Combat well reconstructed is very dangerous as there is no 'off target' areas. It is also a 'rush.'

Safest would be one on one combat. No need for marshals or judges. You could stop anytime you are mutually happy/tired/thirsty.

The twist that I envision is a large field of pairs of combatants. This would give the view of massed combat, with the safety of individual combat. If one of the pair has had enough, they can step out and the second can look for other single members to engage.

Hannde Gonnes may be fired over their heads till the powder runs out. Arrows are tricky as they will not be recoverable until the end of the day and every arrow fired should be done with the knowledge that it will not be coming back in one piece.

I have done heavy, light and rapier concurently in the SCA since 1981. Currently I am learning Firori de Liberi.

It is my opinion that the fighters that cause the most problems by hitting too hard and ignoring rules tend to be the 'senior' ones. Our greatest challenge will be the governing of how well people fight. There is absolutely no reason that you cannot fight fast and light. The members of the rapier community can do it. It takes control and skill. That is only achieved with the horrid 'P' word... practice. Unfortunately, it seems most people practice to hit as hard as they can. What can we do to stop this?

This takes us back to our large field of paired combatants. Instead of a 'war' to win, we have a couple of days of constant practice, looking good, having fun, without having to lay around 'dead' for long periods of time. If you are on foot and wish to engage a mounted man, then you can take your time to do so.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Woodcrafter:
The twist that I envision is a large field of pairs of combatants.

---

The objective is to simulate actual combat & one-on-one looks extremely staged.

--------------------

No one living knows what medieval combat actually was like. I have read first hand accounts from the crusades where they mentioned that the fellow hit in the face and who had his nose hanging off by a slim thread of skin was sent via horse for help. He later dies of his wound. Another is stabbed in the back by a spear (through a window) and the blood spurts out his back like wine from the bung hole of a barrel. One fellow on horse back is attacked and knocked from his horse. As he gets up he is ridden down and over by five of the enemy warriors. He then gets up and runs for the cover of a peasant hut with others of his group. They are then attacked on all sides and from the roof.

This to me does not sound like 18th century 'thin red line' combat. I don't believe medieval man drilled to the point where everyone stands in neat SCA lines and beats the crap out of each other.

Battle of Hastings also sees some warriors break from the host and chase the supposed fleeing enemy only to be turned upon, surrounded and all killed in a bunch, not a nice line.

So my point of view is a mass of people fighting each other, not in a line, should look OK. Perhaps a little more 'mixed' in depth than what actually happened.

Have we any first hand accounts of medieval hand to hand combat? Other than Fiori who mentions you should dispatch your opponent as fast as possible because even the worst jerk will have friends nearby who will help him.

Also why are we fighting? To practice the martial skills necessary and have fun? Or as a demonstration to the general public?

Perhaps we can 'toe the line' in order to fight. That will give a straight line that eventually gaps. If you cross the line you get to fight those on the other side of the line (ie the side you came from). This would be less costly than making one long barricade and having to transport it and set it up every time.

--------------------

--------------------

Let's make sure that we don't confuse "disciplined" with "marching up and down in neat lines" - they are two unrelated things.

--------------------

Is it that combat with "off target" areas in too inauthentic? And wouldn't you say that the combat you are describing would match this level of inauthenticity?

Illustrations show the "en mass" of battle, usually a clump of opposing soldiers, red on one side, blue on the other for example. Left half red, right half blue and the middle is not a nice neat line, but a messy mix of the two.

Being that Im assuming everyone is keeping in mind that SAFETY is paramount no matter what is decided, these two fine thinkers have got it down pretty well. Their ideas reflect what has already been in practice on the Isles and the Continent for decades.

Personnaly, I think that we should worry about "shows" at this stage of infancy for ARMET and not worry about tacticals or games for score untill we have all been at this for a while! Quite frankly, I really like all you folks, but I wouldnt trust any one of you coming at me or any of my folks with a weapon "right out of the box". I would like to practice first!! I want to know, as I am sure you would want to know of me, that weapons can be handled with confidence and a decent amount of restraint and safety. No offense, truely, but I would expect the same critisism out of any of you regarding us!

I sure did not form my group to fight as the SCA; or I would have simply joined the SCA! Im here to do living history demos and fighting comes second. When dealing with such risky business, I would rather us be involved in a type of "demonstrative" combat, rather than a "sport" essence. Not to say it should be coreographed mind you! But simply that no one is going "full tilt" or "hard core". Shots should be pulled, contact light, nothing wrong with fast so long as there is control.

Am I wrong?

--------------------

~ Jason Banditt Adams
Illustrator for the gaming industry
www.Rogue-Artist.com