WMA is not trying to change re-enactment combat

[Colin]

This claim was brought to my attention:

"this is one of the reasons NAAMA is tearing itself apart at present, on one side you have the Living History, and WMA, crowd shouting "Our Way, Our Way", and on the other you have the T.O.D crowd shouting "Our Way Our Way" and no one is saying "hey why cant we share the sand pit".""

T.O.D. I believe stands for "Touch of Death", but I could be wrong.

The claim was made on a LARP site on the subject of combat. Why WMA got dragged into it is anybody's guess. The full thread can be viewed here http://diatribe.co.nz/viewtopic.php?t=942

WMA is about the reconstruction of dead European Martial Arts or keeping existing ones (like Defense dans la rue or jogo do pau) alive. It isn't trying to change the chess, re-enactment or karate techniques.

This claim over NAAMA is quite silly. WMA "crowds" threaten NAAMA as much as the existence of karate or judo "crowds". If "NAAMA is tearing itself apart at present" then it's for quite different reasons. Find another scapegoat.

[White Knight]

Colin I agree.
People can choose whatever style of combat they want to do.
I prefer WMA but sometimes I will choose to do head blow.
T.O.D has lost it's appeal to me and I am wanting to participate in WMA combat.

Some people want to do fantasy and others want to do living history.

I see a division occurring within the re-enactment movement and it is because re-enactment is changing. The hobby is maturing. This will ultimately lead to change and division but it is not WMA's fault. People are branching out and have decided to do their own thing.

My opinion is that Living History is the way of the future.
Living History is more than just swinging a sword. It involves spending the time and money, doing the research to get things historically accurate as possible for the clothing and armour that you wear, the weapons that you use and the other gear such as camp site equipment.

Different sponsors are putting in tens of thousands of dollars and they want a high standard of authentic costume and gear, etc in return. For example the Viking display at the Auckland Museum and the jousting events that are being held at Taupo which is being part funded by the Taupo City Council.
If we raise our standards of authentic clothing, gear, etc and behave well they will accept us and invite us back again the next time they have an event.

Living History. Choose to be part of it.

Brent

[Colin]

[fuzzy]

It's a hobby for some, a lifestyle for others. This should not create tension between people, as we should remember we do it for fun. Those who cannot possibly fathom this have more problems than historical accuracy and whether or not they should talk to people.

Living history is the future of reenactment in New Zealand, as interest in medieval times is what draws us into the scene in the first place, but this devloment should not create hostile divides within a community but diversity.

People like myself who have been doing reenactment for 6 years and have realised 2 years ago that living history is the best route sometimes forget that for beginners who have no experience yet ,it is still new and do not have the basis yet to witch thay can apply the base concepts of living history like reaseach and time consuming fiddly hand sewing {though i love it} givin time people come to a natural love 9of living history or not

living history in my opion is not about combat it is about garb, knowedge of historical events and attudies and devtion if all you are complaing about is combat differences ...... well what can i say

this may sound corny but i count all reenactment personaalitys a freinds and judge no one spite their differences as they also feel the in some way the same enjoyment i do

[Colin]

Not that I particularly care anymore but the whole argument over giving beginners time falls flat when examined from an overseas perspective.

While getting an extensive body of historical kit takes time, a basic kit is quite trivial to put together. All it takes are the leaders of whatever organisation to take the lead in putting together kit. Do the research for the time period that they're trying to promote, and decide on a minimum standard for their organisation.

What creates tension are all the petty lies and politics. People claiming, for example, that WMA is trying to change NAAMA. People from all over the world are doing WMA. The overwhelming majority have never even heard of NAAMA. There are people in this country who do WMA and who haven't heard of NAAMA. WMA organisations around the world are not trying to change re-enactment combat in their respective countries. Sure there are re-enactment clubs trying to do WMA combat, but that is on their own volition. No WMA organisation demands that re-enactors adopt WMA.

It is these types of lies and politics that caused my lack of interest in re-enactment in Auckland. I also know I'm not unique. I've got quite a long list of the lies about me from the re-enactment community in this country. Some are benign, like I teach "katana", but others are outright malicious, for example, I apparently refuse to teach women (too bad I have women as students already, but that doesn't stop the lies.) And people wonder why I have a lack of interest in the re-enactment community these days

[knight of magdalene]

H dont realy want to wade into this discussdion but isnt wma reenactment? And isnt Naama reenactment also? Wasnt the Naama rules put togeather to do reenactment in a safe way, as wer wma? Since the internet we have a lot more facts at our fingertips with historical treatise etc. thus I know the Naama rules for example have changed over time to reflect this new knowlege. Wma also.

New participants are essential for the growth of the sport, activity, scientific studies ( wma or naama. )

As in days of old some people were peasants, they wore rags. many gained their fortunes and purchased or made harness and became knights. A new member would simply be required to dress in handsewn hessan bag or other rough cloth, clothing with a woolen blanket for a cloak, feet or feet wrapped in rags for period and carry a garden tool.

Swords were rare, metal was scarse, money was non existant for many.

[Colin]

[knight of magdalene]

Oh I see,... sombody who is poor can always have poverty...so problem solved. People can wear irrespective of finances... rags.

[Colin]

This thread is derailing, but to try and nip something in the bud before it becomes "historical fact" a noble had certain obligations.

A noble had to keep a certain living standard. Such a standard could bankrupt him. In fact it is the primary reason for the large decline in knight numbers in England during the 13th century. Lots of nobles could not afford the added expense of becoming knights, and so remained squires instead. Numerous laws were issued to try and reverse this trend (the name escapes me at present), but the cold hard reality was many nobles simply couldn't afford it.

What a lot of squires would attempt to do instead was join in on mass knighting ceremonies held at royal events. Thus escaping one of the most burdensome expenses: paying for a knighting ceremony. In time this would become the standard of how one became a knight in England (by royal event). A standard remaining until the present day in fact.

It was the expense of being a noble that would eventually destroy the independence of the nobility in Western Europe. Attending court was prohibitively expensive, and aristocrats would need royal jobs just to maintain their wealth. The wealth produced from their own districts were simply insufficient to meet requirements of being noble. Thus they became dependent of the prince's whims. Of course I'm referring to the Renaissance, and not the Middle Ages, but the beginnings of this dependence started in the Middle Ages.

In the Middle Ages the nobility tried to assauge poverty by marrying wealthy people. If they couldn't find wealthy nobles, they turned to wealthy peasants. Unfortunately the latter practise would get frowned upon, particularly on the continent. Eventually to be noble one had to noble on both sides of the family for so many generations. Thus paving the way to dependence on the prince for income in the Renaissance.

IOW nobles did not wear rags (unless they were trying to make a statement.)

[fuzzy]

[Colin]

[fuzzy]

I was agreeing with you. If someone has run a sword through your gut then clearly you have not hit first. If you did then they would be dead or maimed and unable to continue fighting. If you think in real terms then obviously the person to land the first good wounding or killing blow wins. Any fighter wants to hit the oppoent first and wound or kill them with it. How can a fighter win a fight without hitting an opponent first? Obviously blocks and wards and other combat techniques are applied to land a killing blow, which should be, by definition, the first one landed, as the fight will continue until someone hits the other. This hit is called the "first hit". If you have a combat with more than one hit, you are playing dungeons and dragons.

I WAS AGREEING WITH YOU, but as you seem so set on trying to disagree with me and insult me, I will no longer continue this conversation. Please next time use your head and sense while reading things I have written, not your testicles, as clearly you are learned at what you speak about and have valuable insights into medieval combat.

With respect,
Stephan

[Colin]

No, you still don't get it. Hitting first is not the aim of fencing. It's hitting him without being hit in return at all.

Redefining what you mean by "first hit" is still incorrect. There are few "instant" kills. Even puncturing the heart is not an "instant" kill. The only "instant" kills are those that remove the motor areas of the brain (for example decapitation).

A first hit does not guarantee you living afterwards. Not even if the hit was mortal. If you puncture his lungs, he can still attempt to strike at you. Even minor wounds can spell a slow agonising death (over several weeks). You strike while making a suitable cover (often by holding your hand in opposition), and also make sure that your exit is such that he cannot strike you with even an accidental strike. Thus leaving him with no possibility of taking you with him to the great beyond (or being wounded).

(By exit I don't necessarily mean removing yourself from close distance, but that is certainly an option)

Spada II goes through numerous examples of real medical cases involving wounds. The main aim of the article is to discredit the notion of "a thrust of two inches is always fatal" (Flavius Vegetius), but it is a fantastic insight into deadly wounds.

Actual combat to the death might take numerous strikes (if you want them to expire before your own eyes). There's a classic sequence in the 1467 manuscript of Talhoffer in the messer section in which the first plate in the sequence removes the hand, and the second plate with the messer plunging into the head.

And as far as hitting altogether, I could grab the quote from George Silver and post it (but I'm feeling lazy), but as far as George Silver was concerned both going away uninjured (no hits whatsoever) was a good thing. IOW a "first hit" was irrelevant.

[knight of magdalene]

Dont want to wade in and sound like a smarty but. Knowlege I have gained from training combat with the military cheif master instructor...Reality is that exploiting vunerability is what decides life and death, he that succeeds in this first wins. He that engages off the line and exposes wins. Simple. European military martial arts are about this. A blade cuts only on the draw, an axe also is such a delecate placement. blunt weapons are useless weapons ie bashing is a waste of energt try keeping that up for hours it also blunts the only impliment at you disposal. Thus to place ( maim point) is to gain point to draw and dispatch( kill point )in vunerability wins. This is evident against plate harness also. A sword to plate is wasted only blunts, but a sword to vunerable to maim then to dispatch through the vunerable wins. easy. No hammering required. A mace to helm might dent, might not as the raised arm needed creates the vunerability. Just a few thoughts

[White Knight]

AN English staff was usually as thick as your wrist, made of oak or ash and about 9 foot long and weighed a ton.
Colin I think that the reason why Stephan didn't want to count hits from a staff is because in NAAMA a staff looks more like a broom handle and he didn't want people using NAAMA staffs (or broom sticks) which of course would be useless in battle, and some reenactors have no idea what a real staff looks like. I know that I didn't until you showed me one of your staves.

A real staff could murder someone in plate and is too difficult to use safely in play fighting of any kind. Oh if only it could be! As I think it is a beautiful weapon.

Stephan I think that your ideas for combat are reasonably good and are worth a look at. Although not perfect, nothing is especially in the developing stages, I think that your rules for combat are simple and are better than some of the other existing forms of combat, where a tap against plate is considered a kill.
It is too dangerous to safely attempt to duplicate real combat with sharp weapons and other weapons such as a true English staff.

I eventually want to do WMA combat which includes thrusts to the face, visors worn of course, where the object is to hit without being hit. But until we get the gear where we can get to that level I feel that Stephan's combat style is something which we can use right here and now, and I would be willing to have a look at it with the view that I may learn from it and enjoy it, until I can do WMA combat.

Stephan, perhaps we could incorporate in your style the idea of hitting without being hit. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this term, get in, hit him and then get out without being hit because as you know your first hit might not kill him instantly before he has a chance to hit you with a mortal blow within the next second. For simplicity let's not make it any more than a second later.
What do you think?

Colin, yes I do agree with you that the first hit system does encourage speed before skill but, I think that Stephan was trying to simplify the rule system rather than making it too complex because as you know sometimes a first hit can kill and it should be counted as such under a rule system if it appears to be a good, clean, well executed strike.

Of course the T.O.D rules are too simple for my liking and I hope that we can progress from there especially if we are wanting to do WMA.

Brent.