[Regia-NA] battlefield psychology

Tue, 30 Jul 2002 22:16:04 +0100 (BST)

--0-1067061222-1028063764=:93245
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

I always try to explain to the public at a show that what they are watching is entertainment & the real thing would probably involve a lot fewer imediate deaths & a lot more standing around waiting for an opening.
Imagine doing what you do on the battlefield if you were facing an opponent with sharp weapons.I for one wouldn't make any move unless i thought that the out come was in my favour.I wouldn't charge accross a battlefield into a wall of sharp spears with no real prospect of being able to defend myself adequately.The kill wouldn't be a sure thing either,once your opponent was stabbed,hacked,slashed or shot with arrow to the ground,you would have to finish the job.Not an easy thing when he probably has a few mates keeping an eye on him & liable to rush to his defence,you would literaly have to hack at any & all vunerable body parts whilst keeping an eye skinned for your victims allies,if his friends turned up that would give your victim time to vamoose,supposing he was in any condition to run away.
What about after the battle?Any nurse,doctor or paramedic will tell you a little blood goes a long way & a lot of blood gets everywhere.The sword arm side of your body would be soaked with blood if not the entire body depending on where abouts on your enemies bodies you had struck,a good reason for a firm grip on your sword hilt blood being slippy an all..
We can't & i don't believe we should try to portray this amount of violence unless it's in a movie context but we should bear it in mind the next time we are on the battlefield.Popular history does tend to be a bit sterile.
The 3 hits to a mailed man rule was a good one,it demonstrated how good mail was a protection & allowed the combatants to show off a bit without emidiate risk of being gutted & makes a local show more entertaining to watch for the public.
I'm on one this week,two mails in 1 day??Whatever next,they may make sense???
mike {aka=olafleifson}
 Martin Field <marfield66@sympatico.ca> wrote: Good point regards the armies meeting for combat.I think there was a recent article in Withowinde that mentioned there was evidence that the two combatents would spend a dispproportional time persueing and eluding.It just was'nt in the long term interest to always fight and run the risk of losing with the resultant consequences.Martin F.----- Original Message ----- From: MIKE LAWSON To: list-regia-na@lig.net Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 11:33 AMSubject: [Regia-NA] sword thickness
Out of curiosity what are the thickness of sword blades of our period?Thinest & thickest mesurements?When we talk to the public we generally say things like "The sword weighs the same as an original but it's blunt for fighting".Just how true is that,i usually ask for a blade to be made around 5mm thick without knowing how thick the blades of the original actually were?I'm not bothered how flexible a blade is as long as it's strong enough & safe enough for combat use but i do want my {expensive! } equipment to be as acurate as possible to avoid any future problems with authenticity.A blunt blade will always be heavier than a sharp of the same dimensions by the nature of the extra metal needed to stop it having a sharp edge but i don't want it any heavier than it has to be!Thanks to the Wirral for a good show,very relaxing. Whilst there i got involved in a conversation where i put forward an argument that Regia is doing the battles all wrong in some cases {oh no!I hear?}.When it comes to our battles we always portray 2 armies meeting,men in mail,the clash of steel on steel but how acurate would that be?I believe that the Viking raiders attacked unannouced or with very little warning , giving the local lord very little chance to organise any form of defense.The lord may have a couple of well armed retainers{?}but by & large the main defense must have come from the local population who would have been farmers.If the farmers run away they live to fight another day,they also have somewhere safe to run unlike there Viking counter parts who are there to fight by choice & are generally well armed & armoured & well motivated.I believe that this means we ought to do more battles with unarmoured Saxon farmers armed with spear & shield & the occasional axe & a couple of blokes in armour versus a load of Viking raider {fewer in number than the Saxons?} who are much better armed & armoured.We all know this aint gonna happen,"i didn't travel 300 miles to be a peasent farmer,i'm off to a society that will let me use my fancy kit" would be flying around in 2 shakes of a spear & we would loose members very quickly.So i put these ideas forward to stir up a debate?Feedback would be intresting?Mike

---------------------------------
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: Click Here
_______________________________________________ list-regia-na mailing list list-regia-na@lig.net http://www.lig.net/mailman/listinfo/list-regia-na

---------------------------------
Get a bigger mailbox -- choose a size that fits your needs.

http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/mail_storage.html
--0-1067061222-1028063764=:93245
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

I always try to explain to the public at a show that what they are watching is entertainment &amp; the real thing would probably involve a lot fewer imediate deaths &amp; a lot more standing around waiting for an opening.
Imagine doing what you do on the battlefield if you were facing an opponent with sharp weapons.I for one wouldn't make any move unless i thought that the out come was in my favour.I wouldn't charge accross a battlefield into a wall of sharp spears with no real prospect of being able to defend myself adequately.The kill wouldn't be a sure thing either,once your opponent was stabbed,hacked,slashed or shot with arrow to the ground,you would have to finish the job.Not an easy thing when he probably has a few mates keeping an eye on him &amp; liable to rush to his defence,you would literaly have to hack at any &amp; all vunerable body parts whilst keeping an eye skinned for your victims allies,if his friends turned up that would give your victim time to vamoose,supposing he was in any condition to run away.
What about after the battle?Any nurse,doctor or paramedic will tell you a little blood goes a long way &amp; a lot of blood gets everywhere.The sword arm side of your body would be soaked with blood if not the entire body depending on where abouts on your enemies bodies you had struck,a good reason for a firm grip on your sword hilt blood being slippy an all..
We can't &amp; i don't believe we should try to portray this amount of violence unless it's in a movie context but we should bear it in mind the next time we are on the battlefield.Popular history does tend to be a bit sterile.
The 3 hits to a mailed man rule was a good one,it demonstrated how good mail was a protection &amp; allowed the combatants to show off a bit without emidiate risk of being gutted &amp; makes a local show more entertaining to watch for the public.
I'm on one this week,two mails in 1 day??Whatever next,they may make sense???
mike {aka=olafleifson}
&nbsp; Martin Field &lt;marfield66@sympatico.ca&gt; wrote: 
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>

<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Good point regards the armies meeting for combat.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I think there was a recent article in&nbsp;Withowinde that mentioned there was evidence that the two combatents would spend a dispproportional time persueing and eluding.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>It just was'nt in the long term interest to always fight and run the risk of losing with the resultant consequences.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Martin F.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=olafleifson@hotmail.com href="mailto:olafleifson@hotmail.com">MIKE LAWSON</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=list-regia-na@lig.net href="mailto:list-regia-na@lig.net">list-regia-na@lig.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, July 30, 2002 11:33 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Regia-NA] sword thickness</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>Out of curiosity what are the thickness of sword blades of our period?Thinest &amp; thickest mesurements?</DIV>
<DIV>When we talk to the public we generally say things like "The sword weighs the same as an original but it's blunt for fighting".Just how true is that,i usually ask for a blade to be made around 5mm thick without knowing how thick the blades of the original actually were?</DIV>
<DIV>I'm not bothered how flexible a blade is as long as it's strong enough &amp; safe enough for combat use but i do want my {expensive! } equipment to be as acurate as possible to avoid any future problems with authenticity.A blunt blade will always be heavier than a sharp of the same dimensions by the nature of the extra metal needed to stop it having a sharp edge but i don't want it any heavier than it has to be!</DIV>
<DIV>Thanks to the Wirral for a good show,very relaxing. Whilst there i got involved in a conversation where i put forward an argument that Regia is doing the battles all wrong in some cases {oh no!I hear?}.When it comes to our battles we always portray 2 armies meeting,men in mail,the clash of steel on steel but how acurate would that be?I believe that the Viking raiders attacked unannouced or with very little warning , giving the local lord very little chance to organise any form of defense.The lord may have a couple of well armed retainers{?}but by &amp; large the main defense must have come from the local population who would have been farmers.If the farmers run away they live to fight another day,they also have somewhere safe to run unlike there Viking counter parts who are there to fight by choice &amp; are generally well armed &amp; armoured &amp; well motivated.I believe that this means we ought to do more battles with unarmoured Saxon farmers armed with spear &amp; shield &amp; the occasional axe &amp; a couple of blokes in armour versus a load of Viking raider {fewer in number than the Saxons?} who are much better armed &amp; armoured.</DIV>
<DIV>We all know this aint gonna happen,"i didn't travel 300 miles to be a peasent farmer,i'm off to a society that will let me use my fancy kit" would be flying around in 2 shakes of a spear &amp; we would loose members very quickly.So i put these ideas forward to stir up a debate?</DIV>
<DIV>Feedback would be intresting?</DIV>
<DIV>Mike</DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR clear=all>
<HR>
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: <A href="http://g.msn.com/1HM1ENUK/c156??PI=44363">Click Here</A><BR>_______________________________________________ list-regia-na mailing list list-regia-na@lig.net http://www.lig.net/mailman/listinfo/list-regia-na</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><p><p><br><hr size=1><a href="http://uk.yahoo.com/mail/tagline_xtra/?http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/mail_storage.html"><b><font face="Arial" size="2">Get a bigger mailbox -- choose a size that fits your needs.</font></b></a><br><br><a href="http://uk.yahoo.com/mail/tagline_xtra/?http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/mail_storage.html"><font face="Arial" size="2">http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/mail_storage.html</font></a>
--0-1067061222-1028063764=:93245--