The standard rules of SCA combat have changed remarkably little from when they were developed on short notice for the first SCA tournament 28 years ago. All blows below a certain level of force are ignored. Those that hit hard enough immediately kill or cripple, depending on where they hit. Sword and shield is by far the most popular weapons form, followed by two-handed sword, glaive, and two-sword. Axes are rare and spears virtually unknown as weapons for single combat.
This system has been used with success at a number of SCA tournaments, including the Passage of Arms held by the Company of St. Michael at Pennsic. It is helpful for the fighters to verbally acknowledge the blows as they are struck, and for the herald or marshal to help keep track of the total. It is all too easy for a preoccupied champion to lose count in the heat of combat. Calling out the number of times you have been struck for each valid hit also helps in keeping a good count; saying "one" for the first good hit, "two" for the second, and so on.
This also works well to simulate later combats in full plate. In the standard system you would presumably increase the force of blows required to score. This is probably undesirable; we hit each other quite hard enough already. But in a combat where multiple hits are required for victory you can simply choose a number of hits that seems appropriate for the armor assumed.
Since tournaments and other friendly combats were not supposed to be fought to the death, the precise number of blows required to incapacitate a man is less important than the basic approach of counting cumulative hits. Most such combats were supposed to end once an agreed number of blows had been thrown. In practice, the judges would often end the fight earlier if one champion or the other seemed to be in serious danger.6 For our purposes, a standard of three telling blows gives a fight somewhat but not vastly longer than an ordinary tournament bout. You could increase the number if you wanted fewer but longer combats.
I believe that part of the reason why the weapons that were most popular in middle ages are not as popular in our own lists stems from distortions inherent in the standard SCA combat system. We recognize that the point of even a rattan weapon is more dangerous than the edge, and that the greater leverage possible with a pole-arm lets it strike harder than a man can with a sword. For reasons of safety we quite properly require padding for thrusting tips and for the heads of pole-arms that we do not require for the edge of swords. We also put restrictions on the distance that a pole-arm can be swung that do not apply to swords.
While this padding is necessary for safety, it changes the way blows feel. Types of blows that would have been far more destructive than a typical sword cut feel as though they strike no harder. Indeed, in some cases they may feel as though they hit with less authority than a good sword blow. My own experience has been that in most SCA combats I must put more force into a spear thrust than a sword blow in order to achieve the same effect. While some fighters familiar with the characteristics of the actual weapons may try to compensate for this factor, it is difficult to do so effectively in the heat of combat.
Similar distortions occur when we compare different pole-arms. Of all the hafted weapons available to the medieval man-at-arms, the poll-axe, along with its cousin the pole-hammer or bec-de-faucon7, was the preferred weapon for dealing with fully armored opponents, either at war or in chivalric single combat. We can assume that it was chosen by generations of experienced warriors because it was the most efficient tool for the job. Yet a combatant who chooses an axe instead of a glaive for SCA combat gains no particular advantage, and suffers the disadvantage of a more difficult weapon with a smaller striking area. Although a few hardy individuals insist on fighting with the axe, it is as rare in Scadian lists as it was common in medieval ones.
Now, as long as a single sword blow can end a fight there is not much that can be done about these distortions. But if each combatant can survive three telling sword blows, it is quite simple to let two blows from an axe or thrusts from a spear suffice.
In addition, to better reflect the effect of thrusts you might rule that a thrust to the armpit immediately puts the victim out of action. You might also say that a thrust to the face of a barred helmet is treated in the same way, but that a man in a closed helm either ignores such a blow or treats it as an ordinary hit. I like this particular rule because it addresses another weakness in the standard SCA system. The medieval man-at-arms who chose an open-faced helmet was making a conscious choice to sacrifice protection for greater visibility and ventilation. Under the normal rules, an SCA combatant who chooses a barred visor makes no particular sacrifice to gain these advantages, and the man in a closed helm gains no advantage in protection.
Even more radical variants are possible. I have also experimented with a version where five hits are required for victory, but where any hit struck with sufficient travel is counted. A single handed sword blow, for example, would need to be struck from the shoulder rather than the wrist, but any level of force would be accepted. This obviously does not reward the techniques of striking forceful blows in the way that standard SCA combat does, but it does put less wear and tear on the combatants and their equipment. It also leaves less room for argument over what is or is not a killing blow.
All of the variants I have described have worked well, and have produced combats that seem more like the chronicles than like Monty Python. Besides being less absurd, they have the additional advantages of putting less emphasis on the judging of any single blow and being easier on the knees. Although the average participant will suffer more blows than in a standard tourney bout, he will still take far less punishment than in any ordinary fighting practice.
In group combats I would use the same basic assumptions, but with slightly different mechanics. Any valid hit would be considered a wound. Although the victim could still move and defend himself normally, he would need to immediately retreat to an agreed place, and could not strike blows while doing so. After a pause there to deal with his wounds, he could again return to the fray. These rules worked well at the King Rene Tourney at Myrkfaelinn.8
In effect, these melee rules work much like a resurrection battle, but with several advantages. There are fewer cripples dragging themselves about on their stumps, and removing the dead from underfoot is less of a problem. Suspension of disbelief is also less of a challenge. With these rules you need never again see a fighter with a leg wound throw himself on his sword so that he can walk back to the resurrection point and get back in the battle.
As with a conventional resurrection battle, you can vary the length of time a wounded fighter must pause before returning to the fight, and the number of times he can do so, according to the numbers of combatants involved and the size and disposition of the field. On a small field it is often sufficient to require only that the wounded fighter step into the designated neutral ground before he can return to the fray. On a large one this is a good opportunity to make the wounded champion rest a bit. Both letting a fighter survive only a limited number of wounds and allowing him to return as long as the battle continues have worked well under the appropriate circumstances.
There is another advantage to using a Passage of Arms to introduce this style of combat. Since in a Passage of Arms a group of defenders accepts the challenges of all comers, you can have the defenders practice with these rules ahead of time. This will insure that at least one combatant in each fight has had some experience with the new combat system, so that the fights may go more smoothly.
You probably will want to keep things simple when you do this for the first time. Get some experience with the system before you start adding variations like varying the number of hits required for different weapons. This last is less important if you follow the normal medieval custom of only fighting like weapons against like in single combat.
The more you depart from the standard model, the more care you must take to brief the combatants thoroughly. An audible herald is important, and written material distributed beforehand would be a good idea.
I suspect that the alternative I have described may never entirely supplant the standard conventions of SCA combat. But it does no harm and much good to experiment with rules that more closely reflect the realities of medieval combat, and I hope that those who try them will find the rules I propose as pleasant and profitable as I have.
On Wounds
Joinville's own experiences at the battle of Mansourah in 1250 are a good
example of the sorts of wounds that a mail-clad knight might receive in battle.
A Saracen catches him between the shoulders with a spear, "pinning me down
to the neck of my horse"10, but he manages to draw the sword
hanging from his saddle and extricate himself. He successfully rescues Raoul de
Wanou, one of his knights who has been "struck to the ground" by the
Turks, but is himself unhorsed and ridden down.
He next retreats to a ruined house where several of his knights are putting up a defence. The Turks attack them from all sides and "Hugues d'Ecot received three wounds in the face from a lance,and so did Raoul de Wanou, while Frederic de Loupey had a lance thrust between his shoulders, which made so large a hole that the blood flowed from his body as if from the bung-hole of a barrel. A blow from one of the enemy's swords landed in the middle of Erard de Sivery's face, cutting through his nose so that it was left dangling over his lips"
Joinville has just enough time for a brief prayer to St. James, and the badly wounded Erard de Sivery politely enquires if "neither I nor my heirs will incur reproach" if he rides off to get reinforcements. Joinville agrees that this is an excellent idea, it would be very honorable to save all their lives "your own, by the way, is also in great danger."
Erard brings back help just in time to once again rescue the persistent but unfortunate Raoul de Wanou. Joinville and his men remain in action through various alarums and excursions, and he comes under arrow fire. Fortunately, he finds a discarded Saracen gambeson that he uses as a shield so that he is "only wounded by the enemy's darts in five places". In spite of the wounds he and his knights have suffered, they continue to fight until nightfall.
Although by this point they could all use a good night's sleep, they are awakened before dawn to defend their camp. All of them have suffered so many wounds that they are unable to put on their hauberks that morning. Erard de Sivery later died of his wound.
One of the striking aspects of this account is the number of lesser wounds the knights accumulate without being immediately killed or crippled. One can only absorb a finite number of such wounds, however, before collapsing or even expiring like the unfortunate Erard de Sivery.
Froissart's description of the battle of Otterburn in 1388 gives a good example of a knight defeated not by any single blow, but by their cumulative effect and by loss of blood. Sir Ralph Percy "entered so far among his enemies that he was closed in and hurt, and so sore handled that his breath was so short, that he was taken prisoner" He yielded himself to sir John Maxwell, so weakened from loss of blood that he could only with difficulty give his name to his captor. "Then the Scot said 'Sir Ralph, rescue or no rescue I take you for my prisoner: I am Maxwell.' 'Well,'quoth sir Ralph, 'I am content: but then take heed to me, for I am sore hurt, my hosen and greaves are full of blood.'"11
Froissart also describes a series of challenges fought between English and French men-at-arms at Vannes in 1380. Each agrees to exchange three blows on foot with his opponent using spear, sword and axe in turn. They agree not to strike at each others' limbs, probably because the armor there is thinner and contains more gaps and weak points.
In the first encounter, fought with spear, "the lord de Pousanges received such a stroke that it pierced through the mail and steel breastplate, and everything underneath, so that the blood gushed out, and it was a great wonder that he was not more seriously wounded."12 However, he was able to complete his three courses with spear and other weapons without further incident. Several further combats were fought without serious injury, although two gentlemen were "struck to the ground" and told to withdraw by the judges.
In the last spear combat William Farrington was struck so forcefully on the helmet as he made his thrust that he missed his aim and drove his spear, contrary to the rules, through the thigh of his adversary, John de Chatelmorant. He probably hit his opponent's inner thigh, an unprotected point on many harnesses. "The spear passed through and came out the length of one's hand on the other side. John de Chatelmorant reeled with the blow but did not fall."
Farrington made profuse apologies and John de Chatelmorant was taken home on a litter "where he was in great danger of his life from the effects of this wound." This account is a good demonstration both of the great penetrating power of the spear, and how a serious leg wound can eventually put the victim out of a fight entirely, even if it does not immediately prevent him from keeping his feet. Also note how little interest the combatants have in actually killing each other, even in a combat fought with sharpened weapons between national enemies in time of war.
Froissart, Jean Chronicles of England, France, Spain, and the adjoining Countries translated by Thomas Johnes, London: George Routledge and Sons, 1868. Mr. Johnes's translation is inferior in style and vigor to Brereton's, or even to the Tudor translation by Lord Berners. Nor is it easy to find a copy. It is, however, the only complete translation in modern English; two big fat volumes full of valuable information.
Froissart, Jean "Froissart's Chronicles", translated by Lord Berners in The Harvard Classics Edited by Charles W. Eliot. New York: P F Collier & Son, 1910 36:3-105 Abridged. The complete Berners translation, which I have not seen, was edited by W. P. Ker and published in London 1901-1903.
Gravett, Christopher Knights at Tournament London: Osprey Publishing, 1988. A useful, readily available paperback.
Joinville, Jean de and Villehardouin, Geoffrey de Joinville and Villehardouin: Chronicles of the Crusades translated by M.R.B. Shaw, London: Penguin, 1963. Joinville gives a particularly vivid eyewitness description of the crusading experiences of a thirteenth century knight, with digressions on the saracen equivalent of easter eggs, how to get your destrier on board ship, and the disgusting snack foods of the Tartars.
Martorell, Joanot and Galba, Marti Joan de Tirant lo Blanc translated by David H. Rosenthal, London: Shocken Books, 1984. This 15th c. work combines the subject matter of chivalric romance with an enthusiasm for realistic detail. Lots of deeds of arms, battles and sex. Also how to answer a challenge, take a city, break a siege.
Copyright Will McLean, 1992, 1997