I have been promising this for some time, but I finally have some basic thoughts on how we should go about combat with each other in Armet.

Well, to start off with the basics, I should define troop categories - basically melee infantry, missile troops, cavalry, and specialist troops - i.e. artillery, and how they should interact with each other. I'm just tossing this out here as ideas to be commented on - not rules set in stone (yet). I assume it will require hammering out and tweaking.

A minimum of armour is required to participate in combat. I would suggest at a bare minimum a sleeved stiff jack, a helmet, and mitten gauntlets or well constructed finger gauntlets.

First off, the elite of any medieval army, the mounted man at arms. Possibly the most dangerous form of combat we will engage in.

Mounted troops shall not directly charge any bodies of infantry - a charge should be directed in such a way that it would pass to one side of a body of infantry.

Cavalry and infantry shall not engage each other, unless for a carefully choreographed action that is thoroughly planned in advance - agreed to by both sides.

Cavalry engaging each other should slow their charge before impact, engaging in melee with hand weapons rather than with lance - an unhorsing in a melee could lead to all sorts of unpleasantness for all parties involved that wouldn't occur in a tilt.

Obviously the horses are not to be targets!

Infantry - OK, this is where my talking with our English friend who is in a combat society has paid off. The basic formation for the infantry making up a battle of this period is the man with a spear/glaive/bill/halberd/pike as a primary weapon, and some sort of hanger or sword as a secondary one.

Sword combat - targets to include upper arms, upper legs, and the head (only to be struck on the vertical plane). A blow should be pulled - a controlled blow. It is the responsibility of a company's master of arms to see that all combatants in his company can perform a pulled blow, and a master of arms for an event appointed to see that this is complied with. Thrusting verbotten - except for choreographed combat agreed to and practiced in advance. Face thrusts are right out. All swords to be of sturdy construction with rebated edges - it is the responsibility of a company's master of arms to see any weapons on the field in his company are safe and in good condition.

Pole weapon combat - this is the toughie - they do it in England, and we should too. Any polearm should have rebated edges. A secure cap should be fitted over a rebated thrusting tip (I'm considering construction of same). trips are to be rebated and not employed (again. unless in carefully choreographed combat). Pole arms are not to be swung in the vertical plane for a chop, rather, they can be swung on the horizontal plane. legitimate targets are upper arms and legs - the head is right out. The primary role for the pole arm I envision is in the "push of pike" a secure cap over a rebated point should allow us to shove each other about with the point - the stouter combatants should well be able to shove a battle line back, and this should give us the flavor of a melee a bit.

Missile troops. Archery should be engaged in using re-enactors blunts as in England - normal shafts with larger than normal fletching to slow the missile, and with a 2"? (might have been 1/2" - I'll look over my e-mail) across rubber cap for the point. Bows should not exceed 35 lbs pull. Archery should be indirect plunging fire (this is historically correct anyhow) Archery cannot be employed against cavalry (no need to have a horse freak out or be injured). All archery should cease as battle lines close (I'm not sure whether this should be 50 yards or within - but it shouldn't be closer than 30 yards). Archers should then pick up melee weapons if they wish to continue the battle. Black powder weapons should be fired slightly above the infantry body targeted (standard re-enactor practice in the states) - a 5 degree rise doesn't look bad, and contributes to safety. No firearms to be discharged inside of 30 yards of the targeted battle line or individual.

Artillery - a 50 yard deadline is the required re-enactment rule for all periods - extending 45 degrees in a cone from the muzzle of the gun. I will send Red Company a list of black powder artillery regulations that are required in the US - I know you will have a cannon soon - Hurrah!

Obviously battle outcomes (The Lancastrians ain't ever winning Barnet) will be decided before the event, and a meeting of all company captains is required the night before an engagement, and on the day of a couple of hours before, so we are all aware of the course of events happening in the battle, and our respective companies roles. This information is to be clearly relayed to the combatants of each company before the engagement.

Tacticals are a possibility, but at least this gives us some groundwork for rules to mull over and chew on. I eagerly await comments.

I've been in contact with his brother Scrumhalf about a monk's habit.

Yep - that would be him. It's taken a bit to make some sense out of some of his letter(as to application of his rules -he assumes a basic familiarity with them), but what he is saying follows what I've read in Military History Illustrated, and the little bits I've heard from other UK re-enactors. I've made up some of it myself.

Jeff, I noticed that Marklynn (sic?) Military Militia has horse standards that are somewhat intriguing. Should I write them and see if we can get a copy of how they "okay" horses and riders for their groups? They seem to have this process that is set up in stages: parade and battle. Based on the rider's ability and that of the horse depends on what functions you can participate in. I think it is important to have something within ARMET to cover this issue.

Go ahead and find out what you can. It won't hurt for us to know as much as
we can about how others have handled it. I think we're breaking new ground,
though.

they are associated with (My mistake) not part of Markland. It is the Medieval horse guild.
http://blackbox.psyberia.com/~HorseGuild/Default.htm

Some of their event qualifying may suit ARMET. They have a few things I don't agree with, but that's just me being territorial about my horse. I would be "spooky" about "joe" anybody getting on her back unless I really knew them.

However, I think starting that evening (depending on arrival times and how long it takes to setup) or definitely wakeup call the following morning, the modern stuff "disappears": including timetravel devices like electronic leashes(pagers, cellphones,etc...) unless they can be concealed and are on none music mode or you have some reason why you absolutely have to have this device on your person.

Suspended should be modern coversation such as computers and the Wallstreet journal especially if the goal is total imersion and use of a cleverly researched and crafted personae. It ruins the atmosphere when someone is talking about what the town crier had to say about Louis the spider king, while someone else is taking about Bill Gates. As a modern, believe me, it isn't easy to walk into the past and leave the 20th c behind, but it is the only way to gain some insight, besides, you'll be back to the 20th on Sunday afternoon.

It is important I think that if the public is involved, that care be taken to maintain a "historical" feel. I wouldn't be wearing my Raybans with a cellphone in one hand and a diet coke in the other.

If we had mandatory throat armour, then we would be unique in doing this (as a re-enactment orginization - not a compoetative sport). The various re-enactment societies in England do not mandate it, and have not had a problem. The fighting isn't a competative sport like the SCA or Adrian, it is simply a visual enhancement to the scenario, and a means of having each side 'take casualties'.

The saftey factor comes from STRICTLY defined target areas (more are available on a fully armoured man than a relatively unarmoured one), and each group ensuring no man goes on the field without adequate training as how to fight. Blows are pulled, and common sense must be applied. It cannot be what 'combat' is to the martial sport orginizations, but it should be visualy more satisfying. After all, the scenario victory is pre-determined. The worst thing we could possibly do is to start encumbering ourselves with historicaly innacurate saftey devices that will stick out as being 'wrong', especialy if we are able to insure safety through a strict set of rules.

Thousands of people do this every year in Europe, with exceedingly few injuries that I am aware of. You can bet that if there were many injuries, the governments in Europe, being of the general mindset that their citizens need 'minders' (my apologies to the European members, but that is my perception on how things seem to be over there), then re-enactment would be regulated more heavily than it is, or banned alltogether.

I fought with a much looser set of standards at the recent Stoudt's event, and there were no problems. When you aren't really fighting, and you have no intent to injure the other party, it is safer than you might think.

I'm not even kiding.

Jenn

The assumption / goal should be that you won't fight unless your portrayal warrants it and you have the appropriate armour to fight.

Doeas that make sense? I haven't had any coffee yet this morning and I'm still a bit fuzzy...

I'm going to split the civilian post off to another thread.

Gwen

That does make sense, now that I think about it. I think my initial post was a bit hasty, and was colored by my personal experiences outside of LH style events. The thought process went something like this:

"Jack... Ok. Helmet... That's a no brainer. Mitten gaunts... Maybe not correct in all circumstances but fingers are easy to bust and most people need them. Gee, if I go onto the field like that the very first thing that will hapen to me is that I will get somehow hit in the throat. Maybe I should mention that?"

Did you get to go to the Stroud's event with Bob R? If so, what did you think of it?

Any change you and your sweetie could do Priceline.com and come to our RedCo. event in the spring? We'd love to have you, Bob, Pieter, et al...

--------------------

It is one of the goals of the East Coast groups. I think it is part of our MET museum trip agenda, to go to lunch or dinner and talk about various things. To kind of get a feel for where we are and where we're going and to "standardize" how we do things so that we can work together.

--------------------

So my suggestion is to wear armour only for pre-determined battles. This will reduce chance injuries and bruising. Without the rush of 'lets win', we can concentrate on skill. Armour may be made lighter and more accurate. This will also allow more people to participate both in practice and battle.

The safest way of combat would be at a barrier. This is accurate for the 14th and 15th I believe. Using waist up or counted blows, things can be slowed down and become much safer.

Just some ideas.

--------------------

Most people in the time period we portray would not be armoured. They would be "naked" men, having partial, cloth, or no armoured protection at all. Touch should be good enough without "follow through" or clubbing them into submission.

We are proposing Living History/Re-enactment style Tacticals and skirmish combat as they would have been in the field of the time. Pre-game meetings would be held to discuss rules of engagement and conditions for victory. Anybody waving a weapon is expected to have control. If participants demonstrate the inability to listen, exercise control, or they get over zealous, then they won't be allowed to interact with other participants on the field until they can demonstrate otherwise. Safety is paramount, no exceptions.

A good suggestion, but we aren't looking at "barrier" or tournai style combat. As stated above, we are looking at field conditions. Tournament style barriers would be inappropriate for what we are going for in the way of LH and RE combat, unless of course we are knocking lances or doing other tournament style contests. Though from the minatures of our time, I haven't seen too many foot combats over a barrier. Could be that I am looking at trial by combat and the intent to finish your foe off rather than a "peaceful" combat. (How's that for a contradiction in terms?)

Competitive WMA is a different animal and will probably be addressed in a subsection when we get around to that aspect.

Interaction of equestrians and ground troops, archery, and the like will all be covered and eventually we hope to have a set of guidelines that allow for all aspects of the hobby so that we can interact safely no matter which LH/RE groups are involved.

--------------------

so, rubber tips/low poundage? just for show but not employed? shooting into the butt? what has been the final say. joking aside, i have concerns about sending missiles at my freinds even if they are dressed up like the swiss brigands.

daniel

who forgot to wear his gloves the last time he was shooting all day and has now developed a nice calous on his shooting fingers.

--------------------

Db

quote:

---

Originally posted by LHF:
so what did we decide to do with archery? our numbers have been growing down south, with another chap that has been tinkering with the idea of purchasing a bow for himself.

so, rubber tips/low poundage? just for show but not employed? shooting into the butt? what has been the final say. joking aside, i have concerns about sending missiles at my freinds even if they are dressed up like the swiss brigands.

daniel

who forgot to wear his gloves the last time he was shooting all day and has now developed a nice calous on his shooting fingers.

---

how do european groups handle archery? i myself dont feel comfortable getting shot at with "rubber tips" cause accidents happen only thing ive seen on this side of the pond is the foam tipped arrows .

--------------------

We haven't decided anything on archery. I think the european groups handle it by indirect fire as one method.

But as I indicated, this is just one of the things that need to be discussed. If we decide overwhelmingly that it probably can't be done safely, then when probably won't, but we should talk about it before we dismiss the notion out of hand.

--------------------

I guess I should emphasize we haven't decided anything about anything - apparently this bled onto the 15th century list as some misunderstanding regarding "this is a set of standards".

Two facts we have to deal with

1. We have to have a way to interact with each other in combat. I would prefer to rely on each group having a standard of training for a recruit, than catering to the lowest common denominator as the Society has, and eliminating many aspects of Medieval combat to allow Joe shmuck off the street to pick up a rebated weapon and start flaining away with no instruction.

2. We need to be able to include as realistically as we can (allowing for safety of participants) the crucial aspects that make up the Medieval battlefield of the time and place we choose to represent. One aspect of UK WoR reenactment that is totaly Farby, and reflects nothing of actual history is the pathetic lack of archers on WoR battlefields, and their inability to have any significant contribution to the reenactment - point 2 being the causual effect of point 1. I would hope we can do better than they have in this respect.

This is a time of experimentation. We should be willing to try different approaches to the handleing of these elements before dismissing them out of hand.

I have given some thought to the aspects of archery - as we are only able to engage at the level of minor skirmishes, an archer can have a profound impact on the outcome of such an engagement, and frankly ought to be allowed to have his effect. I don't think we should be shotting each other with bird blunts from hunting bows, on the other hand, on approach might be to take the largest blunt head available, and modify it with an application of foam, useing a softwood shaft, and larger than normal fletching. Other suggestions and experimentation is quite welcome. Some types of targets may have to be entirely off limits, and when we get to the point of larger engagements, redirected fire alongside rather than at a target may be the only means available , with an officer/umpire ordering X number of men to drop as casualties.

I would die of shame were we reduced to shooting at each other with golf tubes.

--------------------

--------------------