Hi folks! Thanks for watching the video. Quite a lot of people asked the same few questions, so I'll address these briefly: 1) How recent does HEMA run to? Well, this is part of the much-debated question of "when does history end?", which you can find LOTS of articles about online and in books. The fact is that history keeps moving forwards and, technically, anything in the past is history. However, for some subjects there have been arbitrary cut-off dates imposed. For HEMA we tend to go up until 1945, so we include WW1 and WW2 combatives. In fact there is enough difference between WW2 combat methods (even in pistol shooting!) and now, that it is a subject worthy of research, and the way that a modern MMA fighter operates is not the same as a WW2 commando, for example. 2) Does HEMA have to be self-read, or self-studied? No. I covered this in the previous video, but absolutely you can learn from other people who have worked with the sources. You are getting that information second hand, but in many cases that might be more efficient and yes you are part of a new living lineage. I personally feel that it is good for HEMA students to work with primary sources themselves, but even if they do not, what they are learning is directly connected to the historical sources through their teachers/lineage. 3) Can you mix HEMA systems and add new stuff? Of course, you can do whatever you like. Is it still HEMA? I would say yes, definitely. However, we have to admit that there are levels of 'purity' in HEMA. Someone operating as fully as possible within one system is really trying their best to recreate (as closely as possible today) a system of the past. Whereas mixtures might end up being less like any one thing that existed in the past. If I mix some Fiore dagger with some Hutton sabre, that's not like any documented system from any particular time. It might end up being functional, effective, or accidentally like something from the past, but fundamentally it is a new creation, using HEMA sources and experience. 4) To be HEMA, does it have to have a treatise? Absolutely not, though it helps! The treatises are WAY WAY more detailed than any other historical source material. There are techniques, even basics, in the treatises, which we just would not have guessed through doing un-sourced reenactment fighting. But where there are a lack of treatises, of course descriptive accounts, art, and even wound patterns from archaeology, which can be used. I often refer to these other sources of information on my channel here. Especially art and descriptive accounts. But these provide quite basic levels of insight, compared to actual specialised fencing treatises, because of course the entire purpose of those fencing treatises was to document fighting systems! 5) If a reconstruction doesn't use treatises, but does use other historical sources, is it HEMA? That is a tricky one to answer, and depends on the sources used, as well as the approach used. Some people do this for periods without treatises (eg. viking era, or Roman gladiators), by using 'frog DNA' from later period HEMA treatises. Others just rely on the period art and descriptive accounts etc. I think depending on the details, this could qualify as HEMA, but this sort of reconstruction tends to drift on the edge of conventional/mainstream HEMA, and different people within HEMA hold different viewpoints on it. Unfortunately, we have to admit that when treatises are not available, the end result reconstructions tend to be more simplistic/basic, and are more likely to be different from the historical reality (at least according to the odds, having fewer hard reference points to check).
Appreciate the clarification Matt. One more question - what's the objective or necessity of all of these qualifiers to delineate what is and isn't HEMA? And why is it important to do so? A lot of the qualifications seem subjective and some (many mentioned in these comments - the use of historical clothing vs modern protective gear, etc.) seem arbitrarily gatekeepery. I realize from your perspective as a historian the historical study and recreation is the key component (up to a point, not to the extreme) and you likely want to see that aspect preserved, but many do not engage with it as a hobby for that aspect - or it takes a backseat.
@@LangstonDev On the most simple level (and there are other levels as well), it's because we have HEMA clubs, insurance, events, reputation, competitions, publications, websites etc, so we have to define ourselves to some degree. We have to describe our distinct activity with a name. We need to be able to communicate how what we have been doing for 25+ years is different and distinct from LARP, or kenjutsu, or reenactment, or whatever. Of course there are crossovers, and many of us train other things as well, but in order to coordinate and describe ourselves, we have to call it something, so we decided 20 years ago to call it HEMA. The one thing that really made us distinct, was that we worked from the historical fencing treatises - that is our defining feature. If someone were, for example, doing purely modern Olympic style fencing, but calling it HEMA, then it would confuse and mislead a lot of people. Even though they are closely related activities, it is clear that modern Olympic fencing and HEMA are distinct activities and cultures, even if they can be mixed.
@@scholagladiatoria Fair enough, thanks for the answer. To be honest, I guess I've never really thought of HEMA as a unified organization and that may be where some comments are coming from. Certainly my own.
Very interesting thanks for the video...what about Oral History ? Or perhaps lingering sayings etc. "In a bind"~ generally expresses a bad situation therefore could we extrapolate to possibly thinking that "binding" with swords is generally not a favorable technique? Depending how/why/if the language/meaning changed? In your opinion do you believe that could be defined as hema?
@@scholagladiatoria Matt don’t you think that the treatises were written by elitists for elitists? Surly the poor common folk who made up the majority could not afford lessons or copies of manuscripts yet were held to the same judicial law. So if HEMA sticks to the treatises then it must be mostly elitist. Aside from a few most of the manuscripts show judicial dual practice and preparation. They were learning how to dual so they could win any court case / argument legally in front of a judicial combat judge. Only the rich elites could afford that. The elitists had the practice and instructors the poor had instinct. Both entered the ring and you never knew who would walk out, if anyone. The poor and illiterate did not record their methods of combating the elites. Like ninja and Robin Hood outlaws. There is a bit of that stuff that made it into treatises but not much. But I believe because hema focuses on the treatises that HEMA is elitist by nature. It’s a routine, an art , a judicial process that is being taught in the treatises not brutal common war or fighting for survival. They were fighting for honour not survival. Yes there is crossover with everything and I focus on that crossover and mix of times. At one single tournament grandpa does it different than grandson. Different methods and different weapons and different experience all in one place at one time. That’s reality historical European martial arts. RHEMA.😉🕳🐇
I know it is not your wheelhouse or the most accessible, but there is quite a bit more arabic material on mounted combat in the furrusiyah tradition from my limited perspective. I believe that the Historical African Martial Arts Assocition HAMAA is working on a translation of a mamluk text in this genre so perhaps you could contact them or check out the book once it is published.
This in an extremely fascinating field. Problem is, as soon as horses are involved, it gets immensely expensive. If you want expert content, watch Arne Koet's channel. Last year or so, he got his Maximilian a full horse barding and shows it.
Related to Matt Easton’s comments about “Historical” entertainment. I really preferred when the term Historical Fiction was still in vogue. It was a great term. It really limited confusion on if a piece of media was meant to be accurate at all; or just a bit of loosely historically based bit of fun.
I think the problem with the term is, that ultimately Historical Fiction and Historical Recreation are not polar opposites, just points on a sliding scale. You might find some 1920s movie directors, who honestly attempted to recreate historical events to the best of their capabilities, and be quite amused about their wild assumptions and heavy bias. Or what do you make of "Barbarians" decision to voice the Romans in Classical Latin and the Germanic tribespeople in modern German?
@@stefanb6539 For films/tv shows set in the twenties, that's easily remedied with a little research. As for the Barbarians situation, I'm conflicted. It's great to hear Classical Latin used in a historical setting, but the use of modern German kind of threw me. It would have been nice if they had attempted to use some form of Old High German.
@@a.z7469 Firstly old high German would still be extremely off by about 750 years. Secondly the region where the battle of the Teutoburg Forest took place historically doesn't even belong to the High German language area. This means you would have a better shot with Old Saxon, especially considering the fact that the Low German dialects didn't undergo the second Germanic consonant shift and thus preserved the old germanic consonants that would have been present at the actual time of the battle. If they really wanted to get it right, they would have had to use Proto Germanic, which of course is unlike classical Latin just a reconstructed language, meaning you can't tell with any degree of confidence what language(s) the various Germanic tribes would have been speaking at the year 9 AD. Having to write authentic scripts in Proto Germanic, would be an incredible tedious act and it would propably be even more difficult to teach the German actors to confidently speak their lines and act in a language so foreign to them. I think we can't be thankful enough for the decision to cast real Italians or other Romance language speakers to portray the Romans and using an excellent classical Latin pronunication. But keeping in mind that it is a German production for a predominantly German audience, it is more than understandable that they have used modern Standard German as the language of the "Barbarians".
@@a.z7469 I am not talking about films with a set in the 1920s, I am talking about films MADE in the 1920s. If you want to make a category for films, it has to apply for all films, even old ones. And a 1920s director's honest attempts at making a "historical" film about Roman or Medieaval Area looks quite ludicrous to us nowadays,, because our clichees about Rome or Medieval Europe have changed a lot. Which shows, why your proposition to distinguish between "Historical fiction" and "Historical" doesn't work, because it's only a matter of degrees. It all depends on the contemporary idea of what is "historical" and what is "fiction", and a movie can be exceptionally "historical" in one of its aspects and purely fictional in other aspects. Your clean distinction doesn't work, because it ignores the messy reality of producing art.
I'm not surprised you ultimately found this video necessary, though I would have also overlooked the need for it initially. In my several years as a physics lecturer I repeatedly ran into trouble for neglecting to define "science" or similarly fundamental concepts. If I could impose one law on the world, it would be "When you don't know the precise definition of the word which is the topic of conversation, ask questions rather than making affirmative declarations".
Great to see such a concise description of history - as opposed to pre-history, tradition or pure mythology. One other point Matt touched on briefly, not all sources are written - Dr. Toby Capwell's study of English armours using church effigies is an excellent example (and an excellent example of a professional historian at work). Other obvious sources include statues, paintings, tapestries (and embroideries) etc.
The whole history. The whole Europe. How can this be narrow? I "just" focus on Bolognese sources from the early 16th century and it's more than a lifetime worth of study...
I guess the root cause for the confusion here is that there is no common existing word that means "characteristic of or having existed in the past", so people say "historical" when they mean that. Being a fellow (literal) master of history I agree with Matt's definition of the word, but the "incorrect" meaning has probably become more common outside of academic circles so it's not a hill I'll die on.
I disagree with the idea that the "incorrect" meaning has become more common outside of academic circles. The word history predates the modern academic sense by quite a lott, so it was already more common before the modern discipline borrowed the term to describe itself. So, in fact, the broader senses have always been more common.
"Authentic" is the term and i agree, that it is source of confusion. But as far as i see - recreating artefacts is part of history and historical study, while it is not based on source material in literal sense. And if we step away from it.. then argument on "historical" part of hema loses its grounds.
I suspect you're right about the source of the confusion. Although the use of the term in HEMA seems obvious to me, I can, on reflection, understand the confusion. Perhaps Matt should have titled the video "The Two Concepts of History: Why Not All 'History' is 'History' in the Context of HEMA." I'm not being entirely serious, of course, but I want to take this opportunity to suggest that this is perhaps a pedagogical issue. It may be that simply defining the use of "historical" in "HEMA" as a specific activity is, pedagogically, not enough to fully explain why the "historical" in HEMA means something specific, and does not simply refer to anything and everything that vaguely has to do with the past. If one gives the impression that what is popularly understood to be "history" is incorrect usage, and that the only correct usage of the term is with reference to the academic discipline of history, then people probably won't understand, because how could something they take to be so obvious be incorrect. From there, I think it's an understandable impulse to be suspicious of or disagree with people who, in a particular context, use the term in the academic sense. But if we validate the popular usage of "history" as referring to a concept distinct from what the term means in HEMA, then perhaps people will be more amenable to a narrower definition that isn't intended to replace the popular usage, but which is nevertheless the meaning with regards to which the term "HEMA" was coined. Just a thought.
This discussion comes up at every HEMA-Event during the socializing at the bar afterwards at 2am... Thanks for putting it so clearly, so now i can just send people this video instead of arguing with them for 2 hours!
I realized that there was confusion about the term on r/history when people asked questions about the stone age for example. History is presumably a subject in schools all around the world. It's kind of staggering that the term doesn't seem to be defined quite often. I think another interesting question is what exactly counts as a source in a historic context. Iconography is certainly a source as well even though it doesn't necessarily contain written words
The big problem with iconography is that without context it become meaningless. You can take the oldest temple on earth as an example, it is covered in iconography but we don't know what any of it means or what the temple was actually used for.
There are so many parallels in living history it's not even funny... By the way, what is the term for projecting I.33 onto various unrelated historical eras and weapon sets for which no sources exist? ;)
Ian. I say this with as much respect and regard as I can muster. We miss you very much. Take all the time you need and if you never post again thank you for everything. You have created some of what I feel to be the best content on this platform. Few things have brought me quite so much joy in life as learning to love the sources.
If this is going to be a Cold War, then I await the day when Matt will pull a Khrushchev and state to the opposition "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!" :P
Whenever people hear that history only involves periods of the past that can be sourced and referenced, they get annoyed. I have no idea why this fact upsets people.
@@youtubevoice1050 and written sources can be... unusual. Like i forget who it was specifically it might have been Tacitus or Herodotus, but one of them wrote about how dog headed men lived in Africa.
@Dylan Fell. Yes, I think it was Herodotus. Strangely enough, there are African myths about were-hyenas, similar to werewolves in Europe, as well as a tribe that claim they stem from Sirius (the dog star), which apparently isn't even visible to the naked eye. Unusually specific. Anyway, that was a tangent, lol.
@@youtubevoice1050 it wouldn't be a history video if we all didn't go on tangents 😂 i always enjoy tangents, i feel that they teach me more than anything overly structured. Blimey though were-hyenas, I'd definitely rather take on lon chaney junior than one of those 😂
Is that because what Matt is talking about isn't *actually* convergent evolution at all? So in a video to explain what one thing is, he is totally confused as to what another thing is?
@@santafromexeter5814 No, it's borrowed really well actually. In biology it simply describes when two or more organisms otherwise unrelated developed the same or similar traits. You can look to Cetaceans and Icthyosaurs as an example. Military technology, or really any technology, that is developed independently from each instance is a good application of the term, and I welcome to see biological phrasing enter common parlance like this!
So this really just boils down to prescriptivist vs. descriptivist language. Prescriptivist definition = the pre-established, inflexible meaning of a word. Descriptivist definition = the meaning of a word in its actual usage, which is prone to variation. This is a fundamental problem with human language. In many contexts, the utilitarian functionality of language requires set definitions which aren't allowed to change. We often *need* language to remain fixed in this way in order for it to serve its purpose. At the same time, though, language, by its very nature, refuses to acquiesce to this unrealistic demand. Language can't actually be frozen in this way; it will change simply by being used. It will always be fluid; definitions will always shift and blur. Personally, I prefer Matt's prescriptivist definition of 'history' over the emergent descriptivist definition now in the common vernacular. Having said that, holding to that definition is more than an uphill battle; it's an impossibility. A word means however it's used. Like it or not, 'history' now means "anything that happened in the past" and 'prehistory' just means "anything that happened before people". These are dumb definitions, but it's silly to insist they aren't the correct definitions at this point. The superior definition has largely fallen out of usage.
@Jo Jo The funny thing is, I'm actually arguing _against_ what I want to be true. I like what Matt's saying, and I'd prefer that to be the case... but it's just not a sound argument. Prescriptivism is delusional in a sense. It's an agreed-upon lie for the sake of convenience, like time zones. True Noon is when the Sun reaches its Zenith in the sky, but if you set your watch by that and then drive 10 minutes East or West, your clock is already measurably off. So we agree upon a falsehood for the sake of practicality. Prescriptivism is the same thing. We agree to pretend that language can be frozen in place for the sake of practicality and convenience. That's extremely useful, but we tend to forget that we're pretending.
@@bjornmichaud8592 The only reason Matt's argument works IMO is that HEMA is an organization and he was a founding member. What would be prescriptivist nonsense from anyone else is him stating the definition of his club.
@@williamjenkins4913 The argument you're providing is a better one than the one Matt gave, and I actually agree with you on that point. In fact, *I agree with Matt's position;* I was merely explaining why his specific argument for it is a bad one. The issue I raised is about his definition of "history", not his definition of "HEMA". He bases the latter on the former, but the distinction here is important. "We're the founding organization of HEMA" works as a perfectly valid reason as to why he gets to define the term "HEMA", but it doesn't work for the word "history"; he's not a founding member of the organization that started history. Again, my point is merely that the argument he gives here isn't very sound. I'm perfectly fine with, "HEMA is what we say it is because we're the founding organization of HEMA"; I have *no issue* with that reasoning. But that's not the argument he's making. He's saying, "'History' means this, therefor 'HEMA' means that", which, for the reasons previously outlined, is not as solid an argument as it seems at first glance.
There is a broad use of the term and more rigorous use of the term. They can be different, as is the case here. But HEMA practitioners can decide what the terms mean. I'd argue that if you are trying to something that academically relevant, then being precise about YOU mean by the term is important. This is preferable to s loosey-goosey, everybody gets a participation trophy approach to the subject. That doesn't mean things that lie outside that definition aren't useful or fun, but they aren't the same thing.
That's one for Metatron maybe :-) I don't really have a hard view, or much education on the topic, and I suspect that the answer is fluctuating through time.
@@mikaluostarinen4858 I don't know about "what", but I can tell you "who" it is: Martial, Latin in full Marcus Valerius Martialis, (born Mar. 1, AD 38-41, Bilbilis, Hispania [Spain]-died c. 103), Roman poet who brought the Latin epigram to perfection and provided in it a picture of Roman society during the early empire that is remarkable both for its completeness and for its accurate portrayal of human foibles. From Britannica.
It's not elitist...it's using vocabulary. In 2021, education is all but individual, with the information available. Not always...Historically speaking, but the terms education and educated should not be used in a defamatory way to describe an activity that was designed to promote learning.
Great work Matt. I think that outside of academia very few people draw a distinction between: “history”: the study of documentary evidence from the past. And “The past”: events that occurred before the present.
Boxing, including that of 20th century and even late 19th century = modern martial art/sport. Bare knuckles fighting from 18th and early 19th century = HEMA. As a side benefit, bare knuckles was often part of systems which included fencing and stick fighting with both large stick - quarterstaff, and small stick - cudgel. *Stick fighting -> Shad: heavy breathing. :D
How far can the "historical" term be stretched? Playing around with bronze age weapons by using "perfect" replicas and Form follows function principles would fall more in the "experimental archeological" than anything which fits under the hema umbrella. But than using a medival source as bases for the reconstruction of Viking fencing in conjunction with the sagas gets a bit more tricky? For example the work of Roland regarding the Viking shield, is this something which can be considered hema?
Anything written down, for purpose of learning would IMO go under historical. There is nothing wrong with experimental archaeology, but it should be considered separate.
Historical can only stretched to the point where there are written primary and secondary written sources for past periods. Archeology may or may not study historical artifacts.
I would like to refer to the Schwertgeflüster Podcast with Dr.Erik Burkhart (HEMA vs. Wissenschaft), that waving around a perfect replica is not experimental archiology.
Nah, they will be either HNAMA (historical North Americal Martial arts) or HMAGFFA (Historical Martial Arts in a Galaxy Far, Far Away). Not as catchy, I am afraid.
@@louisvictor3473 well depends on what source is found there is going to be American lightsaber and French lightsaber!! Tbh if he wants that definition to work he will need to add more classifiers or it really is way too broad....
When you said "if you're not using historical sources you're not doing HEMA" it reminded me a bit of your 2017 "rant" about historical sources, HEMA and Polish Sabre (or rather - lack of sources for it), haha.
Polish sabre doesn't have a treatise (before the 19th century), but it does have other historical source material. Richard Marsden made a whole book about it :-)
@@scholagladiatoria Oh, yeah, true. I guess I should've used "treatises" instead of "sources" in my comment to avoid this confusion. Mr. Marsden's work on this subject is great, probably the best non-Polish source, and even among Polish ones there's not many that can rival him.
I just watched Shad's video response and it seems a little insane XD If you ask me the "historical" part of HEMA (or history in general) is pretty clear... there's a reason we have the distinction between history and pre-history and it's both simple AND important. I'm not big on ANY of this stuff and I haven't seen too many of either yours or Shad's videos, but I was left scratching my head at his problem with your stance because his argument comes off as more than a little ridiculous. Honestly, I'll never understand why people, these days, get up-in-arms about gatekeeping because, generally, gatekeeping is done for a reason (maybe this is what they think is elitist?) and it is always about preserving a standard of some sort, a distinction... and I don't know how people get to the point where the meaning of "historical" comes up, but here we are XD You would think the standard of having to have been preserved, visually, across time (and even from certain epochs) would be an easy one to get behind, but I guess not! The argument that using modern (if faithful) stand-ins or equivalents to ancient weaponry is "historical" enough is absolutely bizarre to me... I also don't understand the need to want to breach into a named, history-based practice with a-historical techniques to be included alongside them. The first thing that came to mind for me was the clear distinction between mixed martial arts and ANY of the named martial arts that are deeply rooted in history and have many fixed aspects to them, unlike the freestyle/free forms of today.
By your definition of history, everything that we currently know about cultures in the Western Hemisphere prior to the arrival of Europeans is not history. I dispute that.
The mesoamerican civilizations did write down their history. Especially the Maya. Problem is, the Spanish Inquisition burnt their books. So with them, its a special case
So what are HEMA competitions like? Do the combatants agree that they will compete only using the moves contained in Treatise X or are they allowed to improvise? If somebody scores a point using a move from some recent action movie does it count? Inquiring minds want to know.
I'm not aware of any competitions that restrict fighters to historical technique. Doing so would involve a lot of subjectivity and interpretation and bog down the event. That said, much respect is earned from the community when a hit is landed with a move straight out of the treatises.
Modern HEMA competitions as I understand it are primarily based on a point-based target ruleset with afterblows, so in other words it's mainly a sport like all other combat sports like fencing and kendo more so than a "pure" representation of actual historical techniques and principles. With that said though, yes, the community does encourage you to study the manuals and try to use the techniques from them even if they may not necessarily win you any medals in tournaments, but nonetheless you are ultimately free to ignore the history if you want to and you're not doing anything that breaks the rules.
I'm currently reading Michael Edelson's "Cutting with the Medieval Sword" and it incorporates some Japanese techniques and blends European historical methods into one. I'm personally okay with HEMA schools incorporating non-European and non-Historical (meaning textual) methodology into their curriculum. I could see the argument being made that that should be called something other than HEMA at that point, but because that's the more recognizable name (probably because of the internet) I have a feeling it will all roll up under the HEMA umbrella.
@@sethdusith6093 Even experimental archaeology requires careful study of material culture based on historical source material and objects. Good experimental design and hypotheses are prompted by historical evidence and surviving material culture. Just 'trying stuff out' yields results that are just untestable guesses. A lot of what gets called 'experimental archaeology' is unfortunately nonsense.
By necessity all HEMA clubs are likely to include a lot of material that isn't directly, explicitly sourced from historical source material. If only because that material is very limited in scope. Something like a hundred pages of hand-written text including a few illustrations, created by people with a very different world view. That won't get you very far when it comes to e.g. how to apply certain tactical concepts in specific situations, the minute technical details of certain actions, and how all of this should be taught. We borrow ideas from other martial arts historical and modern, historical sources not directly related to martial arts, from modern sports pedagogy, etc. It's a difficult subject matter. Some parts of what we do will necessarily be modern. _We_ are modern people, living in a modern world. But for this activity to count as HEMA, it has to be based on the study of historical source material.
@Jo Jo If judo can't beat BJJ in a BJJ match, is judo bullshido? If early 1800s infantry saber can't beat an early 1900s Mensur duel, is the infantry saber system bullshido? What's a "real fight"? Do you have reason to believe the author of MS I.33, Fiore, Ringeck, Marozzo, Carranza, Meyer, Silver, Capo Ferro, Hundt, Alfieri, Pascha, Touche, Angelo, all the way to Hutton, would have agreed with your personal definition? If someone wants to study, understand, and practice their works, do you think your personal definition of effectiveness in the hypothetical "real fight" is the only significant way to measure success?
It looks like all too often "HEMA" sparring sessions devolve into just swinging swords at each other. Students get so busy swinging hard and fast and getting that next hit that it seems as if they forget the mission to base it all on history. I am speaking as a layperson looking in. So maybe there are debriefings where the historical connections are discussed that I have not been privy to. But I think there is a need for improved communication as to the historicity of the moves being used, rather than merely a post-spar pub celebration of their relative effectiveness. 🍻🤓
Texas BEAST Do you have a example of a video where they do that? I see sparring videos at the beginner level where they are just doing the basics and perhaps not skillfully, but I rarely seen people outright swinging at random and calling it HEMA. I’m just wondering if maybe you might be looking at more advanced techniques and comparing beginners to that possibly.
Right. The problem is that these hema types relegate any form of swordsmanship not based on historical sources is just "bashing around" as one person said.
Yeah and that goes back to the elitism and gatekeeping element. "What *I* do is the real thing, what *they* do is not." What's the point in drawing all of these (possibly arbitrary) lines? If education or to make sure people don't get hornswoggled by bullshido that's one thing, if to make someone feel superior to someone else because of how they engage with a hobby... That's unproductive and possibly destructive.
Yeah that's what i think of when i think of HEMA elitism. It's not about people within their own community, it's how they seem to look down on people outside of it, like i think it was on Reddit r/wma there were gladiator videos and all the hema peeps were slagging it off, well not all, that would be a generalisation, but a substantial amount
I think you hit the nail on the head. When used in academic contexts, history means "sources," but when used in the daily vernacular, it just means "the past." As part of HEMA, it's being used in the academic sense, but because most people see it used more often in the colloquial sense, that's how they (mis)interpret it.
What a great video with so much clarification as to how to define HEMA and whether or not someone is practicing it. Regardless what any of us practice, we can determine whether or not we practice HEMA based on whether or not we consult historical sources. Thanks Matt for this informative video.
I run into the same thing with muzzleloading firearms. Shooters today load and use them quite differently from the way our ancestors shot them. For instance, most shooters today shoot smoothbored flintlocks with patched round balls, and they get quite upset when I tell them there is no period documentation for that. I use period ordnance manuals and shooting treatises to try to figure out how guns were really used in the period. But some people get very touchy when they hear that the way they do it isn’t historical.
We have the same problem in the equestrian world regarding classical horsemanship. "Classical" is a word that engenders great debate and I am going to be using some of your thinking to inform my ongoing lecturing and training to refine the conversation. Thank you for this.
@@Birkarl_ not true. Not sure where you got that info from. The quote is a common shortform of what Napoleon said in the Memorial de Saint Heléne. Original quote: Mais qu’est alors cette vérité historique, la plupart du temps? Une fable convenue." Literally: "What then is, generally speaking, the truth of history? A fable agreed upon."
"ORAL" history - the name kinda telegraphs that it is different from "history" by having the additional adjective in it. Not that complicated. Nor can we expect Matt to address every detail of an argument in a youtube video - that is what PhD thesis are for.
@@mikelazure7462 The issue I have with Matt dismissing the Oral History traditions is that he then goes on to say that the Icelandic Sagas are fine. i.e. a set of written manuscripts which were based on oral fantasies and written down about 300 years later, You might as well say that the Sharpe or Flashman books are suitable objects of study
What is the cutoff for history? How far back do we have to go before we say this is history, not modern? Do bayonet manuals of the World Wars fall under the HEMA umbrella?
If it's still in common professional use anywhere in the world today, it's modern. Some militaries (the US included) still technically do bayonet and even sabre training of their soldiers, and issue them to their warriors in certain circumstances.
I agree with Mr Easton, as a fellow historian. I think people who earned degrees in history or archaeology have a more precise definition and understanding of history, because our instructors taught us a methodology and approach. If your understanding of history comes from a couple of introductory high school or even college classes, it’s natural to just use a “common sense language” definition and assume “history” only means “involving the past.”
Popularize term Experimental sword fighting, because us, people who love to fence with melee weapons are being attacked by hemaists, because we don't have term for what we're doing.
I don't attack people who like beating each other up with swords. It can be a fun activity on its own. Even the more bash-happy ones, since I like watching people get repeatedly concussed. Please continue doing it! The problem is calling something Historical European Martial Arts when it's not and makes no attempt to be historical.
Heh. When I started to study the history of a couple subjects it was a constant source of frustration. The primary sources did not agree with the material facts. My adviser said "Remember that these are _histories_ ; our concept of _historical accuracy_ didn't exist then." That... was a revelation.
Yes. Most asian martial arts such as silat especially from my place in Malaysia depend on oral tradition. Most written sources were destroyed during conquest by the westerners. Some of our historical manuscript were 'stole' and 'keep' in the UK Museum.
Yes, but places with oral tradition have a living lineage of martial arts: you have living masters who learned from other living masters etc., eventually going back to people who actually used that martial art in real combat. The example Faris gave with silat is perfect. We don't have that in HEMA, unfortunately.
The oral/traditional/folk material is a bit complicated. Martial arts with living lineages tend to use the term "traditional martial arts" or even "classical martial arts" vs. "historical martial arts" to label what they are doing since quite often the oral tradition doesn't always line up with historical sources when present due to how much the living tradition changes and evolves over time from the sources e.g. I used to study Yagyu Shinkage Ryu Kenjutsu which is one of the few Japanese koryu that also has written sources and very often kata that we practiced in dojo didn't always line up exactly as what is described in the sources. P.S. This confusion wasn't just present in only my lineage since our cousin lineage did things their own way which also didn't match the historical sources in their own different crazy way! XP @@JustGrowingUp84 Minor correction, and I think Matt actually mentioned this in passing in a previous video regarding HEMA. There are living traditions of HEMA out there, they're just a bit obscure and hard to find e.g. Destreza I think still has a living lineage being practiced if you believe Maestro Ramon Martinez here: ruclips.net/video/RyN8WkUdem4/видео.html Also, the so-called "Classical Fencing" traditions could be considered HEMA as well. Plus there's stuff like Jogo do Pau and there's probably more living traditions of HEMA I don't know about out there, but off the top of my head those are some I can think of.
@@JZBai Yeah, I mentioned Jogo do Pau in another comment, I think that's why I forgot to mention it here. I don't consider modern olympic fencing to be a martial art at all, historical or otherwise. It's just a sport, just like modern kendo. That's just my personal interpretation, and I don't want to seem that I disrespect it - in fact, I have a lot of respect for the athleticism of olympic fencers. I didn't know about Maestro Ramon, he seems interesting!
OK, here is a stupid one, for argument's sake. Bram Stoker wrote Dracula more than 100 year ago, which makes Dracula a historical source. Van Helsing is described as fighting vampires with hammer and stakes. Is fighting with hammer and stakes then HEMA? I guess Jules Verne also has some interesting fight scenes. How hard can the distinction between fictional and factional writing be drawn, given that a lot of historical sources are second and third hand accounts with a clear personal agenda, like to praise the leader that butters your bread? Trying to be absolutely brutal: the fighting treatises are clearly also public relation assets for commercial combat teachers. Could they include quite an amount of fiction, too, just to impress the clients?
A quote from Quora, second Paragraph on the subject of the Difference between History and Archeology. "History is literary records and sayings only; while archeology is the system of study of antiquities and the wearing of earlier literary record of people from remains of the buildings."
Yep it is like polish saber. There is one codex for it from 1830, but it was never finished at it came out in 1926. "Polish" saber, the way it is trained now, is either Italian dueling saber or Hungarian military saber. There are mention of specific cuts or training methods in sources, but the problem is , that even if a cut or training method is in multiple sources , we don't know how they were performed. And names like "polish hellish quart" or "body cut Il" don't tell us though.
There were many historical texts from the bronze age referring to Britain as the “Tin isle(s)” and we know there were trade links and interactions with the britons far before the Romans got there. So, from what I understand, bronze age Briton is prehistoric because the inhabitants of the land didn’t take down records of what was happening or had happened? Even though, we technically do have written historical information about bronze age Britain, but from sources elsewhere in the world?
I disagreed on the definition of HEMA in the previous video, and I still have to disagree on this one. First, the very first part about being involved with HEMA for a long time is an appeal to tradition. One could argue the other side and say that what's talked about is HEMAC HEMA, the same way we talk about FIE fencing. And that aside, it goes against how a lot of sports evolve. One just needs to look at something like rock climbing to see how much it changed in the last hundred years. And the last fifty years, and twenty years. I personally know an old guard of rock climbers who consider interior, or artificial wall, to not be rock climbing, which in my view would be like saying someone isn't doing HEMA if they're practicing with a nylon sword. BUT, this comment isn't only about that. And to be fair, Matt does address this partly in the pinned comment. Artifacts are historical sources. Excluding as not HEMA the practice someone would have of taking a reproduction of an undeniably historical tool, and using what knowledge they have of European history, be it the types of armour that was used, the other kinds of weapons that were around, the fact that some people used shields or fought on horseback, to infer a historically plausible fighting system is in my opinion wrong. I don't think anyone is arguing that someone taking a sharp metal bar and wailing at watermelons just to see how it cuts best is HEMA. But excluding the work some martial artists do to come up with coherent fighting systems for historical weapons is a bit unfair in my opinion. We need to get a few historiographers in the comments to weight in.
We are looking into history. It is European. It is a martial art. Simple as that. Why is that so hard to understand? I would like to think historians agree, including Matt Easton.
Okay, you’ve convinced me. Your explanation is logical regarding what is ‘Historical’. Maybe if it has no source material yet is an attempt to recreate a true art form, it should just be called ‘Traditional European Martial Arts’... TEMA.
I couldn't agree more!!!! On my own personal quote, a few years ago i wanted to start training hema (i live in argentina, little acclaration) and joined a local "hema" group. Ok, they've spoke quite a bit about some spanish and italian writings, but just that... SPOKE about them! I wanted to read them, and there was no book to look after whatsoever. Sadly being in my country means no access to those writting or treatesis, wish i've had access to them (obviously i've left the group and with that went away my hope to properly learn how to properly handle a sword, ok, doesn't matter, i know perfectly how to handle a .45)
perhaps a new category should be established to encompass unwritten techniques. that can include fighting techniques that didn't have the privilege of being written down, those that are a possibility but lack written reference to back up, experimental or exploratory techniques, armoured/armed mediaval combat theory etc as to not confuse them with the ones that have treaties or HEMA as people call it. i feel too many things will not covered by HEMA if they dont have recorded text etc. the lack of words to identify those excluded by HEMA i think is what cause a lot of trouble. there is are many things that happen in the past that dont have written references. to ignore them is to do a great disservice to the wider community even if it was speculative and hars to prove. this void has to be filled if they can't be included in the word 'historical'
You said "it would be like trying to learn Christianity without reading the Bible". hahaha. 95% of Christians. I know because I am a reformed Catholic and I've read the Bible.
I have a quibble here: a bit of stone vaulting IS A SOURCE. It's okay to say "as an historian I privilege written sources over material sources," but it does not mean that those "other things" are not also source. Written, Oral, Pictorial, and Archaeological. All of these four are sources.
My Former swordteacher called his class "Modern Swordsmanship" because we took different ressources and mixed them so that they work together. It is funny to do sparring with a speer vs a rapear. Cheers from Cologne
Historical; adjective, 1) of, pertaining to, treating, or characteristic of history or past events: historical records; historical research. 2) based on or reconstructed from an event, custom, style, etc., in the past: a historical reenactment of the battle of Gettysburg. 3) having once existed or lived in the real world, as opposed to being part of legend or fiction or as distinguished from religious belief: to doubt that a historical Camelot ever existed; a theologian's study of the historical Jesus. 4) narrated or mentioned in history; belonging to the past. 5) noting or pertaining to analysis based on a comparison among several periods of development of a phenomenon, as in language or economics. 6) historic (def. 1).
I do wish there was less stigma around terms like fencing or LARP. Maybe then less people would feel the need to latch onto the term of HEMA for validation or to avoid ridicule. Great video, its good to remember that history has a much more narrow definition then just “stuff that happened in the past.”
Matt, can you call it HEMA if you read treatises but decide to modify the techniques to be more efficient or effective? Can you create your own style based on sources and still call it HEMA?
I was told yes by a viewer when I asked this on the last vid about this. The fellow said if it’s just made up techniques without any use of source material, then it’s not ‘HEMA’. But if you do build on original source material, it is HEMA. This still leaves me asking though, what is the recreation of European martial arts for which there is no source material? Maybe if it has no source material it should just be called ‘Traditional European Martial Arts’... TEMA.
"You wouldn't say you're practicing Christianity without reading the Bible." Um, Matt, I hate to break it to you but that's 90% of the "Christians" in the world, especially in the United States. Yes, they're wrong, but that may not be the best comparison to use... (I agree with everything else you said.)
And they don't even fit under the criteria of learning from other people who read the bible, since people like Peter Popoff and Joel Osteen can become church leaders.
My degree is in music performance. In fact, the specific department I was in is called Historical Performance. Most recently I've actually been studying the parallels between HEMA and historical performance of medieval music(in our present day), both historical as well as the historiographical(how's that for a word!😁), and OMG there are MANY! However, you've revealed even more parallels between these two disciplines with this video, Matt. Thank you! Edit: By the way, studying treatises is definitely a major part of both disciplines, and we even call them "the treatises" when it comes to historical performance in music!😁 That's one of the many historiographical parallels. However, like I said, there are many straight-up historical parallels as well. For just one example: I've found many Late Medieval composers who were also documented knights and/or men-at-arms. Finally, I'm not talking about any generic crap you hear on the Witcher, or some couple with an Irish whistle and guitar at some renaissance fair. I'm talking about the serious, academic study of written historical sources which is used to inform the performance style of an actual branch of classical music. There is real, medieval music that was actually written down such that we don't have to imagine what a piece sounded like, we can we read it, play it, and hear it, and it's actually pretty flippin badass because, in my opinion, it's one of the closest things we have to actual time travel.
A nice counter example to what is "historical" might be Lindsey Beige's (sp?) vid from years ago on his thoughts on how the halberd was used which was essentially experimental archeology.
10:01 was thinking, "well almost sounds like convergent evolution". And then a couple of seconds later! :D Guess I watch too many Ben G Thomas' videos, among others.
I have many friends doing advanced degrees in history and archaeology, and not one of them has ever clarified 'history' as more than just being 'a past thing' in any conversation I've had with them. The word seems to have so little connection to the academic meaning outside of academia that the meaning of the word itself has shifted, if even those who study it professionally don't bother clarifying the difference any more. There's no realistic prospects of reclaiming the meaning of the word without having a useful substitute in the English language that does mean 'of the past', since there's obviously a significant need for such a word for the language to co-opt one that didn't formerly mean it.
But is HEMA martial? Martial comes from Mars, god of war, so essentially HEMA isnt martial, because the manuals dont deal with war, rather with duels, and duels are more connected to law then war, so.. it should be called minervan(form goddess Minerva), while lets say Buhurt is martial. Actually Minerva also deals with skilful combat, prancing around skilfully on your toes, so it fits even more. If you put it into contemporary skills, HEMA is more like firearms self defence course, nothing to do with war, while Buhurt is like war exercise or mil-sim. So you can see today, and maybe for some time, people use word martial wrongly, just like they do historical, and that is why my dear friend Matt HEMA is oxymoron, yo :)
Actually Buhurt is real HEMA, because its based on tourneys that were meant to train the knights for war in competitive environment. I have seen you say, and 'HEMA' like people, buhurt is not valid because they dont thrust at the gaps, or dont do half-swording or throwing out the pommels :D Well its a Mil-sim, a war exercise, you dont see today people in army shooting each other down with live ammo during exercise, nor do I see half-swording or pommel-throwing used in historical art when depicting a battle, its actually mostly bashing and wrestling, just like in Buhurt. Cheers
There are PLENTY of manuscripts on war. Hans Talhoffer showcases war machines, for example. As well as mounted combat. HEMA is a perfect name for the sport, not sure how many of us practitioners study mythology but I know we all study Historical European Martial Arts.
On the most basic level, historical European martial arts had only two rules: 1) Try to avoid or minimize harm to yourself and your allies. 2) Try to kill, incapacitate, or otherwise defeat your opponents. Specific subcategories had additional rules in particular times and places, such as rules that people were required or expected to adhere to in duels or regulated contests, or rules that particular teachers expected their students to adhere to. But such rules are applicable only to particular subcategories, not to historical European martial arts in general. The term Historical European Martial Arts is too broad to be compatible with rules that require specific techniques to be based on historical evidence because such restrictions make the rules of HEMA more restrictive than the historical rules of European martial arts. One important aspect of historical European martial arts was that people could improvise, invent their own techniques, learn unconventional techniques from other people, and adapt techniques to fit their own abilities and preferences. Arbitrarily restricting such improvisation, adaptation, and use of unconventional techniques makes the rules of HEMA fundamentally different from the rules of real historical European martial arts. Similarly, in real historical European martial arts, people who had no or inadequate formal training were free to make up the best techniques they could based on however much knowledge or training they had, so long as they did not violate special rules applicable in particular times and places. People who pursue similar approaches today are imitating a way that many people historically learned how to use weapons. Disallowing that approach to learning makes the rules of HEMA fundamentally different from the rules of real historical European martial arts. There could potentially be techniques that can reasonably be excluded from HEMA on the grounds that (1) we have no historical evidence of their use and (2) they are so highly effective that they would almost certainly appear in the historical record if they were historically used more than rarely. In that kind of situation, an absence of evidence can reasonably be construed as evidence that particular techniques were rarely if ever used historically. But otherwise, it is far more historically accurate to allow use of nonstandard techniques than to allow only techniques that made it into the historical record. What we really need is a distinction between the broad term HEMA and a narrower term such as HARVEMAT, Historically Accurate Reproduction of Verifiable European Martial Arts Techniques. That would avoid misusing the term HEMA in a way that is confusingly misleading because the rules of “HEMA” are far more restrictive than the rules of actual historical European martial arts. It would also provide a label that makes clear when people are talking about a subset of historical European martial arts focused specifically on techniques that can be verified from historical evidence.
This was very helpfull and has helped give me an idea of what to look for and given a direction for me. Its the way you broke it down was also very helpfull- Arkeology= phisical evidance, Hitory- writen sources
I think HEMA is an abbreviation of four English words and each of those words can be looked up in a dictionary to define HEMA. Any other interpretation of the meaning would just be laymen in English language applying slang or, incorrect meaning, which would have to be reexplained every time the term was used. A new word that is the same as an old or current word. Parrot product. Or possibly code. Police use code so no one can understand them. That’s how code works so why would you use code when you want people to understand? ( eg.distal taper)(HEMA) That’s why labeling and categorizing everything and everyone is rooted in the system and evils quest for control of its slaves.
@@andrewsock6203 My bad, in my language jargon and slang have more or less equal meaning. I meant jargon. www.lexico.com/en/definition/jargon So it is not a common meaning, and not "right" meaning.
In our club, our philosophy is that we will use a system(s) as the basic or the building blocks, but as it’s impossible to put down all specifics of a system into a manual/treatise, when facing sth not mentioned in the treatises, we allow students to freely choose or adopt what the learned or make up new stuffs. I personally think this is HEMA
I've read enough of the comments to Matt's videos to realize the need for this video. How old does a source have to be to be history? Vietnam USA rifle squad tactics are very different than today although the weapons are very similar as an example.
Well said, i can agree with every point. I had this cind of conversations more than enough. If people do sword fighting it is ok, no problem with it at all. But calling this historical fencing is wrong when they dont study according to the sources.
- Someone learns the material from written sources. - That person teaches a second party their knowledge via practical training. Is that second party not doing HEMA?
It is still based on the written sources, there is a linage connecting it to the "history". So to start practicing hema is should be engough if the instructor knows the sources. But I think that still the connection directly to the source is preserved by letting the studens look into the base material.
If I remember correctly, Matt said in the video that spawned this video that indeed it's enough to have a teacher who is versed in the historical texts, you don't need to read them yourself to be doing HEMA. It's just that the martial arts that are practiced have to be drawn from historical sources. We can look at the term "doing HEMA." To say that one is doing "Historical European Martial Arts" does not necessarily mean that one is "doing history" i.e. studying historical sources, but that the "European Martial Arts" they are doing are "Historical" i.e. based on historical sources. Similarly, if you read a book about history written by a history professor, what you are reading is history, since the professor has (presumably) studied the original sources. You are gaining knowledge about history without doing history, i.e. studying the historical sources yourself. But history is always interpretive, and if possible, it's always better to track down the original sources and read them for yourself. At the same time, it's impractical to assume that, say, everyone at all levels of education read all the historical sources from which the historical narratives they are taught are drawn. In what is taught in schools there's often at least a couple of degrees of separation from the original source material, which makes the information reliant on layers of interpretation and thus less reliable. I have no affiliation to HEMA so it's none of my business to define what it is or is not, but Matt's explanation makes sense in relation to what history is as an academic field of study. I think there's room for interdisciplinary interpretations of "historical" European martial arts, incorporating archeology, oral tradition, reconstructive experiments, etc. Maybe we could call it Cultural European Martial Arts or European Martial Arts Studies?
Following that argumentation (which was very well carried out, and I agree to), 90% of people saying they are doing Living History, are not doing Living History :)
Hi folks!
Thanks for watching the video.
Quite a lot of people asked the same few questions, so I'll address these briefly:
1) How recent does HEMA run to? Well, this is part of the much-debated question of "when does history end?", which you can find LOTS of articles about online and in books. The fact is that history keeps moving forwards and, technically, anything in the past is history. However, for some subjects there have been arbitrary cut-off dates imposed. For HEMA we tend to go up until 1945, so we include WW1 and WW2 combatives. In fact there is enough difference between WW2 combat methods (even in pistol shooting!) and now, that it is a subject worthy of research, and the way that a modern MMA fighter operates is not the same as a WW2 commando, for example.
2) Does HEMA have to be self-read, or self-studied? No. I covered this in the previous video, but absolutely you can learn from other people who have worked with the sources. You are getting that information second hand, but in many cases that might be more efficient and yes you are part of a new living lineage. I personally feel that it is good for HEMA students to work with primary sources themselves, but even if they do not, what they are learning is directly connected to the historical sources through their teachers/lineage.
3) Can you mix HEMA systems and add new stuff? Of course, you can do whatever you like. Is it still HEMA? I would say yes, definitely. However, we have to admit that there are levels of 'purity' in HEMA. Someone operating as fully as possible within one system is really trying their best to recreate (as closely as possible today) a system of the past. Whereas mixtures might end up being less like any one thing that existed in the past. If I mix some Fiore dagger with some Hutton sabre, that's not like any documented system from any particular time. It might end up being functional, effective, or accidentally like something from the past, but fundamentally it is a new creation, using HEMA sources and experience.
4) To be HEMA, does it have to have a treatise? Absolutely not, though it helps! The treatises are WAY WAY more detailed than any other historical source material. There are techniques, even basics, in the treatises, which we just would not have guessed through doing un-sourced reenactment fighting. But where there are a lack of treatises, of course descriptive accounts, art, and even wound patterns from archaeology, which can be used. I often refer to these other sources of information on my channel here. Especially art and descriptive accounts. But these provide quite basic levels of insight, compared to actual specialised fencing treatises, because of course the entire purpose of those fencing treatises was to document fighting systems!
5) If a reconstruction doesn't use treatises, but does use other historical sources, is it HEMA? That is a tricky one to answer, and depends on the sources used, as well as the approach used. Some people do this for periods without treatises (eg. viking era, or Roman gladiators), by using 'frog DNA' from later period HEMA treatises. Others just rely on the period art and descriptive accounts etc. I think depending on the details, this could qualify as HEMA, but this sort of reconstruction tends to drift on the edge of conventional/mainstream HEMA, and different people within HEMA hold different viewpoints on it. Unfortunately, we have to admit that when treatises are not available, the end result reconstructions tend to be more simplistic/basic, and are more likely to be different from the historical reality (at least according to the odds, having fewer hard reference points to check).
Appreciate the clarification Matt. One more question - what's the objective or necessity of all of these qualifiers to delineate what is and isn't HEMA? And why is it important to do so? A lot of the qualifications seem subjective and some (many mentioned in these comments - the use of historical clothing vs modern protective gear, etc.) seem arbitrarily gatekeepery. I realize from your perspective as a historian the historical study and recreation is the key component (up to a point, not to the extreme) and you likely want to see that aspect preserved, but many do not engage with it as a hobby for that aspect - or it takes a backseat.
@@LangstonDev On the most simple level (and there are other levels as well), it's because we have HEMA clubs, insurance, events, reputation, competitions, publications, websites etc, so we have to define ourselves to some degree. We have to describe our distinct activity with a name. We need to be able to communicate how what we have been doing for 25+ years is different and distinct from LARP, or kenjutsu, or reenactment, or whatever. Of course there are crossovers, and many of us train other things as well, but in order to coordinate and describe ourselves, we have to call it something, so we decided 20 years ago to call it HEMA. The one thing that really made us distinct, was that we worked from the historical fencing treatises - that is our defining feature. If someone were, for example, doing purely modern Olympic style fencing, but calling it HEMA, then it would confuse and mislead a lot of people. Even though they are closely related activities, it is clear that modern Olympic fencing and HEMA are distinct activities and cultures, even if they can be mixed.
@@scholagladiatoria Fair enough, thanks for the answer. To be honest, I guess I've never really thought of HEMA as a unified organization and that may be where some comments are coming from. Certainly my own.
Very interesting thanks for the video...what about Oral History ? Or perhaps lingering sayings etc. "In a bind"~ generally expresses a bad situation therefore could we extrapolate to possibly thinking that "binding" with swords is generally not a favorable technique? Depending how/why/if the language/meaning changed?
In your opinion do you believe that could be defined as hema?
@@scholagladiatoria Matt don’t you think that the treatises were written by elitists for elitists?
Surly the poor common folk who made up the majority could not afford lessons or copies of manuscripts yet were held to the same judicial law. So if HEMA sticks to the treatises then it must be mostly elitist. Aside from a few most of the manuscripts show judicial dual practice and preparation.
They were learning how to dual so they could win any court case / argument legally in front of a judicial combat judge.
Only the rich elites could afford that. The elitists had the practice and instructors the poor had instinct. Both entered the ring and you never knew who would walk out, if anyone.
The poor and illiterate did not record their methods of combating the elites. Like ninja and Robin Hood outlaws. There is a bit of that stuff that made it into treatises but not much.
But I believe because hema focuses on the treatises that HEMA is elitist by nature.
It’s a routine, an art , a judicial process that is being taught in the treatises not brutal common war or fighting for survival. They were fighting for honour not survival. Yes there is crossover with everything and I focus on that crossover and mix of times. At one single tournament grandpa does it different than grandson. Different methods and different weapons and different experience all in one place at one time. That’s reality historical European martial arts.
RHEMA.😉🕳🐇
Excellent and very clearly argued! I just wish we had more works on mounted combat! There's a bit, but not much.
I know it is not your wheelhouse or the most accessible, but there is quite a bit more arabic material on mounted combat in the furrusiyah tradition from my limited perspective. I believe that the Historical African Martial Arts Assocition HAMAA is working on a translation of a mamluk text in this genre so perhaps you could contact them or check out the book once it is published.
Lots of bullshido and very little horsehido🤣😉
HORSE HEMA RECIPE
Take one man, add one horse, sprinkle in a few weapons, add one or two objectives, and stir.
Let cool and enjoy.
This in an extremely fascinating field. Problem is, as soon as horses are involved, it gets immensely expensive. If you want expert content, watch Arne Koet's channel. Last year or so, he got his Maximilian a full horse barding and shows it.
@@SandraOrtmann1976 Yes I know Arne well, we've jousted together many times, though him bing in Germany makes us training together difficult.
"I am Matt Easton and I will continue to be" is the best finish line ever in history.
Actually, it is "I've been Matt Easton and i will continue to be".
The once and future Matt Easton
@@robertstuckey6407 There can be only one Matt Easton!
Matt when people challenge the definition of hema: "I was there when it was written" 🦁
Related to Matt Easton’s comments about “Historical” entertainment. I really preferred when the term Historical Fiction was still in vogue. It was a great term. It really limited confusion on if a piece of media was meant to be accurate at all; or just a bit of loosely historically based bit of fun.
I think the problem with the term is, that ultimately Historical Fiction and Historical Recreation are not polar opposites, just points on a sliding scale. You might find some 1920s movie directors, who honestly attempted to recreate historical events to the best of their capabilities, and be quite amused about their wild assumptions and heavy bias. Or what do you make of "Barbarians" decision to voice the Romans in Classical Latin and the Germanic tribespeople in modern German?
@@stefanb6539 For films/tv shows set in the twenties, that's easily remedied with a little research. As for the Barbarians situation, I'm conflicted. It's great to hear Classical Latin used in a historical setting, but the use of modern German kind of threw me. It would have been nice if they had attempted to use some form of Old High German.
@@a.z7469 Firstly old high German would still be extremely off by about 750 years. Secondly the region where the battle of the Teutoburg Forest took place historically doesn't even belong to the High German language area. This means you would have a better shot with Old Saxon, especially considering the fact that the Low German dialects didn't undergo the second Germanic consonant shift and thus preserved the old germanic consonants that would have been present at the actual time of the battle.
If they really wanted to get it right, they would have had to use Proto Germanic, which of course is unlike classical Latin just a reconstructed language, meaning you can't tell with any degree of confidence what language(s) the various Germanic tribes would have been speaking at the year 9 AD. Having to write authentic scripts in Proto Germanic, would be an incredible tedious act and it would propably be even more difficult to teach the German actors to confidently speak their lines and act in a language so foreign to them.
I think we can't be thankful enough for the decision to cast real Italians or other Romance language speakers to portray the Romans and using an excellent classical Latin pronunication. But keeping in mind that it is a German production for a predominantly German audience, it is more than understandable that they have used modern Standard German as the language of the "Barbarians".
@@a.z7469 I am not talking about films with a set in the 1920s, I am talking about films MADE in the 1920s. If you want to make a category for films, it has to apply for all films, even old ones. And a 1920s director's honest attempts at making a "historical" film about Roman or Medieaval Area looks quite ludicrous to us nowadays,, because our clichees about Rome or Medieval Europe have changed a lot. Which shows, why your proposition to distinguish between "Historical fiction" and "Historical" doesn't work, because it's only a matter of degrees. It all depends on the contemporary idea of what is "historical" and what is "fiction", and a movie can be exceptionally "historical" in one of its aspects and purely fictional in other aspects.
Your clean distinction doesn't work, because it ignores the messy reality of producing art.
"do not cite the HEMA definition to me witch. I was there when it was written."
I'm not surprised you ultimately found this video necessary, though I would have also overlooked the need for it initially. In my several years as a physics lecturer I repeatedly ran into trouble for neglecting to define "science" or similarly fundamental concepts. If I could impose one law on the world, it would be "When you don't know the precise definition of the word which is the topic of conversation, ask questions rather than making affirmative declarations".
I practice HEGA.
Historical European Gardening Arts.
If you thought HEMA sources were obscure..
Cato the elders guide to HEGA
"don't grow crops, grow cattle" 😂
You use human feces for fertilizer and promote plagues?
Great to see such a concise description of history - as opposed to pre-history, tradition or pure mythology. One other point Matt touched on briefly, not all sources are written - Dr. Toby Capwell's study of English armours using church effigies is an excellent example (and an excellent example of a professional historian at work). Other obvious sources include statues, paintings, tapestries (and embroideries) etc.
Absolutely! Art history is almost as big a source for me as written history.
I wish that there were more indepth records that gave more detailed explanations about medieval battlefield combat
Yes indeed, or indeed any period battlefield combat. Aside from very general stuff about troop movement, we don't have much before 1800.
Matt is like the Captain America of HEMA; he was there since the beginning, and he's still here
except the modern captain america is now crafted by American Marxists XD
@@SingleMaltSmash WTF?
The whole history. The whole Europe. How can this be narrow? I "just" focus on Bolognese sources from the early 16th century and it's more than a lifetime worth of study...
Convergent evolution--are you trying to say that the horned chameleon did NOT evolve from the same ancestor as the rhinoceros? Unthinkable!
Well, if you go far back enough...
@@louisvictor3473 LOL yeah, ya got me. But I doubt the chameleon's horns went back that far.
I guess the root cause for the confusion here is that there is no common existing word that means "characteristic of or having existed in the past", so people say "historical" when they mean that. Being a fellow (literal) master of history I agree with Matt's definition of the word, but the "incorrect" meaning has probably become more common outside of academic circles so it's not a hill I'll die on.
I disagree with the idea that the "incorrect" meaning has become more common outside of academic circles. The word history predates the modern academic sense by quite a lott, so it was already more common before the modern discipline borrowed the term to describe itself. So, in fact, the broader senses have always been more common.
"Authentic" is the term and i agree, that it is source of confusion. But as far as i see - recreating artefacts is part of history and historical study, while it is not based on source material in literal sense. And if we step away from it.. then argument on "historical" part of hema loses its grounds.
I suspect you're right about the source of the confusion. Although the use of the term in HEMA seems obvious to me, I can, on reflection, understand the confusion. Perhaps Matt should have titled the video "The Two Concepts of History: Why Not All 'History' is 'History' in the Context of HEMA." I'm not being entirely serious, of course, but I want to take this opportunity to suggest that this is perhaps a pedagogical issue.
It may be that simply defining the use of "historical" in "HEMA" as a specific activity is, pedagogically, not enough to fully explain why the "historical" in HEMA means something specific, and does not simply refer to anything and everything that vaguely has to do with the past. If one gives the impression that what is popularly understood to be "history" is incorrect usage, and that the only correct usage of the term is with reference to the academic discipline of history, then people probably won't understand, because how could something they take to be so obvious be incorrect. From there, I think it's an understandable impulse to be suspicious of or disagree with people who, in a particular context, use the term in the academic sense. But if we validate the popular usage of "history" as referring to a concept distinct from what the term means in HEMA, then perhaps people will be more amenable to a narrower definition that isn't intended to replace the popular usage, but which is nevertheless the meaning with regards to which the term "HEMA" was coined. Just a thought.
As a fellow historian, I find language drift to be a fascinating foil, both to study and to presentation of findings.
This discussion comes up at every HEMA-Event during the socializing at the bar afterwards at 2am... Thanks for putting it so clearly, so now i can just send people this video instead of arguing with them for 2 hours!
I realized that there was confusion about the term on r/history when people asked questions about the stone age for example.
History is presumably a subject in schools all around the world. It's kind of staggering that the term doesn't seem to be defined quite often.
I think another interesting question is what exactly counts as a source in a historic context. Iconography is certainly a source as well even though it doesn't necessarily contain written words
The big problem with iconography is that without context it become meaningless. You can take the oldest temple on earth as an example, it is covered in iconography but we don't know what any of it means or what the temple was actually used for.
@@PerfectTangent historical art in fact, from period whit writing and often illustration from written sources
@@fabiovarra3698 No clue why my comments are being deleted from this and other threads. *shrugs in youtube*
There are so many parallels in living history it's not even funny... By the way, what is the term for projecting I.33 onto various unrelated historical eras and weapon sets for which no sources exist? ;)
SHC (Speculative Historical Combat) - I made this up but it sounds right lol
nothing appropriate for polite company
@@normmcdonald1347 I like it
Ian. I say this with as much respect and regard as I can muster. We miss you very much. Take all the time you need and if you never post again thank you for everything. You have created some of what I feel to be the best content on this platform. Few things have brought me quite so much joy in life as learning to love the sources.
I miss your stuff too. Thank you.
History will remember this as the "Shad-Easton cold war"
Its only matt explaining stuff. For a war you need an opposition which can be taken seriously... *shrugs
Shadiversity = fantasy enthusiasts
Matt Easton = history enthusiasts
@@HarryGreenMathematician probably a 3-hour-long one at that
If this is going to be a Cold War, then I await the day when Matt will pull a Khrushchev and state to the opposition "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!" :P
Thank you for the wonderful video, enlightening in many respects and certainly entertaining.
Whenever people hear that history only involves periods of the past that can be sourced and referenced, they get annoyed. I have no idea why this fact upsets people.
I suppose, because we do have evidence in the form of artifacts etc. So it seems strange that only writing would qualify as "history"?
@@youtubevoice1050 and written sources can be... unusual. Like i forget who it was specifically it might have been Tacitus or Herodotus, but one of them wrote about how dog headed men lived in Africa.
@Dylan Fell. Yes, I think it was Herodotus. Strangely enough, there are African myths about were-hyenas, similar to werewolves in Europe, as well as a tribe that claim they stem from Sirius (the dog star), which apparently isn't even visible to the naked eye. Unusually specific. Anyway, that was a tangent, lol.
@@youtubevoice1050 it wouldn't be a history video if we all didn't go on tangents 😂 i always enjoy tangents, i feel that they teach me more than anything overly structured. Blimey though were-hyenas, I'd definitely rather take on lon chaney junior than one of those 😂
@Dylan Fell. Ha, ha, true!
I am a biologist and I love the reference to convergent evolution.
I know right?
Is that because what Matt is talking about isn't *actually* convergent evolution at all? So in a video to explain what one thing is, he is totally confused as to what another thing is?
@@santafromexeter5814 No, it's borrowed really well actually.
In biology it simply describes when two or more organisms otherwise unrelated developed the same or similar traits. You can look to Cetaceans and Icthyosaurs as an example.
Military technology, or really any technology, that is developed independently from each instance is a good application of the term, and I welcome to see biological phrasing enter common parlance like this!
So this really just boils down to prescriptivist vs. descriptivist language.
Prescriptivist definition = the pre-established, inflexible meaning of a word.
Descriptivist definition = the meaning of a word in its actual usage, which is prone to variation.
This is a fundamental problem with human language. In many contexts, the utilitarian functionality of language requires set definitions which aren't allowed to change. We often *need* language to remain fixed in this way in order for it to serve its purpose. At the same time, though, language, by its very nature, refuses to acquiesce to this unrealistic demand. Language can't actually be frozen in this way; it will change simply by being used. It will always be fluid; definitions will always shift and blur.
Personally, I prefer Matt's prescriptivist definition of 'history' over the emergent descriptivist definition now in the common vernacular. Having said that, holding to that definition is more than an uphill battle; it's an impossibility. A word means however it's used.
Like it or not, 'history' now means "anything that happened in the past" and 'prehistory' just means "anything that happened before people". These are dumb definitions, but it's silly to insist they aren't the correct definitions at this point. The superior definition has largely fallen out of usage.
@Jo Jo The funny thing is, I'm actually arguing _against_ what I want to be true. I like what Matt's saying, and I'd prefer that to be the case... but it's just not a sound argument.
Prescriptivism is delusional in a sense. It's an agreed-upon lie for the sake of convenience, like time zones. True Noon is when the Sun reaches its Zenith in the sky, but if you set your watch by that and then drive 10 minutes East or West, your clock is already measurably off. So we agree upon a falsehood for the sake of practicality. Prescriptivism is the same thing.
We agree to pretend that language can be frozen in place for the sake of practicality and convenience. That's extremely useful, but we tend to forget that we're pretending.
@@bjornmichaud8592 The only reason Matt's argument works IMO is that HEMA is an organization and he was a founding member. What would be prescriptivist nonsense from anyone else is him stating the definition of his club.
@@williamjenkins4913 The argument you're providing is a better one than the one Matt gave, and I actually agree with you on that point. In fact, *I agree with Matt's position;* I was merely explaining why his specific argument for it is a bad one.
The issue I raised is about his definition of "history", not his definition of "HEMA". He bases the latter on the former, but the distinction here is important. "We're the founding organization of HEMA" works as a perfectly valid reason as to why he gets to define the term "HEMA", but it doesn't work for the word "history"; he's not a founding member of the organization that started history.
Again, my point is merely that the argument he gives here isn't very sound. I'm perfectly fine with, "HEMA is what we say it is because we're the founding organization of HEMA"; I have *no issue* with that reasoning.
But that's not the argument he's making. He's saying, "'History' means this, therefor 'HEMA' means that", which, for the reasons previously outlined, is not as solid an argument as it seems at first glance.
There is a broad use of the term and more rigorous use of the term. They can be different, as is the case here. But HEMA practitioners can decide what the terms mean. I'd argue that if you are trying to something that academically relevant, then being precise about YOU mean by the term is important. This is preferable to s loosey-goosey, everybody gets a participation trophy approach to the subject. That doesn't mean things that lie outside that definition aren't useful or fun, but they aren't the same thing.
Stay tuned for part two of the series, What is Europe...
That's one for Metatron maybe :-)
I don't really have a hard view, or much education on the topic, and I suspect that the answer is fluctuating through time.
Part three: What is Martial
@@mikaluostarinen4858 I don't know about "what", but I can tell you "who" it is:
Martial, Latin in full Marcus Valerius Martialis, (born Mar. 1, AD 38-41, Bilbilis, Hispania [Spain]-died c. 103), Roman poet who brought the Latin epigram to perfection and provided in it a picture of Roman society during the early empire that is remarkable both for its completeness and for its accurate portrayal of human foibles.
From Britannica.
@@JustGrowingUp84 So, HEMA is about ancient poetry. I understand it now.
@@mikaluostarinen4858 Finally, someone gets it!
It's not elitist...it's using vocabulary. In 2021, education is all but individual, with the information available. Not always...Historically speaking, but the terms education and educated should not be used in a defamatory way to describe an activity that was designed to promote learning.
Great work Matt. I think that outside of academia very few people draw a distinction between:
“history”: the study of documentary evidence from the past.
And
“The past”: events that occurred before the present.
Modern : of or relating to the present time or the recent past.
Contemporary : happening or beginning now or in recent times.
Boxing, including that of 20th century and even late 19th century = modern martial art/sport.
Bare knuckles fighting from 18th and early 19th century = HEMA.
As a side benefit, bare knuckles was often part of systems which included fencing and stick fighting with both large stick - quarterstaff, and small stick - cudgel.
*Stick fighting -> Shad: heavy breathing. :D
A Master of Defense couldn't afford to leave a penny on the table. And if he couldn't at least hold his own a competitor would get those pennies :)
How far can the "historical" term be stretched? Playing around with bronze age weapons by using "perfect" replicas and Form follows function principles would fall more in the "experimental archeological" than anything which fits under the hema umbrella. But than using a medival source as bases for the reconstruction of Viking fencing in conjunction with the sagas gets a bit more tricky? For example the work of Roland regarding the Viking shield, is this something which can be considered hema?
Anything written down, for purpose of learning would IMO go under historical.
There is nothing wrong with experimental archaeology, but it should be considered separate.
Historical can only stretched to the point where there are written primary and secondary written sources for past periods. Archeology may or may not study historical artifacts.
I would like to refer to the Schwertgeflüster Podcast with Dr.Erik Burkhart (HEMA vs. Wissenschaft), that waving around a perfect replica is not experimental archiology.
Not deminishing the great work of Roland Warzecha.
@@henninghesse9910 of cause there is more like waving around with it involved, like the study of wounds and damages to the weapons etc.
If history is only about sources and separate from reality then in 200years fictional treaties on lightsaber fencing will be hema
Nah, they will be either HNAMA (historical North Americal Martial arts) or HMAGFFA (Historical Martial Arts in a Galaxy Far, Far Away). Not as catchy, I am afraid.
@@louisvictor3473 well depends on what source is found there is going to be American lightsaber and French lightsaber!! Tbh if he wants that definition to work he will need to add more classifiers or it really is way too broad....
When you said "if you're not using historical sources you're not doing HEMA" it reminded me a bit of your 2017 "rant" about historical sources, HEMA and Polish Sabre (or rather - lack of sources for it), haha.
Archeological European Martial Arts With Indirect Historical Sources (AEMAWIHS?)
Polish sabre doesn't have a treatise (before the 19th century), but it does have other historical source material. Richard Marsden made a whole book about it :-)
@@scholagladiatoria Oh, yeah, true. I guess I should've used "treatises" instead of "sources" in my comment to avoid this confusion.
Mr. Marsden's work on this subject is great, probably the best non-Polish source, and even among Polish ones there's not many that can rival him.
Proposition to call these non-historic European martial arts EMMA: European Modern Martial Arts
It does have a certain Emma appeal to it.
Obviously it should be called MEMA: modern European martial arts.
Like the Fencing Ninja black uniform
@@kleinjahr Would all the female EMMA fighters have to wear latex/leather catsuits?
I would prefer MEMA; however, one could also study PHEMA Pre Historic European Martial Arts.
I just watched Shad's video response and it seems a little insane XD If you ask me the "historical" part of HEMA (or history in general) is pretty clear... there's a reason we have the distinction between history and pre-history and it's both simple AND important. I'm not big on ANY of this stuff and I haven't seen too many of either yours or Shad's videos, but I was left scratching my head at his problem with your stance because his argument comes off as more than a little ridiculous.
Honestly, I'll never understand why people, these days, get up-in-arms about gatekeeping because, generally, gatekeeping is done for a reason (maybe this is what they think is elitist?) and it is always about preserving a standard of some sort, a distinction... and I don't know how people get to the point where the meaning of "historical" comes up, but here we are XD You would think the standard of having to have been preserved, visually, across time (and even from certain epochs) would be an easy one to get behind, but I guess not! The argument that using modern (if faithful) stand-ins or equivalents to ancient weaponry is "historical" enough is absolutely bizarre to me... I also don't understand the need to want to breach into a named, history-based practice with a-historical techniques to be included alongside them. The first thing that came to mind for me was the clear distinction between mixed martial arts and ANY of the named martial arts that are deeply rooted in history and have many fixed aspects to them, unlike the freestyle/free forms of today.
By your definition of history, everything that we currently know about cultures in the Western Hemisphere prior to the arrival of Europeans is not history. I dispute that.
The mesoamerican civilizations did write down their history. Especially the Maya. Problem is, the Spanish Inquisition burnt their books. So with them, its a special case
So what are HEMA competitions like? Do the combatants agree that they will compete only using the moves contained in Treatise X or are they allowed to improvise? If somebody scores a point using a move from some recent action movie does it count? Inquiring minds want to know.
I'm not aware of any competitions that restrict fighters to historical technique. Doing so would involve a lot of subjectivity and interpretation and bog down the event. That said, much respect is earned from the community when a hit is landed with a move straight out of the treatises.
Modern HEMA competitions as I understand it are primarily based on a point-based target ruleset with afterblows, so in other words it's mainly a sport like all other combat sports like fencing and kendo more so than a "pure" representation of actual historical techniques and principles. With that said though, yes, the community does encourage you to study the manuals and try to use the techniques from them even if they may not necessarily win you any medals in tournaments, but nonetheless you are ultimately free to ignore the history if you want to and you're not doing anything that breaks the rules.
I'm currently reading Michael Edelson's "Cutting with the Medieval Sword" and it incorporates some Japanese techniques and blends European historical methods into one. I'm personally okay with HEMA schools incorporating non-European and non-Historical (meaning textual) methodology into their curriculum. I could see the argument being made that that should be called something other than HEMA at that point, but because that's the more recognizable name (probably because of the internet) I have a feeling it will all roll up under the HEMA umbrella.
Its not HEMA if its not reconstructed from the past, its experimental archaeology
@@sethdusith6093 Even experimental archaeology requires careful study of material culture based on historical source material and objects. Good experimental design and hypotheses are prompted by historical evidence and surviving material culture. Just 'trying stuff out' yields results that are just untestable guesses. A lot of what gets called 'experimental archaeology' is unfortunately nonsense.
By necessity all HEMA clubs are likely to include a lot of material that isn't directly, explicitly sourced from historical source material. If only because that material is very limited in scope. Something like a hundred pages of hand-written text including a few illustrations, created by people with a very different world view. That won't get you very far when it comes to e.g. how to apply certain tactical concepts in specific situations, the minute technical details of certain actions, and how all of this should be taught. We borrow ideas from other martial arts historical and modern, historical sources not directly related to martial arts, from modern sports pedagogy, etc.
It's a difficult subject matter. Some parts of what we do will necessarily be modern. _We_ are modern people, living in a modern world. But for this activity to count as HEMA, it has to be based on the study of historical source material.
@Jo Jo MMA is not the same as a real fight. Equally, tournament fighting with swords is not the same as a real duel or skirmish.
@Jo Jo If judo can't beat BJJ in a BJJ match, is judo bullshido?
If early 1800s infantry saber can't beat an early 1900s Mensur duel, is the infantry saber system bullshido?
What's a "real fight"? Do you have reason to believe the author of MS I.33, Fiore, Ringeck, Marozzo, Carranza, Meyer, Silver, Capo Ferro, Hundt, Alfieri, Pascha, Touche, Angelo, all the way to Hutton, would have agreed with your personal definition? If someone wants to study, understand, and practice their works, do you think your personal definition of effectiveness in the hypothetical "real fight" is the only significant way to measure success?
You can’t swing swords at each other and call it HEMA any more than you can just kick each other and call it Karate.
In both cases, if they didn't study any sources, then it is called bullshido. Lol
It looks like all too often "HEMA" sparring sessions devolve into just swinging swords at each other. Students get so busy swinging hard and fast and getting that next hit that it seems as if they forget the mission to base it all on history. I am speaking as a layperson looking in. So maybe there are debriefings where the historical connections are discussed that I have not been privy to. But I think there is a need for improved communication as to the historicity of the moves being used, rather than merely a post-spar pub celebration of their relative effectiveness. 🍻🤓
Texas BEAST Do you have a example of a video where they do that? I see sparring videos at the beginner level where they are just doing the basics and perhaps not skillfully, but I rarely seen people outright swinging at random and calling it HEMA. I’m just wondering if maybe you might be looking at more advanced techniques and comparing beginners to that possibly.
2nd Episode: What is EUROPE?
3rd Episode: What is MARTIAL?
4th Episode: What are the ARTS?
“What are HUMANS”
@@paleposter I've seen far too many anthropology papers that have sections titled like this
@@paleposter "A miserable little pile of secrets" - Count Dracula
Right. The problem is that these hema types relegate any form of swordsmanship not based on historical sources is just "bashing around" as one person said.
Yeah and that goes back to the elitism and gatekeeping element. "What *I* do is the real thing, what *they* do is not." What's the point in drawing all of these (possibly arbitrary) lines? If education or to make sure people don't get hornswoggled by bullshido that's one thing, if to make someone feel superior to someone else because of how they engage with a hobby... That's unproductive and possibly destructive.
Yeah that's what i think of when i think of HEMA elitism. It's not about people within their own community, it's how they seem to look down on people outside of it, like i think it was on Reddit r/wma there were gladiator videos and all the hema peeps were slagging it off, well not all, that would be a generalisation, but a substantial amount
I think you hit the nail on the head. When used in academic contexts, history means "sources," but when used in the daily vernacular, it just means "the past." As part of HEMA, it's being used in the academic sense, but because most people see it used more often in the colloquial sense, that's how they (mis)interpret it.
What a great video with so much clarification as to how to define HEMA and whether or not someone is practicing it. Regardless what any of us practice, we can determine whether or not we practice HEMA based on whether or not we consult historical sources. Thanks Matt for this informative video.
I run into the same thing with muzzleloading firearms. Shooters today load and use them quite differently from the way our ancestors shot them. For instance, most shooters today shoot smoothbored flintlocks with patched round balls, and they get quite upset when I tell them there is no period documentation for that. I use period ordnance manuals and shooting treatises to try to figure out how guns were really used in the period. But some people get very touchy when they hear that the way they do it isn’t historical.
Matt with a Zweihänder vs Roger Federer with a graphite racket would be a good video.
Not a long video mind you
I guess it's time for someone to start PHEMA (Prehistorical and Historical European Martial Arts)!
I'd be down for that, starting with a lot of flint knapping workshops, throwing spears and selfbows.
Me throw rock!
Me hit with rock!
Rock good.
We have the same problem in the equestrian world regarding classical horsemanship. "Classical" is a word that engenders great debate and I am going to be using some of your thinking to inform my ongoing lecturing and training to refine the conversation. Thank you for this.
Oh boy, and don't even get me started on "classical" (and related terms) in music.
Raises the interesting question what 21st Century "tabula rasa" swords and systems would look like....
"History is a set of lies that people have agreed upon," -Napoleon Bonaparte
The quote is wrong. "...elites have agreed upon," not people in general. Elites rule, people are ruled.
@@Birkarl_ not true. Not sure where you got that info from. The quote is a common shortform of what Napoleon said in the Memorial de Saint Heléne.
Original quote: Mais qu’est alors cette vérité historique, la plupart du temps? Une fable convenue."
Literally: "What then is, generally speaking, the truth of history? A fable agreed upon."
@@Sir_Howie By who? Who was meant? Your translation gives the wrong idea.
Enter Oral History. "Nice History concept you've got there. It would be a shame if something happened to complicate it..."
"ORAL" history - the name kinda telegraphs that it is different from "history" by having the additional adjective in it. Not that complicated. Nor can we expect Matt to address every detail of an argument in a youtube video - that is what PhD thesis are for.
@@mikelazure7462 The issue I have with Matt dismissing the Oral History traditions is that he then goes on to say that the Icelandic Sagas are fine. i.e. a set of written manuscripts which were based on oral fantasies and written down about 300 years later, You might as well say that the Sharpe or Flashman books are suitable objects of study
What is the cutoff for history? How far back do we have to go before we say this is history, not modern? Do bayonet manuals of the World Wars fall under the HEMA umbrella?
In HEMA we tend to go up to 1945. But this is a big topic that there are LOTS of articles written about by historians.
If it's still in common professional use anywhere in the world today, it's modern. Some militaries (the US included) still technically do bayonet and even sabre training of their soldiers, and issue them to their warriors in certain circumstances.
Matt, someday you will be rewarded for your evenhandedness and comprehensive approach to such topics, but I fear it will not be this day.
I agree with Mr Easton, as a fellow historian. I think people who earned degrees in history or archaeology have a more precise definition and understanding of history, because our instructors taught us a methodology and approach. If your understanding of history comes from a couple of introductory high school or even college classes, it’s natural to just use a “common sense language” definition and assume “history” only means “involving the past.”
Popularize term Experimental sword fighting, because us, people who love to fence with melee weapons are being attacked by hemaists, because we don't have term for what we're doing.
I don't attack people who like beating each other up with swords. It can be a fun activity on its own. Even the more bash-happy ones, since I like watching people get repeatedly concussed. Please continue doing it!
The problem is calling something Historical European Martial Arts when it's not and makes no attempt to be historical.
Are you being attacked for doing it, or calling it something it's not?
@Jo Jo doesn't this happen already in tournaments? Are there ones that require you to specifically use only moves from a treatise?
video suggestions: what is Europe?, what are martial arts and combat sports? types of sources, reconciling living traditions with written sources
Heh. When I started to study the history of a couple subjects it was a constant source of frustration. The primary sources did not agree with the material facts. My adviser said "Remember that these are _histories_ ; our concept of _historical accuracy_ didn't exist then."
That... was a revelation.
But what about tradition? Oral history and so on ... Can we say, that those are not recorded past?
Yes. Most asian martial arts such as silat especially from my place in Malaysia depend on oral tradition.
Most written sources were destroyed during conquest by the westerners.
Some of our historical manuscript were 'stole' and 'keep' in the UK Museum.
Yes, but places with oral tradition have a living lineage of martial arts: you have living masters who learned from other living masters etc., eventually going back to people who actually used that martial art in real combat. The example Faris gave with silat is perfect.
We don't have that in HEMA, unfortunately.
The oral/traditional/folk material is a bit complicated. Martial arts with living lineages tend to use the term "traditional martial arts" or even "classical martial arts" vs. "historical martial arts" to label what they are doing since quite often the oral tradition doesn't always line up with historical sources when present due to how much the living tradition changes and evolves over time from the sources e.g. I used to study Yagyu Shinkage Ryu Kenjutsu which is one of the few Japanese koryu that also has written sources and very often kata that we practiced in dojo didn't always line up exactly as what is described in the sources. P.S. This confusion wasn't just present in only my lineage since our cousin lineage did things their own way which also didn't match the historical sources in their own different crazy way! XP
@@JustGrowingUp84 Minor correction, and I think Matt actually mentioned this in passing in a previous video regarding HEMA. There are living traditions of HEMA out there, they're just a bit obscure and hard to find e.g. Destreza I think still has a living lineage being practiced if you believe Maestro Ramon Martinez here: ruclips.net/video/RyN8WkUdem4/видео.html
Also, the so-called "Classical Fencing" traditions could be considered HEMA as well. Plus there's stuff like Jogo do Pau and there's probably more living traditions of HEMA I don't know about out there, but off the top of my head those are some I can think of.
@@JZBai Yeah, I mentioned Jogo do Pau in another comment, I think that's why I forgot to mention it here.
I don't consider modern olympic fencing to be a martial art at all, historical or otherwise.
It's just a sport, just like modern kendo.
That's just my personal interpretation, and I don't want to seem that I disrespect it - in fact, I have a lot of respect for the athleticism of olympic fencers.
I didn't know about Maestro Ramon, he seems interesting!
OK, here is a stupid one, for argument's sake. Bram Stoker wrote Dracula more than 100 year ago, which makes Dracula a historical source. Van Helsing is described as fighting vampires with hammer and stakes. Is fighting with hammer and stakes then HEMA? I guess Jules Verne also has some interesting fight scenes.
How hard can the distinction between fictional and factional writing be drawn, given that a lot of historical sources are second and third hand accounts with a clear personal agenda, like to praise the leader that butters your bread?
Trying to be absolutely brutal: the fighting treatises are clearly also public relation assets for commercial combat teachers. Could they include quite an amount of fiction, too, just to impress the clients?
A quote from Quora, second Paragraph on the subject of the Difference between History and Archeology.
"History is literary records and sayings only; while archeology is the system of study of antiquities and the wearing of earlier literary record of people from remains of the buildings."
My ignorance is as valid as your knowledge. Thanks for standing up for history and standard's
Sadly there will still be people who still won't get it.
And that's why people call you elitist.
Yep it is like polish saber. There is one codex for it from 1830, but it was never finished at it came out in 1926. "Polish" saber, the way it is trained now, is either Italian dueling saber or Hungarian military saber. There are mention of specific cuts or training methods in sources, but the problem is , that even if a cut or training method is in multiple sources , we don't know how they were performed. And names like "polish hellish quart" or "body cut Il" don't tell us though.
Very clear and concise! I always enjoy your videos.
There were many historical texts from the bronze age referring to Britain as the “Tin isle(s)” and we know there were trade links and interactions with the britons far before the Romans got there. So, from what I understand, bronze age Briton is prehistoric because the inhabitants of the land didn’t take down records of what was happening or had happened? Even though, we technically do have written historical information about bronze age Britain, but from sources elsewhere in the world?
I disagreed on the definition of HEMA in the previous video, and I still have to disagree on this one. First, the very first part about being involved with HEMA for a long time is an appeal to tradition. One could argue the other side and say that what's talked about is HEMAC HEMA, the same way we talk about FIE fencing. And that aside, it goes against how a lot of sports evolve. One just needs to look at something like rock climbing to see how much it changed in the last hundred years. And the last fifty years, and twenty years. I personally know an old guard of rock climbers who consider interior, or artificial wall, to not be rock climbing, which in my view would be like saying someone isn't doing HEMA if they're practicing with a nylon sword.
BUT, this comment isn't only about that. And to be fair, Matt does address this partly in the pinned comment. Artifacts are historical sources. Excluding as not HEMA the practice someone would have of taking a reproduction of an undeniably historical tool, and using what knowledge they have of European history, be it the types of armour that was used, the other kinds of weapons that were around, the fact that some people used shields or fought on horseback, to infer a historically plausible fighting system is in my opinion wrong. I don't think anyone is arguing that someone taking a sharp metal bar and wailing at watermelons just to see how it cuts best is HEMA. But excluding the work some martial artists do to come up with coherent fighting systems for historical weapons is a bit unfair in my opinion.
We need to get a few historiographers in the comments to weight in.
We are looking into history.
It is European.
It is a martial art.
Simple as that. Why is that so hard to understand? I would like to think historians agree, including Matt Easton.
Okay, you’ve convinced me. Your explanation is logical regarding what is ‘Historical’.
Maybe if it has no source material yet is an attempt to recreate a true art form, it should just be called ‘Traditional European Martial Arts’...
TEMA.
I couldn't agree more!!!! On my own personal quote, a few years ago i wanted to start training hema (i live in argentina, little acclaration) and joined a local "hema" group. Ok, they've spoke quite a bit about some spanish and italian writings, but just that... SPOKE about them! I wanted to read them, and there was no book to look after whatsoever. Sadly being in my country means no access to those writting or treatesis, wish i've had access to them (obviously i've left the group and with that went away my hope to properly learn how to properly handle a sword, ok, doesn't matter, i know perfectly how to handle a .45)
great video as usual!
perhaps a new category should be established to encompass unwritten techniques.
that can include fighting techniques that didn't have the privilege of being written down, those that are a possibility but lack written reference to back up, experimental or exploratory techniques, armoured/armed mediaval combat theory etc as to not confuse them with the ones that have treaties or HEMA as people call it.
i feel too many things will not covered by HEMA if they dont have recorded text etc. the lack of words to identify those excluded by HEMA i think is what cause a lot of trouble.
there is are many things that happen in the past that dont have written references. to ignore them is to do a great disservice to the wider community even if it was speculative and hars to prove. this void has to be filled if they can't be included in the word 'historical'
14 minutes and 28 seconds to say: "Pick up a book, plebs!"
The shortest answer possible: It's academic
You said "it would be like trying to learn Christianity without reading the Bible". hahaha. 95% of Christians. I know because I am a reformed Catholic and I've read the Bible.
It's not bad it's like in HEMA lot's of people just learn it from teachers instead of the sources. You need some context with both
I have a quibble here: a bit of stone vaulting IS A SOURCE. It's okay to say "as an historian I privilege written sources over material sources," but it does not mean that those "other things" are not also source. Written, Oral, Pictorial, and Archaeological. All of these four are sources.
My Former swordteacher called his class "Modern Swordsmanship" because we took different ressources and mixed them so that they work together.
It is funny to do sparring with a speer vs a rapear.
Cheers from Cologne
Historical;
adjective,
1) of, pertaining to, treating, or characteristic of history or past events: historical records; historical research.
2) based on or reconstructed from an event, custom, style, etc., in the past: a historical reenactment of the battle of Gettysburg.
3) having once existed or lived in the real world, as opposed to being part of legend or fiction or as distinguished from religious belief: to doubt that a historical Camelot ever existed; a theologian's study of the historical Jesus.
4) narrated or mentioned in history; belonging to the past.
5) noting or pertaining to analysis based on a comparison among several periods of development of a phenomenon, as in language or economics.
6) historic (def. 1).
It's easy, really.
Not HEMA: Being tied to a rack.
HEMA: Being tied to the Rack.
Seems straight forward to me.
Don't threaten me with a good time....
“I’m Matt Easton, and I will continue to be.” Why does that sound so… charged?
I do wish there was less stigma around terms like fencing or LARP. Maybe then less people would feel the need to latch onto the term of HEMA for validation or to avoid ridicule. Great video, its good to remember that history has a much more narrow definition then just “stuff that happened in the past.”
Stop unsubbing me YT!! I want to be subbed to this channel.
Got ya, brother. I copy ya, loud and clear. 👍
I feel like the "Icelandic Saga" bit was carved out specifically for me.
Matt, can you call it HEMA if you read treatises but decide to modify the techniques to be more efficient or effective? Can you create your own style based on sources and still call it HEMA?
I was told yes by a viewer when I asked this on the last vid about this.
The fellow said if it’s just made up techniques without any use of source material, then it’s not ‘HEMA’.
But if you do build on original source material, it is HEMA.
This still leaves me asking though, what is the recreation of European martial arts for which there is no source material?
Maybe if it has no source material it should just be called ‘Traditional European Martial Arts’...
TEMA.
So very well said!!
"You wouldn't say you're practicing Christianity without reading the Bible." Um, Matt, I hate to break it to you but that's 90% of the "Christians" in the world, especially in the United States.
Yes, they're wrong, but that may not be the best comparison to use... (I agree with everything else you said.)
And they don't even fit under the criteria of learning from other people who read the bible, since people like Peter Popoff and Joel Osteen can become church leaders.
My degree is in music performance. In fact, the specific department I was in is called Historical Performance. Most recently I've actually been studying the parallels between HEMA and historical performance of medieval music(in our present day), both historical as well as the historiographical(how's that for a word!😁), and OMG there are MANY! However, you've revealed even more parallels between these two disciplines with this video, Matt. Thank you!
Edit: By the way, studying treatises is definitely a major part of both disciplines, and we even call them "the treatises" when it comes to historical performance in music!😁 That's one of the many historiographical parallels. However, like I said, there are many straight-up historical parallels as well. For just one example: I've found many Late Medieval composers who were also documented knights and/or men-at-arms. Finally, I'm not talking about any generic crap you hear on the Witcher, or some couple with an Irish whistle and guitar at some renaissance fair. I'm talking about the serious, academic study of written historical sources which is used to inform the performance style of an actual branch of classical music. There is real, medieval music that was actually written down such that we don't have to imagine what a piece sounded like, we can we read it, play it, and hear it, and it's actually pretty flippin badass because, in my opinion, it's one of the closest things we have to actual time travel.
That moment when you have to explain to bunch of grown men what "history" means...
Excellent video.
A nice counter example to what is "historical" might be Lindsey Beige's (sp?) vid from years ago on his thoughts on how the halberd was used which was essentially experimental archeology.
It is so painfully sad that you have to explain this to people, I feel your pain as you attempt to to get your point across.
10:01 was thinking, "well almost sounds like convergent evolution".
And then a couple of seconds later! :D
Guess I watch too many Ben G Thomas' videos, among others.
Wait so Martial arts isn't painting with a saber? Or Sculpting with your mace? What about pole arm knitting?
Pssh, next you'll tell me that the partisans of WW2 didn't fight with partisans. Yeah right.
I have many friends doing advanced degrees in history and archaeology, and not one of them has ever clarified 'history' as more than just being 'a past thing' in any conversation I've had with them. The word seems to have so little connection to the academic meaning outside of academia that the meaning of the word itself has shifted, if even those who study it professionally don't bother clarifying the difference any more. There's no realistic prospects of reclaiming the meaning of the word without having a useful substitute in the English language that does mean 'of the past', since there's obviously a significant need for such a word for the language to co-opt one that didn't formerly mean it.
But is HEMA martial?
Martial comes from Mars, god of war, so essentially HEMA isnt martial, because the manuals dont deal with war, rather with duels, and duels are more connected to law then war, so.. it should be called minervan(form goddess Minerva), while lets say Buhurt is martial.
Actually Minerva also deals with skilful combat, prancing around skilfully on your toes, so it fits even more.
If you put it into contemporary skills, HEMA is more like firearms self defence course, nothing to do with war, while Buhurt is like war exercise or mil-sim.
So you can see today, and maybe for some time, people use word martial wrongly, just like they do historical, and that is why my dear friend Matt HEMA is oxymoron, yo :)
Actually Buhurt is real HEMA, because its based on tourneys that were meant to train the knights for war in competitive environment.
I have seen you say, and 'HEMA' like people, buhurt is not valid because they dont thrust at the gaps, or dont do half-swording or throwing out the pommels :D
Well its a Mil-sim, a war exercise, you dont see today people in army shooting each other down with live ammo during exercise, nor do I see half-swording or pommel-throwing used in historical art when depicting a battle, its actually mostly bashing and wrestling, just like in Buhurt.
Cheers
There are PLENTY of manuscripts on war. Hans Talhoffer showcases war machines, for example. As well as mounted combat.
HEMA is a perfect name for the sport, not sure how many of us practitioners study mythology but I know we all study Historical European Martial Arts.
On the most basic level, historical European martial arts had only two rules:
1) Try to avoid or minimize harm to yourself and your allies.
2) Try to kill, incapacitate, or otherwise defeat your opponents.
Specific subcategories had additional rules in particular times and places, such as rules that people were required or expected to adhere to in duels or regulated contests, or rules that particular teachers expected their students to adhere to. But such rules are applicable only to particular subcategories, not to historical European martial arts in general.
The term Historical European Martial Arts is too broad to be compatible with rules that require specific techniques to be based on historical evidence because such restrictions make the rules of HEMA more restrictive than the historical rules of European martial arts. One important aspect of historical European martial arts was that people could improvise, invent their own techniques, learn unconventional techniques from other people, and adapt techniques to fit their own abilities and preferences. Arbitrarily restricting such improvisation, adaptation, and use of unconventional techniques makes the rules of HEMA fundamentally different from the rules of real historical European martial arts.
Similarly, in real historical European martial arts, people who had no or inadequate formal training were free to make up the best techniques they could based on however much knowledge or training they had, so long as they did not violate special rules applicable in particular times and places. People who pursue similar approaches today are imitating a way that many people historically learned how to use weapons. Disallowing that approach to learning makes the rules of HEMA fundamentally different from the rules of real historical European martial arts.
There could potentially be techniques that can reasonably be excluded from HEMA on the grounds that (1) we have no historical evidence of their use and (2) they are so highly effective that they would almost certainly appear in the historical record if they were historically used more than rarely. In that kind of situation, an absence of evidence can reasonably be construed as evidence that particular techniques were rarely if ever used historically. But otherwise, it is far more historically accurate to allow use of nonstandard techniques than to allow only techniques that made it into the historical record.
What we really need is a distinction between the broad term HEMA and a narrower term such as HARVEMAT, Historically Accurate Reproduction of Verifiable European Martial Arts Techniques. That would avoid misusing the term HEMA in a way that is confusingly misleading because the rules of “HEMA” are far more restrictive than the rules of actual historical European martial arts. It would also provide a label that makes clear when people are talking about a subset of historical European martial arts focused specifically on techniques that can be verified from historical evidence.
This was very helpfull and has helped give me an idea of what to look for and given a direction for me. Its the way you broke it down was also very helpfull- Arkeology= phisical evidance, Hitory- writen sources
I think HEMA is an abbreviation of four English words and each of those words can be looked up in a dictionary to define HEMA.
Any other interpretation of the meaning would just be laymen in English language applying slang or, incorrect meaning, which would have to be reexplained every time the term was used. A new word that is the same as an old or current word. Parrot product. Or possibly code. Police use code so no one can understand them. That’s how code works so why would you use code when you want people to understand?
( eg.distal taper)(HEMA)
That’s why labeling and categorizing everything and everyone is rooted in the system and evils quest for control of its slaves.
You just made argument against matt, even unwillingly :) He said "academic", which is, by definition, slang of english.
@@TokarevArtyom academics is higher learning, not slang English🤣😂🤣
@@andrewsock6203 My bad, in my language jargon and slang have more or less equal meaning.
I meant jargon.
www.lexico.com/en/definition/jargon
So it is not a common meaning, and not "right" meaning.
@@TokarevArtyom oh the old jargon academic swap😉👍
Yes jargon, slang, lingo, all mean incorrect compared to dictionary definition.
@@andrewsock6203 I`m afraid you`re wrong on this one. At least according to dictionaries.
In our club, our philosophy is that we will use a system(s) as the basic or the building blocks, but as it’s impossible to put down all specifics of a system into a manual/treatise, when facing sth not mentioned in the treatises, we allow students to freely choose or adopt what the learned or make up new stuffs. I personally think this is HEMA
I've read enough of the comments to Matt's videos to realize the need for this video. How old does a source have to be to be history? Vietnam USA rifle squad tactics are very different than today although the weapons are very similar as an example.
There is no fixed answer, but in HEMA we normally tend to end at 1945. But maybe that will move later in the future.
Well said, i can agree with every point. I had this cind of conversations more than enough. If people do sword fighting it is ok, no problem with it at all. But calling this historical fencing is wrong when they dont study according to the sources.
- Someone learns the material from written sources.
- That person teaches a second party their knowledge via practical training.
Is that second party not doing HEMA?
Of course they are. He talks about that in the last video
It is still based on the written sources, there is a linage connecting it to the "history". So to start practicing hema is should be engough if the instructor knows the sources. But I think that still the connection directly to the source is preserved by letting the studens look into the base material.
If I remember correctly, Matt said in the video that spawned this video that indeed it's enough to have a teacher who is versed in the historical texts, you don't need to read them yourself to be doing HEMA. It's just that the martial arts that are practiced have to be drawn from historical sources.
We can look at the term "doing HEMA." To say that one is doing "Historical European Martial Arts" does not necessarily mean that one is "doing history" i.e. studying historical sources, but that the "European Martial Arts" they are doing are "Historical" i.e. based on historical sources.
Similarly, if you read a book about history written by a history professor, what you are reading is history, since the professor has (presumably) studied the original sources. You are gaining knowledge about history without doing history, i.e. studying the historical sources yourself. But history is always interpretive, and if possible, it's always better to track down the original sources and read them for yourself.
At the same time, it's impractical to assume that, say, everyone at all levels of education read all the historical sources from which the historical narratives they are taught are drawn. In what is taught in schools there's often at least a couple of degrees of separation from the original source material, which makes the information reliant on layers of interpretation and thus less reliable.
I have no affiliation to HEMA so it's none of my business to define what it is or is not, but Matt's explanation makes sense in relation to what history is as an academic field of study. I think there's room for interdisciplinary interpretations of "historical" European martial arts, incorporating archeology, oral tradition, reconstructive experiments, etc. Maybe we could call it Cultural European Martial Arts or European Martial Arts Studies?
This video is a great one.
Following that argumentation (which was very well carried out, and I agree to), 90% of people saying they are doing Living History, are not doing Living History :)
Cant argue with Matt! makes 100% sense
Well said!
So hema is a symantic device to say you are swinging a sword around like someone from the past
this is exactly right! :D