Re: Rule 4.E. must go - Realism and History

[vtaltos@earthlink.net]

Poster: vtaltos@earthlink.net

Safety? One could say that.  Why does one not permit strikes from behind?
..
    A strike to the head from a spear is both less controlled and more
likely to to carry through the target than a sword blow..  On top of which,
a shot coming to the side of the head will roll the neck sideways, a
direction that the human neck is less inclined to go.  On top of that, the
blow will be unseen <by definition, the side of the head is where the
faceplate, i.e. the eyes, is located> and most likely unexpected.
Therefore, a side thrust to the head will force the most vital joint on the
human body, the neck, to be subjected to an unexpected, and consequently,
unprepared-for, force, which in my opinion is quite unsafe.
While there may be folks out there willing to take that chance, I don't
believe anyone who's ever been blindsided in the gut on a bridge wants that
shot to the head.  And I most certainly find it difficult that it could be
in any way considered safe...
    Humbly..
    Malcolm

Mike Ward wrote:

> 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



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