Jian vs. ___________

Discussion of Chinese historical swordsmanship from all styles.

Moderator:Scott M. Rodell

Scott M. Rodell
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts:1364
Joined:Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:50 pm
Location:Virginia
Contact:

Post by Scott M. Rodell » Fri May 02, 2008 7:21 am

Kyro R. Lantsberger wrote:... I think the West had a larger knightly class leading into a burgher class/gentlemanly class in later years... I think the West had more folks involved in the "duelling class" than the Chinese. Thus, Western swordsmanship refined itself around the parameters of the dueling culture, while the Chinese were a bit more rough-and-tumble, training around different swords, different pole weapons, and even adapted farm/dock tools...
This is certainly true. The ruling class did not arise out of a warrior class as in other cultures. In fact, the state was divided into the Wen & Wu or the Civil & Martial branches. The ruling class, bureaucracy, landed gentry, etc, were of the Wen, & tended to look down upon those of the Wu & look with distain upon martial pursuits. Of course this is bit of an over simplification, but the general idea hold true.

Michael
Rank: Chang San feng
Rank: Chang San feng
Posts:116
Joined:Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:21 pm
Location:In flux

Re: vs. Italian

Post by Michael » Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:21 am

Linda Heenan wrote:Today I enjoyed some swordplay with someone trained in Italian styles. He was using some similarities to jian style. There are usually similarities. It was no good playing multiple disengage skills to see who could get in the best thrust. He was better at that. A fencer might do well though. He found it difficult to escape a Mo against a thrust and a quick turn of the wrist into Hua to the neck.

The Italian style my Duifang was playing with employs multiple quick cuts of a similar type. A jian swordsman might think a deflection turned into a cut is enough, but will be surprised because the Italian swordsman hasn't finished. He comes in at lightening speed with the cut you just deflected. He is able to do this because of a difference of grip. One finger is extended as a brace. It's no good aiming for the finger either because the sword guard has inbuilt cover to protect it ..... quite clever really. The way to defeat it is to keep deflecting until he tires of it and then come in with something his style wouldn't expect. Actually, simply turning your body from the hips is enough to throw them off, and that's the basis of all our jian cuts.
I hope I'm not resurrecting too many threads, but this is interesting to me. I would very much like to see such different forms of swordsmanship deal with one another.

I also practice an Italian system of swordsmanship, although that is a very broad category. The finger rings you mention are common, and almost universal among complex hilts. For those who are unfamiliar, an example of basic finger rings can be seen on this 15th Century Side Sword. The swordsman would usually put one or two fingers through the ring along the true edge. It's my understanding that the ring along the false edge is mostly just for symmetry. Interestingly, the Dutch rapier system of Gerard Thibault makes use of a unique grip that is only made possible by finger rings, but he uses them in a different way. I won't go into it right now, but suffice to say that there seem to be a number of effective ways to grip a sword. Finger rings really do make a difference in how the weapon handles. Of course, one doesn't need rings to loop a finger across a quillion, but that's a good way to lose a finger. I believe that modern sport fencing continues this practice, but only with the epee(although I could be wrong).

I would encourage any of you to experiment with such a grip, if only for curiosity's sake. Obviously, this isn't possible with many Chinese guards, although a finger ring is not needed for solo practice.

It's worth mentioning that such details were found in a wide variety of weapons, and the sort of nimbleness popularly associated with European swordsmanship is not always present(because we're not all using 19th century smallswords or modern sport weapons). But what I find fascinating is the similarity between many thinner-bladed European weapons with the jian. And while there must naturally be similarities in their use, China and Western Europe appear to have very different answers to similar questions.
Kyro R. Lantsberger wrote:I think the West had more folks involved in the "duelling class" than the Chinese.
A dueling culture was certainly present at certain times and places. But while I tend to train one-on-one, my approach to martial arts has generally been to avoid limitations with regard to duels as opposed to battles, civilian as opposed to military, formal encounters as opposed to street brawls, and so on. While the individual circumstances of an encounter should definitely influence one's choice of weapon and technique, most of the same principles will still hold true.

I liken it to how in swordsmanship, we tend to train against a theoretical opponent who knows how to fight. That way, if we are sloppy in our technique, we know to expect to be hit. And while different strategies may apply when fighting an inexperienced swordsman, the same principles will govern our actions. So we learn to fight against the master and in doing so learn to defeat lesser swordsmen. Likewise, learning to fight in the theory-friendly arena of one-on-one swordsmanship should provide most(if not all) of what we need to know for dealing with less formalized encounters.

xingyi24
Rank: Yang Chenfu
Rank: Yang Chenfu
Posts:34
Joined:Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:45 pm
Location:Greenbelt MD

Re: Jian vs. ___________

Post by xingyi24 » Thu Mar 19, 2009 3:48 pm

This looks like an old, old thread, but I have a question with a comment. There aren't xingyi forums like there are taiji forums, so I'm piggybacking this one, and from what I have practiced in taijiquan, it studies the application of force, deflection, feints and snuffs in ways similar to xingyi. The question is, "How many people are training to use forms to suit situations and available tools?"

My first teacher was chinese army, fighting in the chinese civil war, and he took an organic approach to xingyi. I don't know specifically what style it was, and I'm not so sure he did either, since so many troops would trade ideas and techniques on the subject. Afterward, when I had to find a new teacher I trained across many styles of xingyi that were more traditional, and I found he treated them all equally. I learned some hebei, sun, shianxi and others as we worked on changing the forms for purpose. He also got me into many random weapons, tools and, well, anything in relation to the style, above dao, jian, staff, and spear. "Pi with this. Beng with that. Pao using this." For example, he actually had me train with a bayonet mounted on a rifle, a pitchfork, shovel, metal chopstick, or whatever, because we had a discussion about weapons similar to the imune system and its response to a disease. If war is a disease, the change in a sword's design is dependant on the enemy being fought. This was true of their weapons and techniques, or lack of technique in many cases. If there is no change in combat style the tools never adapt. I think that's why he was so much into the rifle. He taught me to respect the tradition, but never let the tradition dictate the form. The situation does that.

Long story short, isn't part of the tradition TO change and develop personally to be able to adapt with it?

Michael
Rank: Chang San feng
Rank: Chang San feng
Posts:116
Joined:Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:21 pm
Location:In flux

Re: Jian vs. ___________

Post by Michael » Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:22 pm

xingyi24 wrote: Long story short, isn't part of the tradition TO change and develop personally to be able to adapt with it?
I would agree that this is an important part, but practicality isn't everything. It is still an art, after all. Otherwise we'd all be using rifles.
Antitheses: A blog for martial artists in search of a good conversation.

User avatar
jonpalombi
Rank: Yang Chenfu
Rank: Yang Chenfu
Posts:44
Joined:Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:08 pm
Location:Stowe, Vermont

Re: Jian vs. ___________

Post by jonpalombi » Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:24 pm

Greetings All,,

Yes, it is of utmost importance for any swords-person, from any tradition and methodology, to understand this point. Again, it is because of Laoshi's unswerving adherence to historical reality, that we are called upon to observe the vital nature of this often overlooked element of edged-weapons combat. This is just one of many reasons why we are lucky to be his students. Frankly, we don't get to pick and choose just who will be attacking us or which weapon they will use against us, in a situation of armed conflict. Chance, physical placement and personal rank, played heavily in regards to which weapons would be confronting one on the battlefield. To a significant degree, one had little choice about who might assault you, at any given point in the armed struggle.

One simply could not say, "You guys on the other side, please direct only your fighters with medium weight jian swords my direction. I'm an intermediate Tai Chi student and really haven't had much experience training against the dao, spears or pole arms." (Let alone, atypically heavy-bladed or longer than standard regulation, edged-weapons.) "So, just pass me the jian fighters, as I haven't had enough training to effectively deal with anything else but standard length and weight jian swordsmanship. OK guys? " Not bloody likely... Plain and simple, a warrior without this kind of cross-training under their belt, might not be returning home after the battle was over.

Can you imagine an expert swordsman, gored by an inexperienced farmer (drafted into military service) wielding a spear or pole-arm, because he didn't have any clue on how to counter the crude attack of his greenhorn duifang? Understanding the variety of obstacles on the plain of the battlefield was not just a necessity, it was a fundamental survival issue to be dealt with or be buried by. Besides, even if a soldier began the battle with a bow or spear (in hand), they might well resort to the sword for close range in-fighting. So we really need to add this factor to the equation. That is, even the very same soldier might change weapons and methodologies, based on their specific location on the battlefield and the progression of the conflict.

That being said, we must also master the offensive uses of a wide variety of weapons. Not just how the jian might counter the attack of a myriad of potential challenges but the opposite case as well (using other weapons, ourselves, against our duifang's jianmanship). So it is also of vital importance to view this issue from the standpoint of ___________ vs. Jian, as well. The mirrored reflection of this idea is of great importance. This applies equally to Swords-persons from any culture, time period or lineage/tradition, Eastern or Western. Sure, we have our primary weapon of choice (ours being the jian) but we must embrace the practice and mastery of all of the possible types of weapons likely to have been encountered in war or on the mean streets of Dynastic period city neighborhoods. Like the Boy Scouts say, "Always be prepared". We can expand this concept to our own taiji practice, by gaining experience cross-training with variations in weaponry, with and without armor & shields and numbers of opponents, with any given challenge in a match/martial encounter.

In short, we need to embrace this kind of training not just because it broadens our understanding of our own weapon and/or personal skills, rather, to correctly mirror the historical reality and the primary strategic concerns of the founder of our taijiquan system Yang Luchan. The fringe benefit of this kind of training, is that we gain insight into the dynamics of timing, range (distance), angle of attack and alternate strategies of coping with unexpected engagements. Thinking outside-of-the-box, in this regard, can unveil a wealth of enlightenment. There is an unending amount of priceless knowledge to be gained from this level of practice.

Be well and practice often, Jon Palombi
Last edited by jonpalombi on Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:20 pm, edited 6 times in total.
A wise person aspires to learn the practice of swordsmanship. A lucky person finds a worthy Teacher. A fool cannot tell the difference.

Dan Pasek
Rank: Yang Chenfu
Rank: Yang Chenfu
Posts:45
Joined:Mon Feb 02, 2004 2:12 pm
Location:Pittsboro, NC

Re: Jian vs. ___________

Post by Dan Pasek » Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:35 am

xingyi24 wrote: ...There aren't xingyi forums like there are taiji forums, so I'm piggybacking this one, and from what I have practiced in taijiquan, it studies the application of force, deflection, feints and snuffs in ways similar to xingyi. The question is, "How many people are training to use forms to suit situations and available tools?"

My first teacher was chinese army... I don't know specifically what style it was...

Long story short, isn't part of the tradition TO change and develop personally to be able to adapt with it?
Xingyi24,

You probably know about the Empty Flower forum which includes Xingyiquan, but in case you don’t, here is the link:
http://www.emptyflower.net/forums/index ... howforum=1

Is the style of Xingyi that you practice similar to what is given in this book (which includes hand, saber, and bayoneted rifle instruction)?
http://www.amazon.com/Xingyi-Quan-Chine ... 1583942572

As to the points that you raised, I think that the ‘internal’ arts like Taijiquan and Xingyiquan teach sensitivity to the interactive energies between opponents, and thus it should not matter what weapon is in use. The weapon is primarily the extension of the body that is used to sense the energetics of the interaction and to issue your energy into the opponent. Some differences are necessitated by the nature of the particular weapon, both in sensitivity (differing materials, resilience, range, etc. can affect the ability to sense and control the opponent’s actions) and in attack (the body can grab and strike, where edged weapons can cut…), but I think that the underlying principles are the same regardless of what you happen to be using.

That being said, however, we know how difficult it is when beginning weapons training to retain the basic principles learned in bare-handed training. One needs to gain experience with the different weapons to understand how the principals transfer to different weapons. It would also be important to train at different ranges (including against opponents using weapons with differing ranges) in addition to understanding the different application limitations of the particular weapon.

The traditional weapons of Taijiquan [saber, sword, staff, & spear] should give a reasonable variety that should be fairly broadly applicable to atypical weapons (e.g. “a bayonet mounted on a rifle, a pitchfork, shovel, metal chopstick, or whatever”). You have weapons that are one-handed, two-handed, edged, blunt, close range, long range, etc. What you do not have represented are the various flexible weapons (whip chains…) that would be more difficult to use to sense an opponent’s energy due to the lack of connection inherent due to the flexibility of these weapons.

I have only sparred once (using a sword) against someone using a flexible weapon (a rope dart) so I do not have much experience with this type of combination, and I have never tried using a flexible weapon myself, so I am curious, did you train your Xingyiquan with or against flexible weapons? It does not seem to me like flexible weapons would be as suitable for the internal arts like Taijiquan (I have only had introductions to Xingyiquan so I don’t really know if this would also apply to that art). If your training included flexible weapons, how did it differ for you, and how difficult was it to incorporate your arts principles into using flexible weapons? What, if anything, did your teacher tell you about fighting with, or against, flexible weapons?

Dan

xingyi24
Rank: Yang Chenfu
Rank: Yang Chenfu
Posts:34
Joined:Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:45 pm
Location:Greenbelt MD

Re: Jian vs. ___________

Post by xingyi24 » Fri Mar 27, 2009 8:04 am

I’ve looked into the forum you mentioned a bit, and I don’t know if it’s a management issue or that few people actually engage in it, but that was a while ago, so I may give it another shot. Another reason why I’m bugging all of you is that the GRTC is close to home now and it’s good to sometimes talk face to face with the people you blog with.

I’ve read the book you mentioned, and it’s available for perusal in a few major bookstores in the area. I was glad to see that someone is finally attempting to put xingyi weapon forms into a distributable medium. I wouldn’t buy the book though. The only aspect that I really appreciate for non-xingyi readers is the fact that he uses a boken to demonstrate the dao skills, though I’m not a fan of that presentation either. I know… Why would I like the boken for that? I have noticed, having even mixed my styles of xingyi since the passing of my first teacher, a desire for the styles to switch between two- and one-handed techniques on the saber. It’s almost as if the miaodao has replaced the willow leaf, and the extra length of handle is helpful more often than it hinders wrist motion. There is no real way of saying that what I do is the same style though, because by the time I started looking for a new teacher I already had four or five manifestations of Pi Chuan, three turning techniques for the monkey form, etc. For example with the hands, whether the two work in unison as a paired split, or as counterweights. For the feet, practicing with bow stance, lifting step, and driving step, all in combination with the two hand styles. Again each has different applications based on the same concept, and even this book promotes one instead of a study of the root cause, as well as advancing, retreating, standing, and even going off of that line xingyi seems to promote. One main point that was impressed upon me in this though was a reminder that variation leads to the risk of untrained techniques, so anyone going away from a simplified version needs to either cut back or be sure to be diligent in training.

I have to agree with you that about the similarities and applications of the concepts with the nature of the weapon, but one thing I have been looking for again, for the last ten years or longer, is an old manual that had a myriad of Chinese weapons categorized by “element,” and it is strange how of the weapons so directly correspond to the force of the chuan. Pi (metal/splitting) feels comfortable with the dao, as does Heng (earth/crossing). Jian is in with the element of water and screams zuan chuan to me just in the way it feels picking it up.

You mentioned range, and I think that’s something I would like to have a discussion about sometime with someone. Xingyi has a rack of “bridging techniques.” I generally consider 10 feet to be in my “bubble,” but many people I train with wonder why I stay out so far, and I ask them, “Have you ever seen anyone attack who has been practicing Beng chuan? They appear out of nowhere like Batman and disappear just as swiftly.” The monkey, sparrow, and dragon forms also give the ability to fly in low or high. Some of the soft weapons you mentioned may modify this, but you are right. I would like to try some more soft weapons, but don’t want to do that for the first time “without appropriate parental supervision.” For now it’s short lengths of chain, used mostly as tangling tools, since the hands can work so often in unison, and it’s creepy again how zuan chuan feeds in here, but with speed and practice it seems as if the physics can get the soft to turn into hard, and the chain strikes almost as a rod with the ability to turn it as quickly. I think that’s the appeal to me of soft weapons, the interplay of hard and soft that the internal arts have in themselves. My first teacher though could do amazing things with it, but when I stop and spend time meditating on what I saw, it’s clearly from the form, so it’s not something that he had to train outside of his root style. That’s where I lose some interest in other arts, when the main theories don’t match the weapons, or the weapons don’t have any visible or explainable correlation with the main theories.

User avatar
J HepworthYoung
Rank: Chang San feng
Rank: Chang San feng
Posts:276
Joined:Fri Jul 28, 2006 12:19 pm
Location:Sacramento
Contact:

Re: Jian vs. ___________

Post by J HepworthYoung » Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:45 am

I think my favorite understatement applies to this topic well:
It's all timing.


If you aren't familiar enough with the weapons you face they may surprise you, and in my experience the hard part is the timing. Being able to both counter or neutralize an attack and respond with a counter attack is tricky against many weapons.

Practicing against different weapons and in different conditions,like uneven rocky ground verses an even finished surface, seems to be conducive to historical accuracy, but then what if what you faced with your jian was a rider on a horse with a long weapon or a large number of bowmen? Historical accuracy includes a lot of death I imagine, so historical practicality seems to be a bit of an issue, but not a major one.

xingyi24
Rank: Yang Chenfu
Rank: Yang Chenfu
Posts:34
Joined:Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:45 pm
Location:Greenbelt MD

Re: Jian vs. ___________

Post by xingyi24 » Mon Mar 30, 2009 3:41 pm

Now that poses the bigger question. As much talk as there was about chivalry in the European frame of mind, it was less common than the stories would have us believe. I'm sure the same would be true of historical Chinese systems, if Sun Tzu has taught us anything. Does that not mean that we should all spend some time practicing for the moment of the conveniently located throwing rock? I'm sorry if this sounds off the wall, but I come from a very utilitarian teacher. Is there some formal code of engagement beyond what each person brings to the field? It seems like Confucious would love to chime in here, or was he even so much of the opinion that war was only to be won?

Nik
Rank: Chang San feng
Rank: Chang San feng
Posts:292
Joined:Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:06 am
Contact:

Re: Jian vs. ___________

Post by Nik » Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:00 am

I'm sure military people and fighters practiced EVERYTHING they would face in a fight, but in reality, not what you "would" face in a movie. So they practiced for sure fighting against the saber and spear types they would usually see, also regarding horse mounted. But not fighting a duel to the death with some monk wielding unusually big hammers, fantasy deer horn knives, monk spades the guy barely manages to move in any way, and so on. I often get headaches from seeing people do "partner forms" with ridiculous moves that get you killed in a blink if done for real, like people jumping over sabers.

xingyi24
Rank: Yang Chenfu
Rank: Yang Chenfu
Posts:34
Joined:Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:45 pm
Location:Greenbelt MD

Re: Jian vs. ___________

Post by xingyi24 » Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:42 am

First off, I hope we're not getting into taking what we know to critique movies. The curse of knowledge can ruin an otherwise well developed plot or character, just because "No martial artist would ever do that!" Willing suspension of disbelief and all that...

I'm not sure if it was on this thread, but with the history of peasant revolts, I think that's why my teacher also had me train with general stuff. The conflicts over rent and topsoil ownership alone would get untrained men, with erattic fighting styles, carrying whatever, usually a farm tool. Some of the stupid and crazy can indeed turn out to be crazy like a fox.

Nik
Rank: Chang San feng
Rank: Chang San feng
Posts:292
Joined:Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:06 am
Contact:

Re: Jian vs. ___________

Post by Nik » Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:11 am

The usual problem in facing a mob like that armed with whatever they grabbed is the sheer number. And no, there is no "technique" against that, other than "turn around and run" if you don't have a small army at your side. I don't want to start a discussion about infighting gutting moves for understandable reasons.

User avatar
J HepworthYoung
Rank: Chang San feng
Rank: Chang San feng
Posts:276
Joined:Fri Jul 28, 2006 12:19 pm
Location:Sacramento
Contact:

Re: Jian vs. ___________

Post by J HepworthYoung » Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:28 am

Not to start an argument, but the old vedic classics like the mahabharata mention different martial strategies for specific situations and types of encounters, one of these is dealing with having to defend yourself against a crowd.

The strategies or categorical moves were described in terms of the use of a straight club, but can apply to stick and blade in many contexts as well. They are as follows

1 driving, this uses the object to force movement of your opponent essentially steering them in the direction you desire.

2 point striking, this is the use of the object to strike marma or chi-cavity points/pressure points to debilitate kill or wound

3 whirling, this is used in the thick of a crowd to create openings as well as ward away attacks it is essentially broad spinning or twirling movements that have the capacity to facilitate impact, as opposed to showy whirling moves with little martial potential,

4 throwing, the object is used to attack a single person by throwing it, less practical for use with swords but classic and viable with many weapons, it often has the element of surprise and works only at fairly close ranges where reaction time is short.

I am having hard time recalling the last one... it was more basic though, something like brute force impacts or smashing perhaps, but then maybe that wasn't it either... I so don't want to have to boot my other computer and look through my notes on this... it may have been locking and binding and even throwing them via something like Chi-na.

Anyway the idea I am trying to share is that these aspects can be adapted to Jian use, and none of them are mutually exclusive, though the throwing your weapon could easily prevent you from doing anything else with it. Perhaps we can even find these types of applications in various forms.

This relates to the idea of a Jian verses ______ because it is not just a question of what weapon you will face, but it is also a question of what type of situation one would face, including multiple opponents with multiple weapons and differences in room to move or landscape setting. A dark and crowded alley would require different strategy than an open meadow, so on and so forth.

Anyway I apologize if I have gone too far off topic, these are just my thoughts on the topic.

xingyi24
Rank: Yang Chenfu
Rank: Yang Chenfu
Posts:34
Joined:Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:45 pm
Location:Greenbelt MD

Re: Jian vs. ___________

Post by xingyi24 » Tue Apr 07, 2009 11:50 am

I don't think you're off topic at all. Jian vs. mob is a legitimate concern, which is why I brought it up, and I'm glad to see I'm not alone. Your comment, though, did bring up another matter, Jian vs. opponent who grapples and kicks while using a sword. Deftness is an asset but occasionally two swordsmen end up chest to chest, or a limb pokes out begging to be pulled, and the fighter who is prepared for that contingency wins.

Nik
Rank: Chang San feng
Rank: Chang San feng
Posts:292
Joined:Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:06 am
Contact:

Re: Jian vs. ___________

Post by Nik » Tue Apr 07, 2009 1:40 pm

3 people is not a mob. A mob is a crowd of 30, 40 angry villagers wielding spears, staffs, axes, and whatever they found next to where they were sitting. And you do NOTHING against such a crowd, if you cannot intimidate them by killing the first 3 people in a hurry, so the rest turns and runs (although they could easily corner and kill you). There are tactics vs. LIMITED numbers of people around you, 3-5, with others in a bit of distance. Using one as a shield, circle a lot, use said gutting methods to create a mess of blood on the ground, and hope the gore effect intimidates the rest. My brother once escaped a crowd of 20 teenagers trying to do a boot job on him, he smashed the leader in half a second lying like dead on the railway station ground, and the rest ran. If they would have tackled him, he would have done nothing.

Same way, when a crowd is pushing into you, with enough people from behind pushing the ones before them forward, once they commit to the attack instead of standing there, you are done. And please, let's not go into the "pin-point striking of important dim-mak points" myth in a CROWD hacking away with axes, like you can see on certain pics of the 18th, 19th century. Refer to the scene in "Bruce Almighty" where these hispanic gang runs allover him in a rush, tell me you can "pinpoint strike" anyone in the half a second before they ram you into the ground. What you do in such a fight is to pray they are not rushing allover you sacrificing the first one, stab liver, bladder, arteries in the legs, arms, armpit, throat, belly with the first contact, circling on the way out and throwing the dieing body away from you to create space and some irritation, to kill the next person in reach of your sword tip. Possible creating enough space to get away into a side alley. I don't think there are many classics written on such mob fights, which is not the same as fighting untrained groups of 3-4 angry young men looking for trouble. Not to be misunderstood, when fighting single persons who form a small group with enough space, especially with a stick with no edge impact, such methods of striking certain points to have more impact are very useful and important. But that is not comparable with fighting large groups, or with a sharp bladed weapon capable of beheading and cutting off limbs with a good strike.

Now add shields, sabers and spears to the scenario of 10 militia people, and you probably can imagine that the single person opposed by those is in a bit of trouble.

Post Reply