Main > The Courtyard
Historical HEMA Tournaments and Deeds of Arms
Sir Brian:
In regards to the safety factor of the wooden wasters over anything else, in my opinion that is ONLY because they cannot penetrate the oculars of most helms. For concussive force I do not ‘feel’ much difference between wood, aluminum or rigid steel blades like the Fechterspiel. My overall preference for wooden wasters would be the cost although I could have aluminum wasters made at almost the same cost as the wooden wasters but then that would be akin to trading our ‘Louisville Sluggers’ in for aluminum bats. ;)
--- Quote from: Gareyth on 2014-06-05, 17:55:20 ---What about combatants wearing some kind of close-fitting eye protection (i.e., goggles) underneath the helm?
--- End quote ---
I’ve contemplated the same and even tried wearing some safety glasses in my helm but they didn’t fit. Although I didn’t try swimming goggles so they could possibly work. :-\
Ian:
You don't think it would have to be the world's luckiest BB in order to align a blade perfectly to a moving target with protruding eyeslots that are 1cm wide and only allow a blade to pass through if it's in the same plane as the eyeslot as well?
I'm waiting for an answer from the guys who do this sort of combat, because the statistical answer has got to be that the chances of stabbing a flat steel blade through a flat steel eyeslot in the heat of battle when they have to be almost perfectly aligned is probably an insignificant chance.
And all that on top of telling the combatants 'no thrusts to the face.'
Go get a steel helmet and a steel blade and try to do it on a perfectly still helmet on purpose. I think you'll find yourself quite frustrated if the helmet has historical features.
Sir Nate:
--- Quote from: Ian on 2014-06-05, 18:26:08 ---You don't think it would have to be the world's luckiest BB in order to align a blade perfectly to a moving target with protruding eyeslots that are 1cm wide and only allow a blade to pass through if it's in the same plane as the eyeslot as well?
I'm waiting for an answer from the guys who do this sort of combat, because the statistical answer has got to be that the chances of stabbing a flat steel blade through a flat steel eyeslot in the heat of battle when they have to be almost perfectly aligned is probably an insignificant chance.
And all that on top of telling the combatants 'no thrusts to the face.'
Go get a steel helmet and a steel blade and try to do it on a perfectly still helmet on purpose. I think you'll find yourself quite frustrated if the helmet has historical features.
--- End quote ---
I find it a tad frustrating with just my Bucket alone when its on its perch. Looking at your Helmet Ian I would find Id have to use my fingers to guide the end of the blade into the Eye slots.
Sir James A:
Both Sir Nathan and I have taken face thrusts from wooden wasters (mostly or all due to neck or armpit thrusts that hit the face instead). Wood is safer around the face than steel because it doesn't fit through the eye slots, unless concessions are made with bending or safety-balling the tips of the steel swords, regulations on eye slot sizing, etc.
We know helmets were designed to prevent thrusts getting through the visor slits. Their lives were literally on the line doing that. We are no less vulnerable to death by swords through the eye than they were. Telling people "no thrusts to the face" is a poor option. I'm pretty sure there was an implied "no dagger thrusts to the face through openings in the helmet" but that didn't stop me from getting my nose fractured by a dagger thrust to the face when the visor came off. Accidents can and will happen, and thank goodness mine was minor. :)
If the odds of taking a steel sword through the eye slot are 1 in 999,999,999,999 I am still not going to do it; it's not the odds, it's the stakes. If I can get killed in that marginal chance that, just once, a sword blade comes through the visor, through my eyes and into my brain, because we're using steel instead of the more practical and still historically suitable alternative of a wooden waster, flat out, I'm not going to participate in combat. I'll armor up, look pretty, and talk about armor if desired, but armored combat with steels is a level I am not doing.
We aren't talking about some million dollar prize top tier martial arts tournament. This is supposed to be fun, educational, and for charity. A guy in England was killed by a synthetic when it went through his helmets eye slot because, well, visor slot opening bigger than a sword is playing with fire.
Ian:
I'm much more likely to do in an aviation accident than taking a sword through the eye, and I don't stop flying because of that.
You're more likely to die on the way to the tournament in your car than taking a sword through the eye, and the stakes are equally as high (death, disfigurement) and the statistics prove that you should be deathly afraid of driving, but we're not...
It's hardly playing with fire.
--- Quote from: Sir James A on 2014-06-05, 19:26:41 --- Telling people "no thrusts to the face" is a poor option. I'm pretty sure there was an implied "no dagger thrusts to the face through openings in the helmet" but that didn't stop me from getting my nose fractured by a dagger thrust to the face when the visor came off. Accidents can and will happen, and thank goodness mine was minor. :)
--- End quote ---
Totally apples and oranges. If the face weren't a valid target at all, that accident would be much less likely to occur. You had an equipment malfunction on a LEGAL target. It's hard to pull a blow that's already on it's way as an experienced fighter even if you recognize the equipment failure in that split second. There's no analogy or comparison there. If you agreed that you can't thrust to the face, even if your visor fell off, your nose wouldn't be broken. It was the equipment failure that caused the injury, not an accident of hitting an unlikely target as would be the case of putting a thin piece of steel through a 1 cm moving gap in 3d space that's surrounded by glancing surfaces.
The proof is in the pudding. The premiere historical tournaments are using steel and not walking away dead, blind or maimed. Is it just luck? I think there's more to it than that.
Do we have any real data on the guy who took the synthetic in the eye? What type of helmet was he wearing, how wide were the oculars, what were the circumstances, and what were the rules? Not knowing that context makes it hard to determine its application here.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version