged in the shield would also be bad for me, wouldn't it? It would restrict my mobility and give the allies of whomever I was fighting a few precious seconds to insure that they were my last.
Sure shields are cheap, but I would not want to take the time to get rid of my shield while I've got four more people to fight.
Oh and some existing manuals do cover shield work... unfortunately they are all rapier based.
Existing manuals do not cover the standard medieval sheild. Any shield used in rapier work is a buckler or potentially a targe, but not a "standard" round, kite, or heater shield.
Should a blade get lodged in your shield, it would easily be withdrawn...it just buys you that needed half second to strike back.
I think that you over estimate the amount of damage that a shield would sustain when used in this way. I'm sure of it, in fact.
Anyway, I don't want this to get unpleasant or immature...and I'm grouchy and I'm finding myself prone to do that. What are we really debating at this point, anyway? Let's get back to TROS...
Jake