|
Post by Yamanouchi Eidou on Mar 3, 2010 13:33:07 GMT -5
So, it occurs to me that, if we are looking to use shields in SCA combat within a japanese persona, it might be worth it to be some mild exercise of the dreaded C in SCA (Let's not get into that whole discussion right now, let's just consider this particular suggestion on it's individual merits).
So I think we know that when doing japanese in heavy combat you can't do everything perfectly, you have to make some allowances for safety and the like, which most people to be fine with. Simultaneously, many seem to make concerted effort to maintain a japanese look to their gear and I, at least, think this is a commendable effort.
This said, might it not be a horrible idea to make a modified tate style shield to be used in SCA heavy combat. I can think of threee direct application right now. If you think it might be worth persuing, then good for you, if not, then also good for you; I'm just brainstorming. (We shall call these shield designs "fudate" or "false tate")
1.) the tate proper (Daifudate or Ofudate): It seems that figuring out the construction of a tate isn't exactly a course in quantum physics and the size and shape of it seem, to me at least to make it analogous to a tower or kite shield. On the shield wall, if you really want to dig in against your opponents, why not do it with a full square coverage in front of you. Heck, you could even just set it down when everyone locks in and sit behind the thing. It might be necessary to change the handle configuration from horizontal to diagonal for comfort reasons
2. tate heaters (Chufudate): This seems to me to be most useful in the aforementioned desire to have a shield in tournament combat. This would more or less be a half sized tate about the size of a heater, but square instead of the classical heater shape. The squared off top design seems very similar to a heater anyway and once again, the bottom square offers extra protection in a jutting edge on your bottom left. Alternately, by substituting the two handle, or handle and strap for a single handle, you have a very nice square round shield (admittedly, sans boss). Furthermore, with the flat edges of your round, a simpe turn of the wrist might very effectively change the direction your opponent's sword slides off when he strikes the edge of your shield.
3.) tate bucklers (kofudate): I'm not sure how often heavy fighters are using bucklers these days, but they're quite common in the rapier fields and I know there are period manuals that have arming sword and buckler plays. Ironically this seems the most historically justifiable based on what people here are saying (though it is taken out of context for the purpose of close in fighting). This would handle very much like the aforementioned chufudate center-held, though perhaps with more movement.
Anyway, just some out there thoughts. (Cue solveig)
|
|
Saionji Shonagon
New Member
One dreamed of becoming somebody. Another remained awake and became. (Found in a fortune cookie.)
Posts: 7,240
|
Post by Saionji Shonagon on Mar 3, 2010 13:43:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Yamanouchi Eidou on Mar 3, 2010 15:32:27 GMT -5
Also perfectly doable.
|
|
|
Post by Yagyu Jubei Takemori on Mar 3, 2010 17:11:42 GMT -5
I have also seen offhands (the name escapes me now) that are a small buckler sized dish on a pole with stabbing tips at each end. <======|____|==================>
Looking something like that. I haven't seen any evidence of it in historical documents or paintings, but that could be used as well.
|
|
Saionji Shonagon
New Member
One dreamed of becoming somebody. Another remained awake and became. (Found in a fortune cookie.)
Posts: 7,240
|
Post by Saionji Shonagon on Mar 3, 2010 18:18:31 GMT -5
I have also seen offhands (the name escapes me now) that are a small buckler sized dish on a pole with stabbing tips at each end. It sounds like you're describing a madu, which I think is an East Indian weapon.
|
|
|
Post by solveig on Mar 3, 2010 19:30:01 GMT -5
Noble Cousins! Greetings from Solveig! I rather like the idea of showing up at a war with a full size tate with folding prop. It is sort of the Calontir Shield Wall on steroids. A Japanese unit could really annoy the Normans by showing up with a line of the things. The buckler approach is also documentable. I'm not sure what the following is arguing: Ironically this seems the most historically justifiable based on what people here are saying (though it is taken out of context for the purpose of close in fighting). This would handle very much like the aforementioned chufudate center-held, though perhaps with more movement. Since the evidence for using such a shield is specifically for raiding a house, it seems to me that these are best justified for close-up fighting. Basically, if you really must use a shield in the list field, then why not use a rectangular buckler? At least if they will let you use one. The long axis is vertical and the short axis is horizontal. The grip appears to be, as I recall, a vertical curved handle.
|
|
|
Post by Yamanouchi Eidou on Mar 3, 2010 20:42:07 GMT -5
I'm arguing what you yourself have just said, so it seems you have understood it fine.
Although, if i recall correctly, Effingham-gimi made the conjecture that it was likely for deflecting arrows (dakara "out of context").
|
|
|
Post by tengumoon on Mar 3, 2010 23:10:36 GMT -5
Ii-dono...
For a moment - edge vs flat discussion... with a katana I generally dont force on force black at all I have been trained to deflect, redirect or avoid all incoming blows (which is rather different technically to blocking) and would most often use the back of the blade (very much similar to body mechanics of using the false edge of a european double edged blade)
From Talhoffer and de Liberi there is a lot of pointers to blocking with the edge, purely due to body mechanics - the wrists and the way the hilt is gripped. Granted most of this is around winding and such, but direct blocks also appear in those manuscripts.
Also being involved in rapier,the parries are edge paries as there is so much more strength in such than upon the flat
I have trained in Shinden Fudo Ryu, Takage Yoshin Ryu, KukiShinden Happo Bikenjutsu
as to your points: of course a parry is not desirable (as spoken above) When inevitable I would rather damage my blade edge than lose my life
Which pictures do youtalk about showing blade orientation? It could be argued that manuscripts where not depicted terribly accurately regarding this and even if they were I would also perhaps argue that the images could at the least be taken either way
another point being that one blocks / defends / parrys with the strong (base) of the blade and cuts with the weak (the tip) and as such when defending one is not risking damage to the cutting portion of the blade
|
|
|
Post by Yamanouchi Eidou on Mar 4, 2010 1:26:39 GMT -5
If the strike of edge to edge is a natural body mechanic, then you are moving to strike your opponent's swing, not parrying to receive it. You are most likely parrying with the middle of the blade rather than the forte (ESPECIALLY if you're in the bind).
|
|
|
Post by Please Delete on Mar 4, 2010 3:47:52 GMT -5
with a katana I generally dont force on force black at all I have been trained to deflect, redirect or avoid all incoming blows (which is rather different technically to blocking) and would most often use the back of the blade (very much similar to body mechanics of using the false edge of a european double edged blade) FYI, training to use the back of the blade is attested to in Japanese history--and in the study of wounds from battles in the Bakumatsu era where examination of skulls showed an interesting wound: it apparently was almost cross-shaped. I want to see the actual evidence, but the cause appears to have been people blocking with the back of the blade and having the sharp edge thrust into them. I'll dig up "Spada" when I get home, but the main thrust of the article (no pun intended) was that you don't see edge-to-edge blocks. You see attacks with the edge to the opponent's flat (thus redirecting your opponent's blade) or blocks with the flat opposing your opponent's edge--all whether false or true. Given Mr. Mele's work and study, I tend to count him among the various experts on WMA. Rapier is a different animal, though I wonder if that doesn't have some influence, here. As mentioned, I'll have to bring the article to the fore. -Ii
|
|
|
Post by Please Delete on Mar 4, 2010 6:37:45 GMT -5
Warning--this is primarily western martial arts material, so I apologize if this is too off-topic:
Much Ado About Nothing, or the Cutting Edge of Flat Parries by Gregory Mele
Published in Spada: Anthology of Swordsmanship, ISBN 1-891448-37-4
Some excerpts:
"It is generally accepted in modern fencing schools that the sword defends by moving into line to receive an attack, just as it is about to land, edge-to-edge... This methodology seems to have been taught consistently by the military and civilian fencing masters of the 18th and 19th centuries". He later talks about how modern fencing, where edge-parries are commonly taught, has affected interpratations of historical swordsmanship, providing frog-DNA, as it is often called on various forums.
He then points out the difference between a sharpened sword and a dull cavalry saber or edgless, thrust-oriented [and post-period] smallsword. He points to many of the fighting manuals showing swords meeting edge to flat or flat to flat, vice edge to edge. Finally, he mentions the opinion of Ewart Oakeshott, supported by modern smiths, "that the flexibility of the sword across its flat is specifically designed to allow the flat, rather than the edge to absorb and deflect the impact of a parry" (emphassis original).
This is followed by the admonition that spending time on worrying about parries is spending time on the wrong thing. Studying various medieval masters, you come about with the following hierarchy of defense "in the following manner of decreasingly 'perfect' technique."
Based on this, parrying are all in the lower half, or less perfect, variety. Personally, I see this order as an indication that one should not practice the parry to the neglect of the first three methods; that is, the parry should be studied, but the first three methods should take pride of place in practice. After all, you should practice to be perfect, not imperfect. This actually matches very well with my understanding of Japanese martial arts as well.
Mele notes that the actual instructions of the masters prior to the 16th century really never tell you how to parry, specifically. He did find a section of the Norse Kormac's Saga, which he relates as follows:
"In a Holmganga (formal duel), Kormac parries Bersi's sword Hviting using the edge of the sword Skofnung, which he has borrowed from his friend Skeggi. In the duel, Kormac is caught off-guard and makes a desperate parry with his sword's edge. He breaks the point off of Bersi's sword, but in the process badly nicks and chips Skofnung. The skald's [sic] tell us that Skeggi was 'greatly annoyed' that Kormac did not take better care of his weapon."
Granted, as Mele points out, one single instance doesn't make an entire system of swordsmanship.
He then uses the following manuscripts to illustrate his point: I.33 (c.1275-1300 AD) Fiore dei Liberi, Flos Duellatorum, 1409 Talhoffer's Fechtbuch, 1467 Codex Wallerstein, 15th Century (parts possibly c1380-1410) Albrecht Dürer's Oplodidaskalia sive Armorum Tractandorum Meditation, 1512 (probably a re-working of Codex Wallerstein, but with the attention to detail Dürer is so famous for) Joachim Meyer, Gründtliche beschreibung der freyen ritterlichen und adelichen kunst des fechtens, 1570
In these, Mele examines both the text and the illustrations, acknowledging the possible problems with the artists' interpretation, but nonetheless showing a consistency of technique (whether in blade or wrist angle) that is consistent over different artists through the ages.
He uses a total of 16 primary sources and numerous secondary sources.
Much of the text indicates not a parry, but cutting the opponent while the blade covers the wielder--I would argue this is not "edge to edge", however, as one is not attacking the sword but the person.
Generally, I'd also note that specifically parrying with the edge *as I've seen it done* takes the blade out of line from the cut, meaning you have to move it back into line to attack. Not that you couldn't turn it as you attack, but in my experience, it isn't the most effective way to cut.
-Ii
|
|
|
Post by suprafighter86 on Mar 6, 2010 22:37:06 GMT -5
Simply put, no. A Samurai NEVER used a shield. they did use tate, yes, for front line defense, as previously stated. But...really? Why would they ever need one to begin with?
|
|
|
Post by Yamanouchi Eidou on Mar 8, 2010 12:59:45 GMT -5
It is a shaky historical argument to ever say that such and such "NEVER happened". It is dangerously closed minded to state a preconception and then try to prove that historically. It is much better and more likely to reveal more interesting historical facts to constantly ask questions and above all else examine historical documents and documentation and take what information is to be found there.
|
|
|
Post by Yagyu Jubei Takemori on Mar 9, 2010 12:02:45 GMT -5
While doing some background research, I came across mention of shields used:
"Shields were commonly used in nearly all military contexts in Japan, beginning with prehistory. Chinese dynastic histories include descriptions that indicate shields were in use by the 3rd century Japan. Other sources such as haniwa (clay figures) found on or near tomb mounds and excavated objects confirm that shields made until the end of the sixth century mostly had a rectangle form, measured about 100 to 150 cm long and about 50 cm wide. Most early sheilds were composed of layered leather covered with lacquer"
and
"During the early medieval period, shields made of wood became more common, and they were designed for individual protection and to present a coordinated defense on the battlefield. From the Nara period to early medieval period, military shields were standing wooden barriers about eye level in height and roughly the width of human shoulders..."
They seemed to have been more commonly pieced together from multiple vertical slats, than solid boards, and had the hinged leg to provide support. Ill add more when I get to the tactics section as it has deployment tactics for them.
Source: Handbook to Life in Medival and Early Modern Japan William E.Deal (c)2006 Oxford University press ISBN:978-0-19-533126-4(pbk.)
|
|
|
Post by Yagyu Jubei Takemori on Mar 9, 2010 12:32:21 GMT -5
Seems that most of the user for the larger shields was for temporary fortifications on open fields. They were also deployed around more permanent fortifications like brush piles and fences. Often walls were made by linking a series of shields. This served to slow the enemy and to allow cover for archers and spear men. It also mentions that they were more favored than other temporary fortifications (brush piles and fences) because of their ease and speed of deployment and mobility compared to the alternatives.
(same source as before)
Also for those of us with US schooling 100cmx50cm is approx 39"x19" or 40"x 20"
|
|