Rule 4.E. must go - Realism and History

[Mike Ward <mward2@polaris.umuc.edu>]

Poster: Mike Ward <mward2@polaris.umuc.edu>

That Head Thrusting should not be allowed because it
conflicts with our "archtypal" armor is not a valid argument. All who
know the
history of arms amd armor know this to be true, so a lengthy article on
why spears
could pierce medieval head armor will not be needed. Throughout most of
the time span covered
by the SCA the most prevalent form of head protection below the ear was
chainmail.

In our sport, however armor preferred by fighters and
marshalls in Atlantia have reflected the the post plague years rather
than
the Plantagenets. Sallets, Bascinets, Barbutes, and and their
accompanying anachronistic suits not only look good, but offer excellent

protection. The standard armor on the field does not reflect the
"archtype" in the rules, so don't get them confused.  Yet even in
(espacially in) the
late period, pikes were used widely and effectively.

The reasonable answer to the realism question is to lose this rule. As
with safety,
it is the eaxact opposite of any "benefits" received. In fact, no real
benefits have been offered
or defended. Are there any?

Sincerely,

Smegmar


=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/
            Submissions:  atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
        Admin. requests:  majordomo@atlantia.sca.org