Quarterstaff and the Armoured Man.

[Thorsteinn]

So, I got to say something about the idea that a man with a quarterstaff has a decently real chance against an armoured man. Ready?:

It's crap.

Why? I got hit by a quarterstaff like object a lot yesterday while in armour. The worst one hit me in the head. It weighed 5 lbs and was swung through a 270' arc by the end with full power, and it was only one of three or more that he did like that that I either blocked or shed. Had I been fighting for my life I would have fought through the pain of that one shot that landed with great power and made the guy pay dearly. Also, being armoured, and him not, I would hit things like his fingers and hand which is not hard (trust me I took a lot of hand shots yesturday. W/O gauntlets I would be toast) and I would eat a rib shot to take my opponents head.

Not saying that the staff wielder couldn't win, or that the staff isn't a great weapon, only that it's a low percentage option.

Thoughts?

Notes: Yesterday  I was wearing a conical helm and lamellar  with clamshell gauntlets. This thought is to express opposition to the idea that someone other than one with the size, strength, skill, and speed of Little John could take a armoured man out with a staff without grave issue.

[Joshua Santana]

So, I got to say something about the idea that a man with a quarterstaff has a decently real chance against an armoured man. Ready?:

It's crap.

Why? I got hit by a quarterstaff like object a lot yesterday while in armour. The worst one hit me in the head. It weighed 5 lbs and was swung through a 270' arc by the end with full power, and it was only one of three or more that he did like that that I either blocked or shed. Had I been fighting for my life I would have fought through the pain of that one shot that landed with great power and made the guy pay dearly. Also, being armoured, and him not, I would hit things like his fingers and hand which is not hard (trust me I took a lot of hand shots yesturday. W/O gauntlets I would be toast) and I would eat a rib shot to take my opponents head.

Not saying that the staff wielder couldn't win, or that the staff isn't a great weapon, only that it's a low percentage option.

Thoughts?

You've taken quite a hitting with a quarterstaff.  I haven't seen any historical evidence of a quarterstaff fighter against an armored opponent.  But I am not denying that the basics that one uses in quarterstaff can be transcribed to pole arms (pole axes, bills, lances, partisans and halberds).  I can easily see why a lesser skilled armored opponent would be defeated by a quarterstaff fighter.  But the opposite can be true. 

[Sir Edward]

That's the thing that's really sobering when you try to fight realistically with one person in full harness and the other not--  The guy in harness has a huge advantage if he has complete coverage. It's quite humbling if you're the unarmored guy.

[Joshua Santana]

That's the thing that's really sobering when you try to fight realistically with one person in full harness and the other not--  The guy in harness has a huge advantage if he has complete coverage. It's quite humbling if you're the unarmored guy.

Good point Sir Edward!

[Sir James A]

Agreed, it's a low percentage chance, but maybe higher than you think. If I were unarmored and had a quarterstaff, against someone in armor, I would go for leverage - not brute force. A quarterstaff is a nice, lengthy lever. Helmet or not, it doesn't take a huge amount of force to snap a neck, especially for a prone opponent - and that's something I hope would never be attempted in recreational context. There's a reason haute guards are banned in SCA (last I heard).

Basically, in SCA context, "quarterstaff guy" has a serious disadvantage and maybe a sliver of hope at best. In "real world" context, when he can trip/throw, ground grapple, and use leverage to try to kill (rather than just score in a system of limited offensive options) - he has a better chance. Not a huge chance by any means, but I still see a bit of potential if he can close cautiously and get into a position of advantage.

Sounds like you had fun.

[Thorsteinn]

This came up afterwards when  me, Unferth, & Count Sir Thjothrekr were talking and Thjo said something like "we know it would not work as well as some would think. We hit each other with quarterstaff like objects all the time in the SCA and we're fine".

That was brought up BTW about how the q-staff guy can do all these throws holds and whatnot to you, and how he can hit with both ends of the staff. Well... if I have a shield then I too can do all kinds of shield bashy, hipthrowy goodness.

BTW "There's a reason haute guards are banned in SCA (last I heard)."

SCA Marshal here. Where did you hear this & what was the reason behind it?

-Ivan

[Joshua Santana]

Agreed, it's a low percentage chance, but maybe higher than you think. If I were unarmored and had a quarterstaff, against someone in armor, I would go for leverage - not brute force. A quarterstaff is a nice, lengthy lever. Helmet or not, it doesn't take a huge amount of force to snap a neck, especially for a prone opponent - and that's something I hope would never be attempted in recreational context. There's a reason haute guards are banned in SCA (last I heard).

Basically, in SCA context, "quarterstaff guy" has a serious disadvantage and maybe a sliver of hope at best. In "real world" context, when he can trip/throw, ground grapple, and use leverage to try to kill (rather than just score in a system of limited offensive options) - he has a better chance. Not a huge chance by any means, but I still see a bit of potential if he can close cautiously and get into a position of advantage.

You make a good point here and I agree with you on the chances a quarter staff fighter would have against an armored opponent.

his came up afterwards when  me, Unferth, & Count Sir Thjothrekr were talking and Thjo said something like "we know it would not work as well as some would think. We hit each other with quarterstaff like objects all the time in the SCA and were fine".

That was brought up BTW about how the q-staff guy can do all these throws holds and whatnot to you, and how he can hit with both ends of the staff. Well... if I have a shield then I too can do all kinds of shield bashy, hipthrowy goodness.

BTW "There's a reason haute guards are banned in SCA (last I heard)."

SCA Marshal here. Where did you hear this & what was the reason behind it?

That is another possibility.  I think that if the huate guards are banned in the SCA they would be weaknesses a pole arm fighter would use to his advantage by hooking the guards and pulling him in for the strike.  Me personally, i think it is their way of reducing the chances of physical danger/risk during combat. 

[Sir William]

I think someone truly trained in the quarterstaff could give an armored man a bit of trouble, provided he was quick enough to feint, thrust and move away, side step or rollout a blow, then use the armored man's momentum to take him to the ground and either crush his throat or keep him off his feet at the least until he can be finished, or he yields.

Of course, a solid thrust of a sword from behind a shield could make all of that moot if the qstaff fighter is neither quick or sure-footed.

[Sir James A]

BTW "There's a reason haute guards are banned in SCA (last I heard)."

SCA Marshal here. Where did you hear this & what was the reason behind it?
-Ivan

It's a safety liability if someone traps a polearm between another person's neck and the haute guard - one wrong pivot of the polearm and the first point to give way will be soft neck bone, and not the steel haute guard - unless the strap breaks. I wanted a left side haute guard on my armor back for the 1 season I did SCA heavy, and was told I could not because of that. Particularly dangerous for melees where there's weapons flying on all sides. I also heard there are no strikes allowed of more than 180* swing with a great weapon, which you certainly had thrown at you. To make sure we're talking about the same thing, a haute guard is a vertical guard on a pauldron, like here (http://home.messiah.edu/~gdaub/armor/pictures/valentin/maximil.jpg). There might be some variances that says leather ones are allowed, but not steel (since the leather will give easily). I'd actually be a bit surprised if they are legal.

It was somewhere around 15 years ago that I last picked up a stick, and it's east coast, and only at the local fighter practices (I never fought at an event, or got authorized); that may have something to do with it?

[Thorsteinn]

It was somewhere around 15 years ago that I last picked up a stick, and it's east coast, and only at the local fighter practices (I never fought at an event, or got authorized); that may have something to do with it?

Yes. I just reviewed the West Kingdom 2011 ACM and found no mention of Haute Guards. I never even remember that being a rule here. Nor can I see how having haute guards is any worse than that leathery bit they wore in the 12th century on the shoulder (alliette?) which is legal.

Society level they are legal but your local kingdom mileage may vary.

[SirNathanQ]

Seems to me that a quarterstaff guy Vs Armoured guy is at a huge disadvantage.

For one, all your shots are null.

For another, plate armour I've found gives one a great advantage in all those nice grapples and such.
I'd say if the fancy leveraging techniques that'll work against armour with a quarterstaff are used, the fight was decided by the armoured man's incompetence or at the least extreme contemplacency. 

If I were in the situation, I would take advantage of the not-45 pounds on my frame and get out of there faster than the armour guy. 

[Joshua Santana]

I think someone truly trained in the quarterstaff could give an armored man a bit of trouble, provided he was quick enough to feint, thrust and move away, side step or rollout a blow, then use the armored man's momentum to take him to the ground and either crush his throat or keep him off his feet at the least until he can be finished, or he yields.

Of course, a solid thrust of a sword from behind a shield could make all of that moot if the qstaff fighter is neither quick or sure-footed.

You make a good point Sir William. 

It's a safety liability if someone traps a polearm between another person's neck and the haute guard - one wrong pivot of the polearm and the first point to give way will be soft neck bone, and not the steel haute guard - unless the strap breaks. I wanted a left side haute guard on my armor back for the 1 season I did SCA heavy, and was told I could not because of that. Particularly dangerous for melees where there's weapons flying on all sides. I also heard there are no strikes allowed of more than 180* swing with a great weapon, which you certainly had thrown at you. To make sure we're talking about the same thing, a haute guard is a vertical guard on a pauldron, like here (http://home.messiah.edu/~gdaub/armor/pictures/valentin/maximil.jpg). There might be some variances that says leather ones are allowed, but not steel (since the leather will give easily). I'd actually be a bit surprised if they are legal.

It was somewhere around 15 years ago that I last picked up a stick, and it's east coast, and only at the local fighter practices (I never fought at an event, or got authorized); that may have something to do with it?

Good point.

Yes. I just reviewed the West Kingdom 2011 ACM and found no mention of Haute Guards. I never even remember that being a rule here. Nor can I see how having haute guards is any worse than that leathery bit they wore in the 12th century on the shoulder (alliette?) which is legal.

Society level they are legal but your local kingdom mileage may vary.

Thank you Rautt, this was helpful.

Seems to me that a quarterstaff guy Vs Armoured guy is at a huge disadvantage.

For one, all your shots are null.

For another, plate armour I've found gives one a great advantage in all those nice grapples and such.
I'd say if the fancy leveraging techniques that'll work against armour with a quarterstaff are used, the fight was decided by the armoured man's incompetence or at the least extreme contemplacency.

If I were in the situation, I would take advantage of the not-45 pounds on my frame and get out of there faster than the armour guy.

You make a good point Sir Nathan, that could happen.

[Thorsteinn]

Dear Gods Of War:

Please let Nathan try to grapple me in my kit... with my 12 lb helm to headbutt him with, and my metal gauntlets, elbow cops, and knee cops to strike him with and all the various other bits of mayhem I have on me whilst he be unarmoured.

 

[Sir William]

Ivan, I think you would be in for more than you think...he might be unarmored, but that does not necessarily equate to a lack of fighting ability.  In armor or not, one should be able to rise to the occasion.  You assume he would allow you to close the distance so you could headbutt him...I would posit that before you could do so, he would sidestep you, tangle up your feet with the qstaff and take you to the ground, where your heavy steel head and longsword would do you no real bit of good- especially if he is on top. 

Just an opposing thought.

[Thorsteinn]

No Longsword & I can ground fight well.

Besides. Not like he can do nearly as much to me with bare hands while in full mount compared to what I can do to him.

I, a 6'0" 225lb muscular guy, once did a demo for a friend where I hit him with an elbow strike to the sternum hard enough that it would have sent him to the hospital had he not been wearing armour. He did feel it and he was surprised at it's effect but it didn't slow him down one bit.

Another of our guys took a full force side kick to the chest while balanced and felt nothing. The other guy sprained his ankle.