I have lurked on the list for some time now and have been enjoying this discussion a lot. Here are my two cents. Since it seems 'de riguer' to establish credentials - I have fought in the SCA since 1979 and have been a knight since '83. I also have a M.A. in medieval history specialising in Dark Ages warfare.
Concerning Spear and sheild as a style:
Recently in the region of the SCA that I hail from there has been a great deal of interest in recontsructing the fighting arts of the middle ages based in medieval fighting manuals. One of the styles so studied has been spear and shield. Not only is it a viable style in melee, it has been, admittedly in the hands of a few VERY good fighters, utterly lethal in one one on one combat. Point control is equivalent to that available to highly skilled foil users and the people with which I am familiar accurately target the face with ease, as well as other vulnerable spots. It should be noted however, that this is a 6 foot spear rather than the 9 foot or longer weapons common to many of the armies mentioned previously in this thread. I can see added length making one on one fighting more challenging, but may increase the weapon's effectivenss in a unit. SEE BELOW.
> On Friday, January 26, 2001, at 02:47 PM, Joe Mills wrote:
>
>> The combination is too awkward and the targets too small. No=20 >> face thrusts is an integral part of that problem.=20
On the face thrust issue, I must agree that the option of doing it or not is unlikely to be a deciding factor. In our kingdom it has recently become legal and even old dinosaurs like me have adapted fairly quickly to the new threat. The newer fighters, less able and experienced overall cover this target from the beginning of their career. Referring back to the above, a highly skilled spearman could probably make a real mess out of this statement, but we should concern ourselves with the majority of fighters in a unit, rather than an elite few.
On the subject of morale, because that seems to be the main difference noted between SCA and real combat:
Morale plays a great deal of importance in SCA combat, but the ways in which it does are probably very different to morale in real warfare. Morale in SCA warfare is largely off-the-field - raising units, instilling the need to train as units, getting people to the battlefield, getting units from different regions to work together, etc. Here, I think that SCA and real life are not too dissimilar. Most of these factors are primarily based on interest and economy - how much do I want to fight and how much can I afford to fight.
On-the-field morale in medieval warfare is very difficult to judge from the written record. Based on written sources, it also appears to be very specific to the people involved. Mostly however, we are forced to make judgements based on our interpretation of psychological and other factors. One might be able to say that devout vikings (or Orlanthi), believing in an afterlife in Valhalla (or Orlanth's stead) would fight eagerly to the death. It may be so, but there are many records of viking warriors fleeing the field. Here we must theorise as to why. In my opinion, we are too far removed from the events to make informed statements. It doesn't mean we shouldn't play around with it, it just means that we are unlikely to ever be in a situation where we can comprehend the many and varied factors influencing morale in a large melee. I have seen little in the way or morale effects in SCA combat that replicates this, and I suspect that there is little in live steel recreation that does it either. At base, regardless of what is being swung at us, how tired we are, etc., we are all still fairly secure in the knowledge that the other guy DOES NOT want us dead for real.
> Michael Schwartz wrote:
>
> "To be quite plain, SCA swords, axes and maces do not weigh anywhere =
> near=20
> as much as their real counterparts. If they did, SCA combats would=20
> devolve, as historical melees often did, into chaotic scuffles wherein=20=
>
> the victor was the bloke who got his wind back quickest and could lift=20=
>
> his rather heavy chunk of metal skyward one last time in order to bring=20=
>
> it down upon the skull of the other poor sod. Spears are comparatively=20=
>
> quite light and require much less physical conditioning to wield. "
>
> Well, you sure state things with certainty. I wonder what SCA weapons =
> you have seen, held or weighed? How broad a selection? Some SCA regions =
> (the Atlanta GA area, for example) tend toward very light rattan =
> weapons, others (like the SF bay area) toward very heavy. Most fall in =
> between.=20
>
> I just took my real sword, a single handed 34" cross-hilted norman =
> broadsword, and weighed it out at right around 2 lbs.
>
> I also took my current favorite SCA combat sword, a single handed 34" =
> basket-hilted broadsword, and weighed it out at right around 2 lbs.
>
> I can't get a more accurate weight, because I've only got a bathroom =
> scale.
>
> I'm sure my 7.5 foot SCA polearm, made of rattan and foam, is heavier =
> than my 7.5 foot "show" glaive, made of ash and steel. (I can't check =
> right now, since the steel one isn't in my house.)
Research that I have done, which I admit is anything but exhaustive, shows that medieval broad sword weights come in the 2 to 3 pound range for about 3 feet of steel. Generally they weigh in on the lighter end of that range, 2lb. 5 oz. or so being a very popular weight. I have found that, as Mr. Dawson has pointed out, SCA weapons vary widely in weight by region, but most of the ones I have seen and dealt with have been fairly close to this range. In my area (Midrealm) 2-3 lb. is pretty much the norm, though they are getting heavier.
Polearms weights have been more difficult to come by but my 5 foot long
replica great axe and my 5 foot long fighting great axe are both within a
few ounces of 4 lbs. if this seems light to you, let me assure you that this
is truly deadly weight. That's over 3 lbs. of sharpened steel out at the
business end of the weapon.
>
> I'm also curious about what examples of "chaotic scuffles" so dominated =
> the entirety of "historical melees" that you feel you can make such a =
> blanket statement? Cannae? Marathon? Richard I at Antioch? Your post =
> seems to suggest single combats, not melees.=20
Finally, it may be worth considering some historical records of spear and shield performance against various other weapon styles.
Firstly, it may be a mistake to lump pike and shield users into the same category. The length and wieldiness of the weapon. combined with the fact that they may well have used it with both hands makes it dangerous to assume that Alexandrian pikemen fought similarly to Greek hoplites for example. And after all, the pikemen generally performed very well against hoplite units.
In turn, pikemen did not fare well against the Roman legions, though the reasons may be difficult to judge, and certainly difficult to test in re-enactment. The Roman pilum probably had a major effect on the integrity of the pike-wielders attack. Heavy objects thrown just before contact that have a habit of sticking in sheilds and such are disruptive, probably doubly so to a unit armed with very long (and possibly) 2-handed weapons. Here is where the sword and sheild came in too. AFTER disrupting the enemy with the pila the legionaries could close more easily with the pikemen. Once in close, the advantage is all to the Roman. But the fact is that the Romans did not have to face the pikemen without the pila, so we cannot really guess at how this might have played out. My feeling here (utterly speculative) is that the concerted charges of levelled pikes, 3 or 4 pikes per front rank enemy when the back ranks of the unit are counted in would bowl over many an onrushing Swordsman, pierce sheilds and armour reasonably well and disrupt the enemy sufficient to continue pushing on attacking with jabs aimed at the remainder of the enemy. I have trouble with the idea that ANY recreation method can recreate this sufficiently to explore the possibility.
Celts and Vikings, as well as the majority of other 'non-civilised' spear users with which I am familiar, used a shorter spear, rarely over 7 feet in length, in a dual role. It could be thrown, either in skirmish or just prior to contact in a charge. Or it could be wielded in melee. Very possibly some fighters in the same unit could be fighting in either fashion. Here too, I think it is dangerous to assume that the shorter spear was used as hoplites used the longer one.
This is perhaps the closest thing to Orlanthi tactics in my book as it suggest a more individualistic fighting ideal in which each warrior does as he deems best for him. Orlanthi would use feats and battle magic to enhance their own skills. Koli the Caster might habitually hurl his spear at the enemy, secure that he will strike his man. Orlankarth Eyepiercer, on the other hand, boosts his hand to hand accuracy further, wielding his spear at the front of the unit.
Anyway, I hadn't meant to go like this. Hope that I have contributed to the discussion in a meaningful way. I would be interested in off list traffic on this subject too.
Clint Staples
(Grimawulf Hraerekson in the SCA, now somewhat retired)
End of The Glorantha Digest V8 #238
Powered by hypermail