Article View: rec.org.sca
Article #5848Re: Illegal targets (was: period fighting styles)
From: Jennifer Geard
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:46
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:46
83 lines
4981 bytes
4981 bytes
Unto Charles the Clerk, and others on the Rialto, does Pagan le Chaunster
send Greetings!
I've tried to stay out of this discussion on hands as targets (after all,
what do *I* know about fighting?), but I feel it is time to quote some
handbooks on the matter.
The [Society] Marshal's Handbook of 1992 is fairly waffley:
The striking surface of a weapon in motion may not be grasped or
blocked by the hands or limbs as a means of impeding a blow.
Inadvertently bringing the hands in contact with the striking
surface of such a weapon when attempting to block a blow with
another weapon shall not be considered to be in violation of this
convention. (p. 33)
It seems to say "No intentional blocking with your hands" but doesn't give an
indication of what happens if a fighter does use a hand-block.
Caid's rules are more specific (although, I understand, irrelevant to most of
you):
If a normally illegal target is intentionally placed in a target
zone, striking that area shall be considered a normally
incapacitating blow. (e.g. if a fighter raises his or her leg
during combat and is struck on the knee or shin by a blow that
normally would have been legal, the blow shall be counted as good.
Similarly, if a fighter is struck on the hand while attempting to
grab a shield or basket hilt, the arm shall be considered to have
been lost). [My pagination is skewed - this is from the
"Acknowledgement of Blows" section.]
As I understand it, in Caid if a blow is intentionally blocked with the hand
the arm is lost.
However, just to confuse things the Society Marshal's Handbook gives a
definition of the theoretical armour of the SCA fighter (which I'll
reproduce here in its entirity, since it's vaguely interesting). From the
definitions section, p. 24:
Fully Armored: For the purposes of acknowledging blows, a fully
armored fighter is presumed to be wearing a light-weight, short
sleeved, knee length, riveted mail hauberk over a padded gambeson,
with boiled leather arm and leg defenses and an open faced iron
helm with a nasal. (The helm may be presumed to include a very
light chain mail drape --- permitting vision and resisting cuts by
a mere touch of a bladed weapon.) (Note that the hand, knee, and
lower leg armor are considered to be proof against all attack.
Also, the hands, wrists, knees and lower legs, and feet, including
the areas up to 1" (2.5 cm) above the knee cap and 1" (2.5 cm)
above the bend of the wrist, are not legal targets.)
I find the wording of the statement that "the hand, knee, and lower leg
armour are considered proof against all attack" confusing. Do they realise
that the rules lawyers amongst the fighters have started blocking with their
hands because within the terms of the SCA game hands are invulnerable? I far
favour the Caidan version.
There also seems to be a lot of confusion about basket hilts. (I'm one of
the bewildered, so please be gentle with me.) On the one hand <ahem>, for
the purposes of blow-calling we're meant to be wearing this Crusader-ish
armour, right? And all the fancy plate we think we see in the fighters is
there because it looks good and gives better real-life protection, right?
And basket hilts weren't found in any significant numbers until late in
period? (I'm waiting to be corrected on this one -- I may well be wrong.)
So isn't the basket hilt -- like the peascod breastplate or the stiff
armoured skirt -- a figment of the imagination where blow-calling is
concerned? Something that has no existence except insofar as it stops your
hand from being mundanely pulped by accident?
One the other hand there's the theory that basket hilts are some sort of
small impenetrable shield which can be used to block (even punch-block)
anything. Can someone please explain the rationale behind this idea, and
whether the basket hilt is a shield, a weapon, or a mundane safety accessory
which happens to look like late-period sword furniture?
Pagan le Chaunster
Totally ignorant about fighting. Willing to learn. Sick of being
browbeaten by people who want to be able to fight in just a helm and gorget.
If it's that important to them they're welcome to do it on their own time.
________________________________________________________________________
Jennifer Geard bloodthorn@sloth.equinox.gen.nz
Christchurch, New Zealand
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<727919174snx@sloth.equinox.gen.nz>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!comp.vuw.ac.nz!canterbury.ac.nz!equinox.gen.nz!equinox!sloth!bloodthornShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!comp.vuw.ac.nz!canterbury.ac.nz!equinox.gen.nz!equinox!sloth!bloodthorn From: bloodthorn@sloth.equinox.gen.nz (Jennifer Geard) Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Re: Illegal targets (was: period fighting styles) Distribution: world Message-ID: <727919174snx@sloth.equinox.gen.nz> Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 23:46:14 GMT Organization: Lethargy Inc. Lines: 84