Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI

[Norsesmithy]

@Norsesmithy
This is getting far off topic, but the French Army of the 2nd Empire used contractors as teamsters for their supply trains as a cost savings measure. It worked well for most of their conflicts, as it provided a cheap way to quickly expand the force in war time. However, the system broke down during the Franco-Prussian War: civilian contractors wouldn't get close enough to the front lines to be useful, or would sometimes flee with the supplies. So using trained soldiers as wagon handlers was a definitely a good idea.

Sometimes I wonder if Gustavus's reforms are a bit overplayed though. His successors don't seem to have been able to follow up on his successes . . . and his successes were hard won. I don't mean to diminish his contributions in basically establishing modern military structures, but it seems like, effectively, it didn't make a huge difference on the battlefield. The Spanish tercio is often stated as being badly out-dated, but it evolved quite a bit. Here's a good website on the Spanish Tercio (probably with a pro-tercio bias): http://www.geocities.com/ao1617/TercioUK.html

I wasn't just talking about supply wagons, Wallenstien's and Tilly's field artillery was delivered, emplaced, and adjusted by locally impressed contractors, not soldiers. All the gun crew did was tell the contractors how to adjust the carriage (to aim the gun), and carry out the loading and firing of the gun. This made their artillery forces much slower to react and less efficient.

As far as whether or not we can call Gustavus's successes solely products of his own genius as a commander or part and parcel of the system he set up, I think that the idea that Horn, Torstenson, and Oxenstierna weren't very successful in their own right after the tragedy of Lützen is silly. Sure they didn't obliterate the Catholic League, but the resource differences between the Catholic League and Sweden plus the Lutheran German provinces pretty much ensured that the Protestants were merely fighting for their survival.

Despite that, the only major reversal the Swedes suffered in that period was Nördlingen.

[Stephen_E]

The problem isn't that Gustavus's reforms didn't make a massive difference, but that once he was dead there was no one able to co-ordinate the Swedish army.

edited for typo

[Galloglaich]

Agreed, and that is the difference between a Monarchy like 17th Century Sweden or a Dictatorship like the French Empire under Napoleon on the one hand and a more decentralized militia system like the Swiss Confederacy, the Kieven Rus, the various Urban militias of the Medieval City - States in Germany, Eastern Europe, Italy, and the Low Countries, (and their numerous Leagues like the Hanseatic League, Swabian League tc.), the Czech Hussites, the Catalan Almagovars, even the early Medieval Feudal system or the Migration Era tribal federations like the Vikings, the Franks etc.

The more de-centralized cultures have their military culture grown from the bottom up which is more difficult (and much slower) to establish, the Monarchies, Centralized Republics etc. have it imposed from the top-down which can happen almost overnight but is much more difficult to maintain in the long run- being dependent on the personality of one leader in many cases.

G.

[HenryHankovitch]

In the later 13th / early 14th Century we do see three key battles which symbolized the high water mark of the power of the armed aristocracy and the heavy cavalry: Courtrai / Golden Spurs in Flanders in 1302, Bannock Burn in Scotland in 1314, and Morgarten in what was to become the Swiss Confederacy in 1315.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bannockburn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Golden_Spurs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Morgarten

In all three cases new weapons were "invented" or put to effective use for the first time, the Godendag, the Schiltron, and the Halberd respectively. In all three cases the terrain was favorable to defense, and in all three cases the locals were not malnourished serfs but free commoners who had retained their martial traditions from centuries (really aeons) before, and had never been properly subjugated. These places were the nexus of the infantry dominated armies which gradually rose to prominence in the Renaissance.

But that said, as Walter pointed out, there was professional infantry, artillery, and light and heavy cavalry before these key battles, and after them as well - for centuries. No army could really fight effectively without all three branches plus other types like sappers, couriers, scouts etc.

The takeaway point, though, is that even though heavy infantry in various forms existed during the medieval period, whether it was in the form of dismounted knights, or armed commoners, it wasn't drilled and disciplined in the way that the "ancients" would have recognized, or the professional polearm companies of the late medieval and Renaissance period. It could not advance, it could not maneuver, and it had essentially no system of distributed command. It could only stand and receive charges; and while it could advanced into a disorganized or fleeing enemy, it basically lost all cohesion as it did so.

That's what we really mean when we say that heavy cavalry dominated. The preferred assault arm was almost always the heavily armored, mounted knight. Not necessarily for good reasons; it was as much based on culture, ignorance and prejudice as it could be said to be based on tactics. But the true medieval infantry, unlike the Romans, unlike the later pike-and-shot formations, could not advance in formation. It was not articulated--it couldn't turn to face a flanking threat, or maneuver to a weak point in the line of battle. It was generally incapable of being an offensive arm unless it was faced with a greatly inferior or disorganized enemy.

And it's noteworthy that the famous medieval defeats of cavalry by infantry generally happened because the commanders of the period were fixated on the cavalry charge above all else. These defeats generally happen when the cavalry attacked at the wrong place and the wrong time instead of declining battle, or maneuvering to a more favorable position of attack. In these battles, almost every factor is stacked against the cavalry, and yet they still obligingly attack, having their formation broken by terrain and obstacles.

Compare this with, say, the role of cavalry in the Napoleonic period. It more closely echoes the classical role of cavalry, even heavy cavalry: on offense, it attacked other cavalry, and attempted to attack the flanks or rear of enemy formations, rather than frontal assaults. The "heavy infantry" of the period (which is a misnomer, because by now we only really have one type of infantry, with attributes of both light and heavy) was effective both on defense and offense; it was the primary offensive arm.

[Dervag]

Nitpick: there were at least some specialized infantry in the Napoleonic era that were definitely light. However, the overwhelming majority of infantry were, as you say, generic "medium" infantry who did a heavy infantry job.

[MickJay]

Term "light" or "heavy" infantry often refers to the function, not the actual equipment used ("type" of troops). In different time periods, it would often be difficult to distinguish between light or heavy infantry judging only from their equipment. Still, Napoleonic period armies usually had some lightly equipped troops, wearing greenish-gray uniforms, whose main purpose was to move in advance of main forces, providing screening and preventing ambushes. They usually had superior rifles and were well trained sharpshooters and skirmishers.

[Matthew]

The takeaway point, though, is that even though heavy infantry in various forms existed during the medieval period, whether it was in the form of dismounted knights, or armed commoners, it wasn't drilled and disciplined in the way that the "ancients" would have recognized, or the professional polearm companies of the late medieval and Renaissance period. It could not advance, it could not maneuver, and it had essentially no system of distributed command. It could only stand and receive charges; and while it could advanced into a disorganized or fleeing enemy, it basically lost all cohesion as it did so.

That's what we really mean when we say that heavy cavalry dominated. The preferred assault arm was almost always the heavily armored, mounted knight. Not necessarily for good reasons; it was as much based on culture, ignorance and prejudice as it could be said to be based on tactics. But the true medieval infantry, unlike the Romans, unlike the later pike-and-shot formations, could not advance in formation. It was not articulated--it couldn't turn to face a flanking threat, or maneuver to a weak point in the line of battle. It was generally incapable of being an offensive arm unless it was faced with a greatly inferior or disorganized enemy.

And it's noteworthy that the famous medieval defeats of cavalry by infantry generally happened because the commanders of the period were fixated on the cavalry charge above all else. These defeats generally happen when the cavalry attacked at the wrong place and the wrong time instead of declining battle, or maneuvering to a more favorable position of attack. In these battles, almost every factor is stacked against the cavalry, and yet they still obligingly attack, having their formation broken by terrain and obstacles.

Compare this with, say, the role of cavalry in the Napoleonic period. It more closely echoes the classical role of cavalry, even heavy cavalry: on offense, it attacked other cavalry, and attempted to attack the flanks or rear of enemy formations, rather than frontal assaults. The "heavy infantry" of the period (which is a misnomer, because by now we only really have one type of infantry, with attributes of both light and heavy) was effective both on defense and offense; it was the primary offensive arm.

Is it? I do not think so. When we have examples of highly organised infantry formations, such as those used during the third crusade, it seems folly to claim that there was a serious lack of disciplined and drilled infantry available to early medieval commanders. Certainly, heavy cavalry defeats are frequently the result of leading them against heavy foot at the wrong time, but that simply shows the difficulty of cracking an infantry formation. It is easy in retrospect to say that an attack should not have taken place, not so simple when on the ground and it is time to make the decision.

That is not to say that the heavy cavalry were not the dominant arm, it certainly was, and when we talk about "heavy cavalry dominance" on the battlefield we can talk about tactical dominance. The difference between early and late medieval infantry on the battlefield seems to be an increasing tendency to use them offensively, whereas before they had served mainly in a defensive capacity. On the other hand, the great "infantry victories" of the later period tended to be defensive victories.

[Diamondeye]

Term "light" or "heavy" infantry often refers to the function, not the actual equipment used ("type" of troops). In different time periods, it would often be difficult to distinguish between light or heavy infantry judging only from their equipment. Still, Napoleonic period armies usually had some lightly equipped troops, wearing greenish-gray uniforms, whose main purpose was to move in advance of main forces, providing screening and preventing ambushes. They usually had superior rifles and were well trained sharpshooters and skirmishers.

In modern times, there are still light, medium, and heavy infantry, although except for "light" different terms are used. "Light" infantry", which can also refer to airborne or air assault (helicopter) infantry, since those airmobile types ususally have similar MTOEs, means infantry that moves primarily by foot during combat (disregarding the air transportation to the battlefield) and is well-suited for restricted terrain and other scenarios where armored vehicles would be a liability.

"Motorized infantry" typically refers to infantry that moves to combat by means of light, wheeled vehicles, but which fights primarily dismounted; its transport vehicles are not major weapon system carriers in their own right. Such units may be accompanoied by tanks (such as in a Soviet BTR/tank combination) or may simply be infantry with unarmored or lightly armored wheeled transport.

This is confused somewhat by the presence of units like U.S. Stryker Brigades, which are motorized infantry, but include Stryker vehicles which carry ATGMs, mortars, 105mm cannon, and a number of other weapon systems, making them essentially a hybrid of motorized and mechanized infantry

Mechanized infantry is infantry mounted in tracked, armored vehicles, APCs up until the early 70s and, since the introduction of the Soviet BMP-1, Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFVs), such as the M2 Bradley, the rest of the BMP series, and a number of others. An IFV carries one or more major weapon systems such as ATGMs, cannon, machine guns, SAMs in some cases, and carries part or all of an infantry squad as well. IFVs are usually reasonably heavily armored as well, although not as heavily as tanks, and cannot expect to survive hits from a tanks main gun or an ATGM.

Mechanized infantry is customarily task organized with armor (tank) units based on the mission. Since reconfiguring to a modular force, the U.S. has reorganized its maneuver Heavy Brigade Combat Teams to include 2 Combined Arms Battalions, each of which includes 2 mechanized infantry and 2 tank companies. The battalion S3, as part of the orders process, will task organize platoons from the companies to come up with companies of varying mixes of tank and mecanized infantry. (Each company has 3 platoons of 4 vehicles, plus the commander and XO, for a total of 14 armored vehicles per company) For example, while conducting an attack, the main effort might be a tnak company of 3 tank platoons with a mechanized infantry platoon added, and 2 other companies might be task organized to 2 mech infantry and 1 tank platoon to provide support by fire, while the last company might retain only 2 mech platoons to act as a reserve. When a company is pure tank or infantry it is called a company; when task organized it is called a Comapny Team or just a Team. Soviet-style organizations task organize differently.

This is further complicated by the presence of what are known as Cavalry units, which are mechanized and armor units intended more for recon and screenng. The main difference is in unit organization, and the fact that while such units often use vehicles very similar to mechanized infantry, and often use tanks, they customarily have far fewer dismounts, and these are usually scouts rather than infantry soldiers.

[Reinboom]

A real world armor question, ahoy!
I realize that various types and pieces of armor were worn with each other for mixed effect.
I'm interested in which armor could be, sensibly, worn for benefit amongst other 'types' of armor in a real world setting. Specifically, using D&D (3.5) armor types, and ignoring when they were actually made.
For example, would scale be worn over chainmail for a real benefit?
Anything on this similar topic would be of help.

[darkzucchini]

A real world armor question, ahoy!
I realize that various types and pieces of armor were worn with each other for mixed effect.
I'm interested in which armor could be, sensibly, worn for benefit amongst other 'types' of armor in a real world setting. Specifically, using D&D (3.5) armor types, and ignoring when they were actually made.
For example, would scale be worn over chainmail for a real benefit?
Anything on this similar topic would be of help.

In terms of practicality, scalemail can be seen as a bridge between platemail and chainmail. The way that scalemail is linked together makes it more resistant to bashing blows than chainmail but also leads to more rigidity, meaning that, in order to move your limbs, you are going to need weak joints like in platemail. So, while it may make sense to wear chainmail under scale, it doesn't strike me as very useful to wear scale under plate. In the cases heavier armors (chainmail and up), you are generally going to want to padding or leather or both underneath so you don't experience horrible chaffing (just wear a chain shirt without padding, which I've done, becomes a real pain after running around for a couple of hours).

Anyway, I'm not an expert on these matters but I hope that answered your question.

[MickJay]

Chain would be sometimes worn under plate (especially the kind that covered only part of the body), but usually it would have been some form of padded jacket (which can be made in a way that would make it a half-decent armour in its own right), to prevent bruises and scratches. Typically, wearing two different types of heavier armour would be too impractical, for reasons like excessive encumbrance or limited mobility. That, and a warrior who could afford two sets of armour would probably simply consider getting one, but of higher quality, instead of putting on both of them.

[Galloglaich]

Yeah I agree with MickJay here. Mail armor (what people call "Chain Mail") is actually much better armor protection than most people realize, far better than scale armor or it's various real world cousins, Arabic / Persian "jazeraint" and various forms of lamellar. There are a lot of common misconceptions about armor in general and mail in particular, the main one being that armor worked. I wrote a kind of "blog" about it here

which address some of these common DnDisms.

So I think wearing scale over mail would be unusual.



That said there are cases where mail and lamellar were worn together, notably by the Byzantine "Cataphract" or "Clibinari" heavy cavalry, their klibanion armor was basically mail, a quilted coat, and a lamellar vest. It was reportedly very effective, there was one anecdote I remember during the 1st Crusade when a Byzantine prince was knocked half off, then back on his saddle by two successive lance strikes from a Frankish knight but survived uninjured.

Also textile armor made of 10 or more layers of linen or silk could be very effective. Typically it was made in "under armor" and "stand alone" versions, either could be somewhat effective armor in it's own right, but the "stand alone" version could stop arrows etc. These were known by various names: gambesons, jupons, arming coats, pourpoint etc.



here is another one, image is a little large for embedding in the post:

http://www.mallet-argent.com/images/...int%20back.jpg

Mail was sometimes worn under plate armor but in later eras armor was lightened and it was more common to wear a padded coat with some mail added at key points where the armor had gaps, such as in the under-arms etc., like this guy

This coincided with the fact that later plate armor, such as German Gothic plate, often only covered the front half of your body, the top of your legs or arms etc. ... all to save weight and reduce bulk. Some complete armor panoplies were as light as 30 - 35 lbs, which is less than the protective gear of a modern soldier.

As for ad-ons early armor usually consisted of torso protection and a helmet, much like armor today. Common ad ons to that would include a light or heavy padded coat per above, bracers or vambraces, greaves (less common - for some reason perhaps mobility leg protection, perhaps due to the physics of where you get hit in a fight, seems to be the last thing added on) mail coif (sort of a hood) to protect the head, neck, and shoulders, a visor, bevor or face mask to enhance your helmet, and a gorget (something like an iron collar which protects the neck and collar bones.)

G.

[Matthew]

I have seen illustrations and examples of what appears to be scale worn over mail, but it is not always easy to discern between scale and "true" lamellar, the modern distinction being the presence and absence of a foundation layer onto which the scales (or whatever) are fixed, for example:





Not a huge deal different to wearing a coat of plates over mail, I suppose. As noted above, though, once you have access to full harness there is little point in that sort of layered armour. Most of the examples I have seen tend to be eastern in origin, outside of the "transitional plate" period in the west.

[Fhaolan]

You're more likely to get Lorica Plumata, where the scales are joined to each other by maille rings, and perhaps having regular maille sleeves and skirts attached, than put full scale armour overtop of maille. Being someone who has made, and worn this kind of armour I can tell you that effective scale armour is heavier than people tend to think and the Lorica Plumata variation is *much* heavier. Having a full hauberk of maille and a full suit of scale on top of it would render the wearer almost immobile. My Roman Lorica Plumata with maille sleeves, skirting, and other bits weighs almost as much as my 15th century Italian white harness.

There were also splint armours using much the same method (larger splints of metal joined by maille) in the early Ottoman Empire.

[HenryHankovitch]

Term "light" or "heavy" infantry often refers to the function, not the actual equipment used ("type" of troops). In different time periods, it would often be difficult to distinguish between light or heavy infantry judging only from their equipment.

Before the advent of the bayonetted musket, light and heavy infantry were usually quite different in terms of equipment and tactics.

The classical division was between armored infantry that fought in formation with melee weapons (the heavy infantry), and light infantry that fought as skirmishers with missile weapons. You have a similar division between heavy cavalry and light cavalry. There's always some spillover in terms of role and equipment--Roman legions throwing javelins before attacking, etc--but the division between the two was usually quite stark. Hoplites versus peltasts, et al.

In medieval Europe, the distinction tends to blur just because infantry tactics and training had degenerated to such a degree that most infantry is just "blobs of men," often underequipped and undertrained. The major division is between melee infantry--housecarls, shield walls, dismounted knights, peasants with pointy sticks--and missile infantry, with bows or crossbows. The division between heavy and light cavalry is far more pronounced, especially in the Crusades when you have Frankish-style heavy cavalry trying to fight Eastern style light cavalry.

The way to look at it is, if the unit is intended to fight in shock action--closing to melee with its opponents--it's generally heavy infantry/cavalry, and is equipped accordingly. Units which depend on mobility to avoid melee combat are light infantry/cavalry, and favor light armor and missile weapons: bows, javelins, slings.

From the 19th century on, all infantry is espected to fight at range with missile weapons--firearms--and so the division disappears. The appearance of mechanized infantry and armored vehicles creates its own new set of considerations, but it doesn't really map to the old light/heavy infantry/cavalry matrix.

Still, Napoleonic period armies usually had some lightly equipped troops, wearing greenish-gray uniforms, whose main purpose was to move in advance of main forces, providing screening and preventing ambushes. They usually had superior rifles and were well trained sharpshooters and skirmishers.

Riflemen were extremely rare before the middle of the 19th century. Skirmishers were generally drawn from the rest of the infantry, and simply deployed forward in loose formation.

[Matthew]

Before the advent of the bayonetted musket, light and heavy infantry were usually quite different in terms of equipment and tactics.

The classical division was between armoured infantry that fought in formation with melee weapons (the heavy infantry), and light infantry that fought as skirmishers with missile weapons. You have a similar division between heavy cavalry and light cavalry. There's always some spillover in terms of role and equipment--Roman legions throwing javelins before attacking, etc--but the division between the two was usually quite stark. Hoplites versus peltasts, et al.

The way to look at it is, if the unit is intended to fight in shock action--closing to melee with its opponents--it's generally heavy infantry/cavalry, and is equipped accordingly. Units which depend on mobility to avoid melee combat are light infantry/cavalry, and favor light armor and missile weapons: bows, javelins, slings.

Have to be careful here. As you note at the end, it is really function that defines classification; the equipment necessary for fulfilling that function may vary and may not be available. The heavy infantry of the Polybian legion was not particularly well armoured and apparently fought as light infantry against the Macedonian phalanx, keeping to difficult terrain and fighting in open order, but an even lighter class of fighters usually fulfilled the preliminary skirmishing role.

As with horse, relative to one another, light foot is lightly armed and heavy foot is heavily armed, but method of fighting is the primary distinguishing feature, and that is not necessarily clear cut (which has led to the modern appellations "medium foot" and "medium cavalry). A Swiss pike phalanx is heavy foot regardless of how much armour it has available.

In medieval Europe, the distinction tends to blur just because infantry tactics and training had degenerated to such a degree that most infantry is just "blobs of men," often underequipped and undertrained. The major division is between melee infantry--housecarls, shield walls, dismounted knights, peasants with pointy sticks--and missile infantry, with bows or crossbows. The division between heavy and light cavalry is far more pronounced, especially in the Crusades when you have Frankish-style heavy cavalry trying to fight Eastern style light cavalry.

Whilst a general levy might result in the calling up on an undisciplined and untrained mass of men, such as that called by John of England in 1213, or Henry I in 1101 (many of whom had to be instructed in the use of their weapons), the sorts of militia extant in the Assize of Arms and the equipment they were expected to have suggests a rather decent infantry arm, which is apparently related to the fyrd and select fyrd. Outside of England, German foot seems to have been relatively good, William of Tyre commenting that Conrad fought on foot at Aleppo, as was the German custom, and the crusades saw extensive use of foot soldiers, noticeably in the military orders.

Although the knights would have the best equipment and foot soldiers were rarely used as the main offensive force, they would have been close ordered heavy foot arrayed in depth fighting in conjunction with missile troops, resistant to enemy horse so long as they kept cohesion and were able to repel attempts to break them up. "Blobs of men" would not be a fair description, but defensively arrayed might. Shock troops they were not, but then neither was the Macedonian pike phalanx; the ability to "shock" is not the defining characteristic of heavy foot.

[MickJay]

@Henry: light and heavy, equipment and tactics: tactics, definitely, because that's precisely what the distinction was primarily about. Equipment was designed for the function, and thus there often were overlaps, such as light infantry having lighter/fewer equipment. Yet both Roman unarmored javelin throwers, who carried only a shield and a few missiles, and a spearman, armoured like "heavy" legionnaire and bearing a heavy shield would be called "light infantry", because that was the function they were fulfilling.

Skirmishers were typically drawn from the rest of the infantry, but they were often picked (or volunteered) for reasons that made them less suitable for "standard" service, and they did operate in a completely different manner from the rest of the regiment; whether it was a rifle or musket, they were often issued weapons with greater range and accuracy than rest of the troops. Still, it was their function as "light infantry" that actually made them "light".

[Fax Celestis]

Question: Most shields I've seen have the grips oriented like this:


...but is there any historical precedent of grips oriented this way?:

[Matthew]

The Roman scutum apparently had a grip orientated like that, and I have seen at least one manuscript with a similar orientation, though in both cases it is only one grip. This book cover depicts an image from the Bayeux Tapestry:



and this one a late fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript:



(the footman at the bottom of the image).

[Fhaolan]

Yep. Some teardrop kite-style shields actually had a fairly complex array of straps (called Enarmes in this specific case), which allowed you to change grips from side-to-side, to diagonal, to fist-up, and earlier ones might even still have a metal boss with grip as well. Of course you had to take a moment and futz with it to get it gripped properly, but hey, it gives you options.

The best online article I was able to find on the topic is http://www.angelfire.com/wy/svenskil...r/enarmes.html

It's one of those things that people tend not to pay much attention to, so there's not much online for it.

[Fax Celestis]

Well, the main reason I ask is if you orient the grips vertically, that kite has a nice point on it you could use for stabbinating. I figure if I'm going to make a bladed shield for d20r I might as well see if there's a real one first I could base it off of.

[Galloglaich]

It's worth remembering that historically, most shields especially during the heydey of shields, were actually center-grip where you have one hand in a boss, not the type you strap on your arm. This is true of the Roman Scutum as well as many others, the Viking type shield etc.

One of the few exceptions in antiquity was the Greek aspis type which was specifically designed for use in formations (the grip being on the far right making the shield much more effective when used in a line with allies on either side)

In the late medieval period as armor improved personal shields declined in use somewhat, though they were still popular for sappers and skirmishers, and of course jousting, and sometimes heavy cavalry. Archers and gunners frequently used pavises, infantry and civilians used center grip bucklers (your 'swash and buckle' men were ruffians who carried bucklers and swords around bad neighborhoods). By the renaissance the "Rotella" was making a comeback and some of these were of the strap on the arm type.

G

[fusilier]

If my memory serves me, in the first episode of Cadfael (set circa 1135), Hugh Beringar fights a trial by combat using a fairly small tear-drop shaped shield oriented as described. I would say that it has a Norman look to it, but I'm uncertain of the historical accuracy.

-EDIT-
The hand was towards the pointed end, I think.

[valadil]

So I've been re-reading the old GaRRWoAQ threads (I'm halfway through IV and I've read all the rest). For some odd reason this makes me want to try to get some hands on experience with historical melee fighting. Can those of you with actual experience help me figure out what sort of group to try and join up with? I'll list the options I've considered before and why they haven't appealed to me.

I've recently been invited to NPC for a boffing group. I think this is because I'm big and noisy. I tried to get into boffing before and was turned off by some of the rules, specifically those about hitting lightly. I'm perfectly happy to play with boffer weapons, but holding back takes the fun out of it for me.

ARMA is not available near me. I think they might be more hardcore than what I'm capable of anyway.

SCA is appealing. Well, the heavy list party anyway. I have no interest in researching a persona. Investing in armor scared me off though. I don't want to have to buy/build armor without at least trying to fight a couple times first. I went to a couple fighter practices hoping to borrow armor, but had no luck finding anything in my size. If this is the best option I could probably find other fighter practices until I meet more big and tall fighters with armor to lend.

Are there any other good options that I haven't thought of yet? I'd consider a martial art if it focused on weapons.

[fusilier]

So I've been re-reading the old GaRRWoAQ threads (I'm halfway through IV and I've read all the rest). For some odd reason this makes me want to try to get some hands on experience with historical melee fighting. Can those of you with actual experience help me figure out what sort of group to try and join up with? I'll list the options I've considered before and why they haven't appealed to me.

I've recently been invited to NPC for a boffing group. I think this is because I'm big and noisy. I tried to get into boffing before and was turned off by some of the rules, specifically those about hitting lightly. I'm perfectly happy to play with boffer weapons, but holding back takes the fun out of it for me.

ARMA is not available near me. I think they might be more hardcore than what I'm capable of anyway.

SCA is appealing. Well, the heavy list party anyway. I have no interest in researching a persona. Investing in armor scared me off though. I don't want to have to buy/build armor without at least trying to fight a couple times first. I went to a couple fighter practices hoping to borrow armor, but had no luck finding anything in my size. If this is the best option I could probably find other fighter practices until I meet more big and tall fighters with armor to lend.

Are there any other good options that I haven't thought of yet? I'd consider a martial art if it focused on weapons.

It looks like you considered almost everything. There are historical reenactors, like myself, but we tend to be more interested in history than beating the crap out of each other (usually). Sounds like SCA is what you want. There are probably cheaper options when it comes to armor. Decades ago, they used oil drums to make helmets! :-) Also some of the groups may have loaner gear to help you get started. I've only had occasional contact with the SCA, so hopefully someone else can provide more info.

I have a friend who teaches Japanese sword martial arts (Iaijutsu, Kenjutsu). As I understand it, those schools are pretty common in the US.

[Shademan]

what a bunch of weakling boffers! Find a more hardcore group.
And then search the area for reenacters. full metal combat! great fun!
(you will eventually have to buy some equipment and accept ALOT of bruises)

[valadil]

Sounds like SCA is what you want. There are probably cheaper options when it comes to armor. ... Also some of the groups may have loaner gear to help you get started. I've only had occasional contact with the SCA, so hopefully someone else can provide more info.

The groups I saw had loaner gear, just not for my size. This was back in college, where for some odd reason your average male was between 5'5" and 5'9". I'm 6'4". Their loaner gear wasn't an option. But if it turns out that SCA is my best bet for combat I don't mind checking out a few other groups.

what a bunch of weakling boffers! Find a more hardcore group.
And then search the area for reenacters. full metal combat! great fun!
(you will eventually have to buy some equipment and accept ALOT of bruises)

The problem (as I saw it) with those boffing groups is that they wanted it to be open to any age. You can't hit a 10 year old at full strength. But if you're used to swinging as hard as you can you'll eventually smack a kid and have to deal with upset parents. Maybe I should look for 18+ boffer groups.

I would love to buy equipment eventually. But not without trying it for cheap first. Armor is too much of an investment for a hobby I may not like.

[Galloglaich]

The groups I saw had loaner gear, just not for my size. This was back in college, where for some odd reason your average male was between 5'5" and 5'9". I'm 6'4". Their loaner gear wasn't an option. But if it turns out that SCA is my best bet for combat I don't mind checking out a few other groups.

I am biased here, so take this with a grain of salt.

I don't think you are looking for SCA or LARP, re-enactors or Boffer groups if you want to learn how to really fight with hand weapons, and why learn an Asian martial art if you are interested in European type swords? There are now well understood European Martial Arts systems which have been reconstructed from Medieval fencing manuals.

SCA is great for really, REALLY big battles (like pennsic) but they require a lot of equipment and have a ton of rules, and at the risk of offending some people here, what they do is not Medieval combat it's a modern combat sport with no real historical links (and a lot of rules). Re-enacting is cool if you want to learn how people dressed and equipped themeselves in ancient times, but again, you won't learn actual weapon based martial arts systems.

My advice is join a HEMA group. You won't need much gear, other than a fencing mask and some gloves, and a weapon simulator like a shinai or a nylon longsword. There are very few rules when you are fighting. And you will be learning a real, proven martial arts system directly connected to the warriors of the Medieval and Renaissance periods. Learn to do techniques like these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYwdE3f5fFQ&feature=fvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3Dhj...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj4Ng...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38sVd...eature=related

and have fun sparring like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xAeh...5069FDF4978132
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPkX_...5069FDF4978132
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5k2prZUwLs

A lot of people confuse ARMA with HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts) or WMA (Western Martial Arts). ARMA is just one large HEMA / WMA group in the US, not as large as they used to be due to some recent splits. According to this website which recently did a worldwide survey, there are at least 41 HEMA groups in the US now, including two new HEMA federations which link together lots of smaller groups.

http://www.hroarr.com/survey/worldwide/practitioners/

One is HEMA Alliance (HEMAA) which can be found on this forum:

http://pendant.forumotion.net/

And the other is called WMA Coalition (WMAC)

http://www.wmacoalition.com/

I know the guys from both groups and they are first rate people.

I just attended the first HEMAA conference in Talahassee Florida and had a great time fencing with about 30 people from throughout the Southeast. I know they are doing one other event on the East Coast near Washington DC and another in South Florida in November, just in the next couple of months.

I'd reccomend going on one of the two websites above and finding a HEMA group near your area.

I also highly reccomend renting the film "Reclaiming the Blade" to get a real good idea of the difference between SCA, Collegiate style fencing, re-enactors, and HEMA.

G.

EDIT: this is some footage from my club in New Orleans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6GVzelVi2A

[Mike_G]

The groups I saw had loaner gear, just not for my size. This was back in college, where for some odd reason your average male was between 5'5" and 5'9". I'm 6'4". Their loaner gear wasn't an option. But if it turns out that SCA is my best bet for combat I don't mind checking out a few other groups.



The problem (as I saw it) with those boffing groups is that they wanted it to be open to any age. You can't hit a 10 year old at full strength. But if you're used to swinging as hard as you can you'll eventually smack a kid and have to deal with upset parents. Maybe I should look for 18+ boffer groups.

I would love to buy equipment eventually. But not without trying it for cheap first. Armor is too much of an investment for a hobby I may not like.

Where are you located? That's going to be a big factor.

You can find SCA lots of places, and sport fencing at nearly any college town. Organizations like HEMA, ARMA, etc will teach a more realistic, authentic style of combat, but they're not as widespread.

While fencing is a sport, not a martial art per se, it's a lot of fun. The same has been said of the SCA. If you have a Body Mass Index over 40, a high tolerance for politics, and more money than sense, the SCA is the way to go.

I wrote a rant about the relationship between the two groups here. Don't click if candid language offends you. http://para-cynic.livejournal.com/18247.html

If you can't find an ARMA etc group, I'd advise trying either fencing or SCA. It's fun, you gte to hit people and dress up and quote Princess Bride a lot.

If you can get more, by all means, look for it.

[valadil]

Where are you located? That's going to be a big factor.

You can find SCA lots of places, and sport fencing at nearly any college town. Organizations like HEMA, ARMA, etc will teach a more realistic, authentic style of combat, but they're not as widespread.

Boston. In retrospect I should have mentioned that.

While fencing is a sport, not a martial art per se, it's a lot of fun.

Did some fencing in college. I enjoyed it, but I'd like to learn a little more about different types of weapons. I'd like to actually try out sword/shield vs two hander for instance. I also don't have the body type for fencing...

The same has been said of the SCA. If you have a Body Mass Index over 40, a high tolerance for politics, and more money than sense, the SCA is the way to go.

... but not that body type. Seriously, I've been called obese my whole life and I don't know if I ever got that big. I also don't like politics or wasting money.

I wrote a rant about the relationship between the two groups here. Don't click if candid language offends you. http://para-cynic.livejournal.com/18247.html

That was a quality piece of rant. I didn't find it offensive in the least.

I am biased here, so take this with a grain of salt.

My advice is join a HEMA group. You won't need much gear, other than a fencing mask and some gloves, and a weapon simulator like a shinai or a nylon longsword. There are very few rules when you are fighting. And you will be learning a real, proven martial arts system directly connected to the warriors of the Medieval and Renaissance periods. Learn to do techniques like these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYwdE3f5fFQ&feature=fvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3Dhj...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj4Ng...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38sVd...eature=related

and have fun sparring like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xAeh...5069FDF4978132
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPkX_...5069FDF4978132
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5k2prZUwLs

Never heard of HEMA before but it looks awesome.