My trainer had a nice way of giving us hints in that he'd just cite some quotes in certain training situations as a kind of one-liner as well as giving us just the names so that in the end everyone would at least know a few sentences ("Merksätze") und names besides Lichtenauer. The rest was up to each of us of how much we wanted to delve deeper. He understood that people came for sports and not academia.
We've started doing this a bit. I think it's a really good way to integrate the sources into your usual training. Instead of just doing the pieces, before them we say the corresponding verses from the zettel to eachother. From a sport perspective, our training is basically the same, but additionally everyone slowly learns the verses from the zettel and can then also have his own thoughts if the trainers interpretation is right. Actively integrating the sources into the training is often a lot less effort than you'd think
If there's anything that truly disappoints me, it's that the HEMA world still by and large focuses on longsword and some rapier here and there. Sidesword and messer are slowly gaining in popularity which is good news. But it's much harder to find people with whom to train wrestling, dagger and polearms. Wrestling is the unifying foundation of everything and should be a prerequisite for any armed HEMA study that deals with the context of 1 on 1 fighting.
It depends a lot on clubs as well, we did Paulus Hector Mair’s Poleaxe for a year, and are now doing Godinhos Montante rules (outside of longsword), rapier traing is relatively hard to find here Id say.
I've done a good deal of HEMA and you usually hit someone with a sword first before they can pull any kind of grappling. And also grappling requires non-lobstered-up hands, so it's a no go in proper sparring. Unless it isn't. Can you grapple someone in claws?
@@RorikH I'm currently working my way through the armored fencing chapter of Czynner which is chock full of grappling and so far every technique we worked on was easily possible even with clumsy SPES lobster gloves. No ju-jutsu style individual finger locks and such but a ton of grabbing wrists, upper arms and legs. Lots of gross motor movement.
@@chopstick1671 That's great, you are fortunate to have training partners for those things. I own a whole bunch of poleaxe and halberd trainers etc so I could equip a small group with the gear lying around at home but finding people to train with is the hardest part. Consistent training partners are worth their weight in gold. I've considered putting up posters around town to find interested people but for things like rondel dagger one can't (or perhaps should not) grab randoms off the street.
For me, the text-based work is very much an advantage: I turn 50 this year, and have only started HEMA (in particular: long sword) last winter. There's no way I could hold my own against all the young, fit dudes in our club competitively, but reading and drilling based on what I've read, is sure to keep me interested and active.
I wouldn’t say you could never hold your own against younger people. Sure if this was unarmored combat you certainly would lose but melee weapons are equalizers to a degree. Hema Fights are mostly determined by distance and timing. Does overall physical fitness help, of course but it’s not the be all end all.
Most of the people in my club aren't into either the sport nor the scholarly side. Many are just into it as a form of recreation: think people who swim or play tennis not for the competition but more as a casual activity to engage in. I suspect that depending on where you live, majority of students are like this.
A while back I was on a martial arts forum, and was reading an article about why folks study martial arts. It was an interesting list: "I want to defend myself" - Professional use of Force/Self-Defense "I want to get in shape" - Physical Fitness "I want to compete" - Competitive sport "I want some discipline" - Cognitive development "I want to look awesome" - Aesthetics/Performance "I want to know my culture" - historical research/cultural exploration And all of these reasons are perfectly fine reasons to study martial arts - as long as everyone involved (ie, the instructor and the student) understand what it is they're teaching/studying. Obviously, a training methodology can cover multiple reasons: most kickboxing schools, for example, teach combative sport along with physical fitness, and can be structured to self-defense with a few tweaks. Issues arive, however, when you THINK you're studying for one reason, but you're actually studying another. Self-defense, for example, is usually very much different in reality than what people think it is - it's mainly strategic avoidance and tactical de-escalation, plus running away and calling the cops. If you're spending a few hours a week practicing "self defense", you're probably doing it more for the fitness aspect - which, again, is fine: as long as everyone understands that.
I was interested in HEMA because I wanted to know how to kill people with certain weapons. The self-defense idea is pretty funny to me, comparatively speaking.
@@HamsterPants522 the most common weapon used in assaults are kitchen knives, so learning how to grapple around a blade is actually really important in terms of self defense.
0:00 Catching up 1:00 Have we lost our way? 1:55 Early days of HEMA 3:13 The modern evolution of HEMA 4:44 Looking at the evolution of Kenjitsu and Kendo 5:36 Will HEMA repeat this? 6:37 A need to drift back to the early context of HEMA 9:00 Those who do both 9:31 Looking at different viewpoints
In terms of Japanese swordsmanship there is an interesting book (imo) by Nakamura Taisaburo called The Spirit of the Sword. He was one of the Toyama Ryu military school instructors in WW2 and amongst other subjects he talks about this issue. About how he feels Iaido schools are lacking because of not sparring and how Kendo schools not training with actual swords lack an understanding of correct form for live cutting and how both should inter-train and also include more target cutting. Some of the other topics he talks about include how he found different climates affected blades from different makers, his experiance in learning one handed sword techniques after being stabbed in the hand after an accident in a bayonet drill, and loads of other stuff. Fairly easy to find copies now, and I'd say it's worth a read if it's a subject that interests you, "The Spirit of the Sword: Iaido, Kendo, and Test Cutting with the Japanese Sword" is its full title blue cover with a picture of him on the front cutting a target.
This, I feel, is why it's important to spar and drill in multiple different tempos and rulesets, so that we don't become solely competition-focused, but rather become well-rounded martial artists. However, I'm no expert in this field, so who am I to say.
And yet you are exactly right. A static ruleset leads to sportification more than anything and that's the reason I hope HEMA never becomes an Olympic sport.
I found out about HEMA through the SCA, back when it was treatise based. I'm still fond of comparing the techniques from my kenjutsu background to the ones in HEMA treatise for single edged cutting blades. My study of HEMA isn't actually for HEMA, it's to improve my understanding of the nature of the sword - any technique from any school is worth learning, especially if you learn when and why to use it.
Sometimes I'm surprised when I read hema convos online and find that many people lack kind of a foundational knowledge of history in certain areas. I think it would be interesting if clubs encouraged reading material aside from the treatises, like survey books or general history books for example. Like having a reading list or book club attached to training.
In cases like this, I think there should be a distinction between the two. I noticed that Western Martial Arts is one that is being used in some contexts, and it would make sense to use that to differentiate the modernized competitive sparring as opposed to historically focused groups.
I think a lot could be achieved by encouraging asymmetric, even unfair sparring (both in clubs and maybe competitions). Spear vs sword, shield vs no shield, 2v1, weapon drawn vs sheathed... If it's a competition, you can switch, like in chess. Maybe competitions should have a wider range of events: so keep the rapier and longsword duels but add the sabre vs bayonet event or the 2v2 spear & shield event, or the greatsword vs multiple opponents survival event, (and test cutting!), etc. and make the real prestigious events the HEMA triathlon/pentathlon/whatever.
In my club we used to (closed due to Covid) play a game called "The Nobleman and his Bodyguard" where you'd have a "nobleman" with a knife a "bodyguard" with a longsword and two "assassins" with long or short swords, and the nobleman had to get to the end of the sparring floor to escape to win. Whether the bodyguard died wasn't important. It was a good bit of fun. Also one of the guys who was really good was able to take out both assassins as the nobleman after his bodyguard died.
I don't think that really solves the problem. Most systems were written for two of the same weapons facing each other in a duel. If we want to remain true to the sources this is perhaps going off in a different direction. And the uneven matchups don't really lend themselves well to tournaments because you are now measuring which weapons work better in a first blood type duel instead of purely skill. I would definitely welcome them as training exercises though.
@@mysticmarbles Could be fun though. A little bit like MMA, where they test different styles against each other. Hobbies are allowed to be fun. Might get too optimized over time though and it'd be all spears all the time.
@@RorikH Yeah, would defenitely fun to watch and definetly more relatable to a broader viewership than only the cryptic 1on1 duels, where you sometimes really have to have eyes like a fly and require a basic understanding in what is going on.
@@mysticmarbles I'm not an expert but I remember in the Gladiatoria Group are some techniques concerning mixed weapon duels. There might be more treatises I'm not aware of.
I find the case of HEMA quite interesting. I practice both kendo and iaido and I often see people who only pratice one of them and don't see any use on the other. I myself think both approaches bring something useful for the table: you can't just take the adrenaline and fear out of the equation of swordsmanship; at the same time, whacking people with proxy weapons within a set of rules will simply not convey the same results as a real duel would. In the end, both are far from what real fights were, but both can teach you many aspects of swordsmanship.
Frankly, this is instructors' job to fix. The vast majority of casual HEMA students have absolutely 0 interest in picking up a treatise for themselves, and that will never change. It's instructors' (& competition organisers') job to make sure the environment and the rules encourage historically relevant swordsmanship.
A lot of people would also rather learn from instructors than treatises, since actually grokking a technique requires you to use it, and it's hard to use it right without really knowing how to do it, and having an instructor teaching it to you and showing it to you is the best way to do that, unless you've got a friend handy who's also reading the treatise and either knows it or can figure it out together with you. Just reading a book is not the best way to acquire knowledge of physical movements.
@@RorikH That's very true. As a total noob I am dependent on my instructor for providing me with the context and basic skills. But I find it very helpfull to cross referentiate with the treatises, especially to get the vocabulary right and to internalise the basic principles. I know it's not for everybody and that's completely ok, but at least everybody should give it a try.
The opposite of this is true in my experience. Everyone in my club spends time with the material. The people who come to train *want* to read historical texts. Honestly I don’t know why the hell you would pick up HEMA if you didn’t. Maybe my group was an anomaly. We didn’t have any bored sports fencers trying to bring their thing into our thing.
@@RorikH You're right about that. The reality is that many of these treatises are awfully vague on many things that allow you to correctly use the technique described: footwork, correct edge alignment, using your whole body to power the cuts and not just your arms, etc. So, if you pick a treaty and start doing the technique with 0 coaching, you might think you get it right, but you might make a large number of mistakes that you're aren't aware of because you just don't know about it. And if you continue like that for years in isolation, you might pick bad habits that will be hard to break later or even injure yourself. I don't think most people can learn HEMA decently without the help of a decent instructor. I certainly wouldn't dare to try. This can make it tricky when you live in parts where there are no club nearby or one that teaches something that doesn't interest you. By example, in my case, the only club in my city teaches techniques that some former canadian army officer invented based on his own take of historical techniques (some kind of modern reimagining if you will). It makes me reluctant to go there because I feel it awfully arrogant to pretend you can do better than what people who actually fought for their lives invented to fight and defend themselves over many centuries of trial and error. Also, I am a trained historian and my interest in HEMA comes from wanting to relive history a little bit and learn to fight like they used to as much as it's possible with the sources availlable. So quite frankly, what I want to learn are either the actual historical german or italian longsword tradition, not some modernish crap whether it works or not. I don't care about HEMA as a competitive sport either. I just want to have fun. So, what I might have to do is to learn the basis from them and enrich it with the proper historical techniques using training videos I find or trying directly what is in the treatises. But that will certainly be challenging. I'm sure a lot of people face similar situations.
My suspicion is that the people who are very strongly into researching and respecting the sources are a minority. As HEMA will grow, they will continue to dwindle in proportion to the rest of the practitioners, even if their number actually increases. So you could get 10 more people interested in historical research, and 100 who just want to play a sport.
I agree. I am actually one of the guys that would like to do it as a sport (there are no HEMA schools in my part of Brazil). I would love to read the sources and talk to actual researchers, but I personally just want to know how to fence with a sword and duel in amateur competitions. I just fear that guys with the same inspirations as I will start to present themselves as "experts", just because they learned how to properly hold a sword and know a few guards. I would not do such thing, but I think this kind of behavior would be inevitable as hema grows as an sport
@@eliasbram3710 well it would and thats okay....as long as you present the context of it being an expert in the modern SPORT Not the historical side. Thats the key there. So it all depends on if and how that split happens
I did reenactment and HEMA from a martial arts background. I had done muay thai for years but wanted to learn to fight with a blade, against groups. To defend myself in extreme (and increasingly likely) conditions. In both reenactment, the obsession with rules, safety and authenticity seemed to bother people more than their learning. There was a culture of finger-wagging condescension that has emerged in the last few years until I couldn't stomach it any more. I left reenactment after 8 beloved years because the rules and regulations based culture in there was stifling. I'm a fighter and I saw early that HEMA was a scholarly pursuit and respected that and went a different way. Though I respect the work you guys are doing in restoring a treasured part of our history. I just want to brawl, study edged weapons and polearms and celebrate my heritage. Still haven't found what I'm looking for
Worth appreciating that this is a fairly unique problem, and glad people are thinking about it seriously. I suspect a lot of it in the near-medium term can he helped by the sporting regulation design, which from what little I’ve seen is already pretty smartly done, but players will always optimize and competition will quickly move to fit the shape of the box it’s in. There’s a 2018 Romanian documentary called Infinite Football that might set your brain on fire about game/sport regulation. It’s fascinating how a few tweaked parameters can change the focus or roles of the practice, even with the same win condition. Highly recommend
Anyone that claims to study Fiore and doesnt begin by studying his wrestling and then dagger plays hasnt read Fiore. His long sword work is entirely built on his grappling and he constantly references it in the accompanying text. Those that jump straight to the sword miss the point of the work entirely
I don't disagree per se, but I know plenty of good wrestlers who are terrible at the swordplay part. You can only successfully do the grappling, if you can use the sword effectively. If you look at the Morgan version, then he starts with mounted combat, and indeed he references aspects of swordplay in the mounted section of Getty. So someone could riposte to you, saying that a person cannot study Fiore without learning to ride. Clearly there are different ways to approach a source. This being said, I personally did start with the grappling and dagger stuff, but note that the abrazare section is *tiny*. Most of the 'grappling' in Fiore, and the biggest section, is dagger defence. Which is not exactly typical wrestling, as a weapon is involved. Which of course makes it more like swordplay.
@@scholagladiatoria And to add to that, there's a lot of overlap between the sections (theoretically to save on ink). For instance, certain dagger plays can be executed with the grip and pommel of the sword, sword in one hand can be performed in two hands, etc. There's even secrets within secrets, as some have cited an alleged kata within the order and pairing of Fiore's posta. It's really interesting.
This was a point I brought up when you made your "is HEMA elitist" video. I have a really hard time understanding how some people can be super critical of technique that may take liberties with historical techniques (see Shad) and then go and participate in HEMA competitions where historical accuracy takes a back seat to scoring points.
But tournaments took place in the past, when HEMA was just EMA, and they also developed techniques and tactics to "score points". Is it not historical to follow in that "tradition", instead of imagining a period of history where everyone fought according to their style?
@kwanarchive a) They didn't fight to score points in tournaments, they fought to submission or surrender with the goal of earning a ransom. b) outside of special circumstances a swordsman generally fought in a style consistent with others of their location and period. A Swordsman from Bologna in 15th century probably fought in the Bolognese Style of 15th century, also known as the Dardi School. They may have also encountered fencers from contemporary schools of different geographical locations but the likelihood of facing someone using out of period techniques developed elsewhere for a non contemporary sword is rather unlikely for a medieval swordsman. There was never a generalized "EMA," and there's never been an "imaginary period where everyone fought a certain way." By the way a "technique" is not a style of swordmanship but rather specific "moves" contained within a "style." And what I am referring to is the evolution that can be observed in HEMA competitions where historical techniques evolve in ways that do not reflect historical combat, but rather the the constraints of the HEMA scoring system. That would mean it's "modern sport techniques" rather than "historical combat techniques" and the "tradition" of which you suggest we follow didn't ever exist, you literally just made it up. The tradition which we should follow exists in the medieval fencing treaties of which there are numerous.
@@Adam_okaay I put "score points" in quotes. You put a lot of things in quotes too, so you know how they work, therefore have no excuse to deliberately misread what I wrote. How the winning actions were counted doesn't matter. There was an objective for given rules, beside killing the other person. And people played to those rules. That cannot be denied. I don't care if you call them points or not - some measure was applied to judge a winner. The rest of your blathering is irrelevant. My point is historical people played to the rules just as people do today. They got away with whatever they could to win within the rules. In the end, their technique was irrelevant to how they were judged to be the winner or the loser.
@@kwanarchive I didn't "deliberately misread what you wrote," you responded to my comment in which I had used "score points" literally; specifically referencing the scoring systems used in HEMA competitions. The intended purpose of these scoring systems is to simulate injuries sustained during historical combat, so that practioners of these systems can test their skill at historical techniques against one another, with every reset after a score representing a new duel essentially. Yes everyone is trying to win, but the focus is on historical role-playing, and skillfully using accurate historical techniques. Revising and modifying these techniques as well as tactics, so they more effective at scoring literal points, is essentially metagaming for min/max purposes. I mean people take this to the point that they will "trade hits" or accept an afterblow that a historical fencer would not because it would cause either a severely debilitating or potentially fatal injury. If you only care about scoring more points this may be an acceptable trade if you can land a strike worth more points. Calling that Historical is anachronistic and completely inaccurate, it's HEMA based, but it isn't HEMA and it undermines the purpose of HEMA, and should be treated as a separate thing, because it is.
It's the most important point. When You simulate real fight You want to win not being hit. If You score double it means You are wounded or dead after the fight. We have a rule to eliminate both fencers after couple of doubles. It's working not bad.
Yep, I've done a few matches and universally the main issues i had with most of the larger groups of HEMA is that aggression seemed more rewarded than footwork and grappling though there were several practitioners who tried to incorporate grappling as at certain junctures of a match it just seems natural but few knew how to do it correctly and a big thing was to grapple safely both match partners should know what the other person is intending even if they are not of equal skill they should be matched closer than what I saw. Partly it is about inclusion from a relatively small group of people who are interested but more often it is about ego and overall lack of training to be able to identify who actually has more skill, especially when most sparring sessions do not emphasize minimizing double hits.
@@AlanLamb11 Hmm... Feder rules allows grapling, punching, kicking and catching the weapon. For me grapling and catching weapon should be allowed only for short while because we want to concentrate more on fencing game not real-open fight. It's my opinion. More grapling is allowed then You have less fencing. If someone likes to kick opponent at fencing at Feder rules he will do it at any occasion. For me HEMA should limit actions to fencing and catching weapon without punches and kicking. I prefer this way of fighting.
Very interesting introspection. I've been watching your videos for years and it inspired me to go and get to know my local HEMA-club a few years ago. The reason I didn't end up staying was ultimately that there was very little sparring and physical challenge and in the end of the day, I was looking for a workout. They were studying Fiore's longsword and a some langmesser and they were very serious with the sources and the living history side of things was absolutely fascinating. But I was also looking to practice a martial art/contact sport and that side was very slim. I wonder if this is the other side of the divide you were talking of. If I ever end up near a club that has a good balance, I'm definitely giving HEMA another shot.
Yeah, no grappling, no clinching, no taekwondo and muay thai left hi kicks, no disarms, hema practitioners are pretty lazy. On the battlefield. Your opponent isn’t going to play by the hema sports fencing rules.
@@RorikH Correct! But exchanges do often come to a grapple. It also has to be done safely, which is part of the same argument because many clubs and folks don't train these things. For various reasons, many clubs and individuals focus only on the sword, where other techniques are abundant in several sources. I think falling, grounding joint locks, and knowing when to tap should be part of training for any combat sport.
@@corrugatedcavalier5266 One issue with some of these things in sparring is that you wear lobster gauntlets to spar, and they don't really let you have the hand mobility to grab people well, and naturally any technique that people don't use in sparring tends to fall by the wayside due to lack of practice. Falling practice might be good though, shoving is still a common way to resolve a bind.
I may be optimistic, but I think it might be a worthwhile development, even if it's an eventual "split." Having events themed around a developed "Olympic longswording", with a progression through codified rulesets would be good for some people. Let them channel their competitive urges and their desire for "one system to rule them all" (even if it's multiple systems done in sequence), and I feel like the true HEMA community will get to flourish with that.
Very much agree. They are different things, and both are really cool! I am more into the sources, but will continue to go to tournaments for fun and to fight people outside my club. I would love to see some tournaments with rule sets supporting a more historical approach (safely, of course), but the specifics are the tough part.
As a practitioner of Asian martial arts (mostly Karate), I totally get what you're saying here. I, myself, try and train in all aspects of the martial arts. In my Karate Dojo, we mostly do traditional Karate, but also competitive Sport-Karate, and self-defense - which we base on Karate but adapt to modern and relevant situations. I think it gives the most complete approach to a martial art, and also allows people with somewhat different preferences to train together. I does, however, mean that we never get really good at any one aspect... My students can't compete at the same level as professional athletes, or use self defense as well as a high-level security guard, for example. Anyway, that's what I think... Keep the great content coming. Cheers.
When did it become a sport? The Earl of Oxfords theater, The Curtain, was also used for fencing demonstrations and shows in the 1580's. There must have been some popular interest for people to pay a pence to watch? Earlier, we could call Joust with rules a sport too. There are texts on all sorts of martial arts but, their all based on study with a master and there a few about with notches on their sword.
I haven’t seen this video yet . But from reading the comments I already have an opinion . As Mat said in a previous video there is nothing new under the sun . Treatise are more guidelines than actual rules , all that matters is that the sharp or pointy end goes in the other man . Hell you can even use the blunt end as long as you kill or terribly maim the other person . And of course when I said kill or maim the other person I mean simulate maiming or killing them with blunted metal or very hard plastic while their wearing the proper protective gear .
It’s really not as simple as you’re framing it. The game is “kill and don’t be killed” with a lot of nuance resulting from the practicalities of practicing and testing yourself.
@@bignasty389 Fair enough , I should have put that in my comment ( honestly before it got so many likes I was thinking about re writing it ) but it’s popular what are you going to do ?
Agree. There is an identifiable issue here in Germany that there are no digitally accessible, modern translations and this is a huge barrier to people reading more. I have spoken to various people including those who run the HEMA scene here and mentioned I structure my lessons around early KdF manuals (as well being an active and relatively successful tournament fencer who transfers sport science, olympic methods and drills into these lessons) and got the response "oh that is just academic stuff" or "we do what works, not what is in old books" (!). Those same people also complain about things being too sporty (the mind boggles :'D ). I am then kinda wondering how people can say they teach German longsword - particularly in Germany - when they haven't read the German longsword manuals. They are full of amazing fencing advice, so I have no idea why people wouldn't read them if they want to become better fencers, especially to teach. What I think would help is crowd-sourced modern translations of sources in modern, native languages. The English-speaking community is quite spoiled for choice but for anyone who does not speak it as a first language this is a barrier to engaging. I do feel it is really important - at least for instructors - to know their stuff. Plus I was taught German longsword from the sources by a very successful and competitive club and I do not think the two approaches are at all mutually exclusive. It is possible to fence both historically and technically well and competitively.
Sorry, no offense, I'm a bit baffled by your comment, perhaps I misread something. Especially here in Germany we are blessed with exellent transcriptions and translations, like the excellent 44 A 8 tranlated by Dierk Hagedorn. He also contributes to the Wiktenauer Database. I don't know if he provided a digital version of Cod. Danzig or Lecküchner already. Shouldn't be a problem to ask. But anyway, given all the expensive equipment already, 20€ for a book is not too much to ask and shouldn't be an excuse to disregard the treatises. Also the comments on german longsword by Bertram Koch I found quite usefull. Just google 'bertram koch liechtenauer pdf'. Don't know how non german and non english speaking learners manage. I'm intersted, is there a community active in translating to other languages?
@@stefanfranke5651 None taken! I should perhaps have said no good quality digital sources? I have however had exactly this comment from my club - they said "Oh but anyone can buy the Hagedorn book". The fact is: people don't, and if they do I'm pretty sure they don't read it. Eg. I have met resistance when trying to implement a basic training structure and some kind of informal test of knowledge to demonstrate the 17 Hauptstuecke of Liechtenauer and a few plays from them and I suspect this is because, quite frankly, the instructors don't know the plays. I believe this is because in English we have digital translations on Wiktenauer etc and I find this very convenient to make a lesson. Let's say I want to find all instances of "Schielhau"; I can Ctrl+F on Wikentauer or a pdf document with 3227a, Pvd and Ringeck side-by-side on my phone or laptop any time or place I have a few minutes free and see examples and illustrations from several manuscripts. To do that with a paper book is more time-consuming and presents a barrier in my opinion. I have the Koch and there is PvD online in modern German but the formatting is not great and there are no pictures. I have tried to make pdfs and I send them to people but getting most of them to read is still a challenge. I reckon crowd-sourced modern language translation with illustrations is the way to go. Modern German language Wiktenauer: anyone? :D
@@yawningangel8181 Sorry for I may not be the right person to adress, as I just startet with studying the treatises last year. Though I startet recently to dabble in translating some early new highgerman texts with the help of the FWB-online dictionary. Nothing near as learned as the real cracks atm. I fear the best would be to write those who are more competent and active directly and plead for a creation of consistent and easily accessable online learning material or in fact a expansion of the Meyer-App by Björn Rüthe from Hammaborg (Don't know if there's something planned already)
I'd Agree that there's a tendency of HEMA to start to split into HEMA and S-HEMA (S for sport :P). A compromise to be made should made at least were foundations and technique should be HEMA first and foremost. How one then implements that for competition purpose is down to the individuals/schools. Though tbh all sports become "refined" as time passes and its very hard to stop that. Case in point Modern fencing, Kendo ...pommel horse etc.
Part of the technique issue might be that you can't do that much with your hands in Lobster Gauntlets, which takes away a lot of the krumping and zwerchauen so it's more about reflexes.
I actually think this might be the point. It might honestly be best to formally split the two. HEMA being the specific training of historical sources and Modern longsword fencing existing completely seperately and under a different umbrella and title. No reason someone who practices one couldnt do both or compete sideways but I think they need to exist in a completely delineated form for the sake of clarity.
@@jasonrogers8360 It doesn't really help with clarity if you've never done it but want to try and can't figure out why your local club (in the rare event that you have one) has a weird sub-designation. Also, don't the techniques still go back to the fechtbucher even if you're being taught them by a practiced instructor and not from a book?
Matt, thank you for answering my question, I appreciate your thoughtful response! I agree there needs to be greater emphasis on context as it illuminates why techniques are executed a specific way and why they even exist in the first place. Context should not only include the combative situation (judicial duel, street brawl, warfare, etc) but equipment used (weapon set, hand / head protection, armor, etc). Secondly, tension already exists between training for a tournment versus training historically. Unfortunately, some of the odd tournament rules compel competitors to optimize their sparring in ways that drift from the sources (ie, hand and arm snipes, leg cuts, etc). Perhaps tournament rules need to be rethought and made more consistent to honor the art and proper techniques rather than just scoring a point and getting a win. I too could see HEMA branching off into traditional schools and those dedicated to modern competition. I'm fine either way, as long as this is a conscious decision. I think the most important point you offer is: what kind of future do we envision for HEMA that still honors the past?
Great reflexion ! A lot of the points mentionned also can be easely transposed to various traditionnal martial arts that have a competitive sparring element that don't (and cannot) represent the martial / self defence context that those arts where created for.
It’s bothered me for a long time that many people seem to use the word HEMA to mean only the competitive side of the hobby. I almost wish we had another term just for the tournament scene to help HEMA remain as the term for the big tent that includes those of us who have little to no interest in the competitions.
I'm glad that my club works from the (translated) text and sometimes it tells you to do some very 'odd' things, sometimes that could be because of our misinterpretation of the instructions, but that's all part of the fun for us.
I think it would be a lot of fun to be part of a group like Hurstwic, who try to figure out Viking Age Scandinavian combat through a combination of saga sources, archeological research and experimentation through mock battles.
great point made, i feel that with the competive stuff moving forward everthings become very streamlined and people are there for points rather than technique.
Good video, thanks. I studied traditional "ninjitsu" for a number of years, which is very far removed from kendo and was really hoping for a European version of that when I took up HEMA. But I have been very disappointed from online sources I have watched, where it really does seem like sport fencing, where a mere tap wins a bout. A mere tap does NOT win a sword fight, humans can take a considerable amount of damage before they stop fighting back... that's when you win.
The growing pains of HEMA follow the path of many sports and competitive hobbies as they gain a larger audience. For completions, the pressures of gamification and optimization are universal and without a counterbalance reduction and abstraction are inevitable. Competition will always draw more people than study because victory is more universally appealing than study meaning competitors set the popular rules. This can be seen in dog breeding as the need for working dogs declines, in shooting sports as the world has become more tame and in table top games like Warhammer or D&D because mechanical mastery and victory generally trump lore and defeat.
Please elaborate, I am most interested in learning more about medieval historical music performance. What do you and your friends practice and what have you found?
@@45calibermedic , So, I happen to be in the somewhat unique position being a HEMA enthusiast and a professional classical musician who specializes in Medieval, Renaissance and Baroque music. Most recently, however, my focus (obsession is more accurate) has been Late Medieval music. Many parallels exist between the disciplines of Western music and martial arts, and especially between the Historical Performance movement within the medieval music community, and HEMA: Both disciplines involve an ancient artform, yet they're both practiced today because they've enjoyed a relatively recent resurgence in popularity after a long period of neglect(i.e. with few exceptions, not very many people were interested in studying medieval fencing in the 18th, 19th or early 20th centuries, and the same can be said for medieval music); both areas have seen an increasing emphasis on historical accuracy, which applies to reproductions of instruments and weapons, as well as style (at least when it comes to music), and both have an enthusiastic amateur following, as well as a professional "elite" class of practitioners. The Italian RUclips fencing master Federico Malagutti also reminded me of how rhythm, timing and tempo are so integral to both music and fencing, which I had neglected to consider until he mentioned it. However, the real biggie is how amazingly fortunate we are to have surviving pieces of Medieval music, actually written down by real composers. I'm not sure if there is a HEMA equivalent in this particular area, as it's pretty flipping huge! I know there are the combat treatises, and in addition to the actual compositions, there are also many surviving medieval music treatises that are didactic in nature. To put things into perspective, the significance of written medieval music is so immense that it's tantamount to having, say, surviving video recordings of fencing matches demonstrating the techniques of Fiore, Talhoffer, Vadi, I:33, etc.! I really do consider it to be about the closest we can get to experiencing time travel! Of course, when it comes to HEMA and weapons, it seems like the most popular period of study is the Late Middle Ages. Well, music composed during this period happens to be some of the most beautifully stunning classical music composed in human history. In many ways, it's actually more sophisticated than much of the music that came after it for a couple of centuries. In addition to all of this, I have found at least four composers that lived between about 1170 and 1490, who were also documented knights! When I say knights, I don't mean composers who were just honorarily "knighted", as this did occur as well. These were composers who were documented to have been actual soldiers and men-at-arms. And all of this is just the "tip of the iceberg" in terms of the similarities! Anyway, sorry if I bombarded you with too much information!😀 If you'd like, I'd be happy to direct you to particularly good recordings of ensembles who know what the F they're doing when it comes to this repertoire. Just let me know.
@@mjmal3741 , You'll notice that things are kinda keyboard-heavy, as that's primarily what I study these days. However, I also play recorder, and it was actually my principal instrument during my university studies. Just to sort of put things in chronological perspective vis-a-vis HEMA, I'll tell you which historical treatises the music corresponds to (which you may already know😁). From around the time of I:33 (the setting is from about 1360, but the source material is from closer to 1310-1315)... ruclips.net/video/_VRNTCHx2x8/видео.html ruclips.net/video/qteH9ehQMPg/видео.html Music contemporaneous with the beginning of the Hundred Years War... ruclips.net/video/Bfmnuh33_Ec/видео.html A couple pieces of Italian music pretty much from the exact time that Fiore was flourishing... ruclips.net/video/tXPI8JfQBc4/видео.html ruclips.net/video/i_pWfdxP6Jg/видео.html And German music that is exactly contemporaneous with Hans Talhoffer (first published in 1452)... ruclips.net/video/fLjZjyzbSLw/видео.html Also, a breathtakingly gorgeous section of a mass by Jacob Obrecht (1457-1504), who was Flemish by birth, but was working in northern Italy at the time that Filipo Vadi was publishing his 1480 treatise. During the Late Middle Ages (many people would actually consider this Early Renaissance), Flemish composers and musicians were all the rage, and the best of them were in-demand at the princely courts of northern Italy and Spain, as well as at Spanish Naples. By the way, the story behind the tune he's setting here, "L'homme armé", is really cool! It involves the Order of the Golden Fleece, a planned 1454 crusade against the Ottomans, and a lavish dinner banquet called the Feast of the Pheasant!😁 ruclips.net/video/SC6bBBaKTVU/видео.html
Maybe it's time to recognize the spectrum that exists in HEMA, which exists in a similar fashion in reenactment. There are those who focus on authenticity to an almost academic degree, those who do it mostly for the fun of it with little regard to authenticity; and everything in between.
The authenticity side is honestly kinda jarring to me. Certainly the academic side is aware that the treatises don't cover every possible cut and attack? I feel feders are decent enough to the real thing that if a technique is viable ion the modern day, it must certainly have been used historically. We have like 7 books to cover 800 years worth of sword fighting. That's not even remotely close to being competent in deciding what's historical or not.
I fell out after about 2 years of "training", I used Guy Windsor's book on the italian masters and my friends joined me during that time but refused to buy protective gear. At the end of those 2 years we were proficient enough that going any further without protective gear would've seriously injured all us. The only things we used for material during that time was Guy Windsor and a few of the videos you put out at the time of you leading people at your gym in drills.
An issue will be in how many elements(ranges) of combat are you training. Meaning, there might be the sword to sword skills, but there is also disarms, standing grappling, some amount of striking, just within real sword skills. The more that a student is able to play those elements the closer the student will come to understand the complexity of the original work. If you can link that up with the self defense so the student gets the feeling their life is really involved, the closer to real world it will be.
Schisms come with gaining popularity. We see this with every new idea and group through history. Eventually there comes a time where the original is outcasted by the new majority. Attacks will come, and label the original as elites, corrupted, or gatekeepers, but its the responsibility of the few to ensure that the real treasure is not lost. Even if it takes criticism or worse, stay true to what you are, and the conduct you wish to follow. In the future likeminded individuals will return to what is true, not what is always more socially acceptable. Quality over Quantity.
I feel that competition is running into more and more protective equipments, leading a even more brute force used in tournaments and a lot of doubles. With some other hema clubs we are experiencing fencing with just head protection and gloves. Doubles score as - 1 to both fencers. It gives a bright new insight into the combats since you don't want to get hurt and don't want to hurt your friend. We get much more interesting swordplay in this way, and.... Much less injuries as well.
Matt, I have been enjoying and learning from your videos for over a year now and this one seems to me to be you at your best. Sadly, too many people define "effective" and "correct" to the particular interest in their art and their own personal interest in pursuing it. This video provides context without division that the sport-types, history-types, sword-romantic-types, and perhaps practical combat types all are legitimate within their own intention. When I first became aware of HEMA back in the early 2000s I was impressed by the academic and historic efforts such as translating old fechtbuchs. Reconnecting now almost twenty years later, I see a sport or MMA influence taking dominance. This would be fine, if there was an open understanding that this has evolved away from historic and practical combat ideas into that of sport and spectacle. I have had "masters" tell me that this particular technique isn't in the books, but works very well about one-third of the time. That is fine for the infinite resurrection of the salle, but awful if you are planning to face another person with live steel and deadly intent. To prefer one approach does not invalidate the other, and we should all reflect on this as you have done. Thank you for this.
I'm having a good time and while my two clubs trains longsword and broadsword, primarily and respectively, we train a lot of other stuff too. Wrestling, polearms of all sorts, Messer, sword and buckler, sidesword, etc.
Agreed. When a martial art is developing, such divisions occur and must occur. I can see several types of HEMA already: Traditional HEMA, Sports HEMA, Historical Reenactment HEMA, Self Defense HEMA, Medieval Fantasy HEMA etc. etc.
Modern sparing is excellent way for "volume" of practice, which is probably main advantage we have over people in the past. So personally I be less into getting back to sources, and more into looking again on sources from perspective provided by modern sparing (and other way around).
@@antondelacruz9362 I don't think they could do so safely as it is possible nowadays. Which has its pros and cons, but one of the pros of modern approach is possibility to put yourself in otherwise dangerous situations much more and get experience from it. It is easier to learn when you can fail without serious consequences. It is also easier do stupid things, but that is another story.
@@Grauenwolf Based on Joseph Swetnam, they still did target the face & did have ways to make it safer. Swetnam wrote: "button both thy foiles and thy staves before the practice with them, for otherwise the unskilfull may thrust out one anothers eyes, yea although there was no harme meant, yet an eye may be lost except the occasion be prevented." It seems like Swetnam expected a good fencer to be able to avoid accidentally taking out their sparring or drilling partner's eye, presumably via control, but that these safety measures were important for learning with less risk of permanent injury. Of course, that's early 17th century, so rather late.
This comment is in response to what you said toward the end of the video about how a lot of styles deviate from the older treatises due to gearing their students more towards competitive modern fighting tournaments. I have practiced Wing Chun in America for the last 6 ish years and on average practice 3-5 days a week and the thing people complain or criticize the most about the classes I specifically take once they overhear me talking about it or if they witness our classes personally is that we train in "dirty" fighting. Specifically that practicing breaking of the knees, hitting of the eyes, hitting the throat or using elbows strikes to the face is something that is "dirty" in their opinion. When I have confronted individuals about this they usually end up comparing Wing Chun to Boxing or to Karate, which is what is very popular in the area I train in. However, both Boxing and Karate have competitive tournaments they attend and that they all train for specifically where as in my Wing Chun classes we talk about getting mugged in the street and here's what you can do to help if you are forced to defend yourself or someone else and can't run. My Wing Chun classes are not ever to be used for some kind of tournament setting and we tell new students this as well but usually when you are talking to someone in public about it or if someone sees just one class the context can get lost to what we are actually practicing for. I have stopped telling people exactly what I do recently and instead say things like oh I go to self defense classes so I can defend myself if I ever have to or I say something about just working out instead so that I stop getting into little mini arguments with people whom I don't particularly have a strong connection to or even to closer friends because of running into that exact "dirty" fighting phrase so many times. It might be similar to what this video is about and especially to what you are saying at the end. So many people just paint their realities in such broad mono colored strokes that I think it is hard for a lot to realize how complex and specific things can be. Thanks for the videos!
We are still studying the sources at the Stahlakademie in Leipzig(Germany). I am a beginner, but I feel our school does a pretty good job at being diverse with the training content:).
I have an idea on how to fix it: In longsword competition some kind of hits should end the match instantly, no matter if it is a double hit or not (eventually ending it for both). Like a nice thrust to the face or bib, a full cut over the stomach and things. You know, these moments BAM followed by uhhhhh from the audience. - Currently I like watching amateur longsword matches more than pro, because amateurs somehow at least try to do something good looking. High profile sparring also looks good often. But in competitions its like running to the opponent, chopping in and doing helicopter of death. Some specialized in Absetzen. I know it's not that simple and this stuff requires true skill or somebody else would be in the finals. But some high profile matches just look ugly and boring, because they fight the longword without the slightest bit of caution and go for a double hit too easy. Meyer and others have been writing so much about being careful and they are right imao. I would like to see us fighting more careful, that would help a lot. Modern Kamikaze style just sucks, even if it wins after getting 5 single hits with 15 double hits in between.
Very interesting video. One thing I was thinking of was my hometown where, after England, the second most common place for residents to be born is Scotland (about 1% of residents are born in Scotland), the reason I bring this up is because we have 2 Scottish Societies, the reason behind this is simple in a way; there once was one Scottish Society, over time it started to have somewhat of a social club vibe, however this caused a split between those who liked having a Scottish themed social venue and those who wanted the focus to be more about Scottish culture, both have good goals social spaces are good and so is Scottish Culture, I'm a 1/4 Scottish so I may be biased, but still culture is good. Thus we ended up with 2 Scottish Societies. Thus I was wondering, whether you have any tips for avoiding a schism within HEMA between those who like it for the historical study and those who like it for the sporting community?
Honestly, I feel like more relaxed rulesets and a greater emphasis on Mixed weapons sparring could really help here. I feel like allowing grappling into most matches/changing scoring rulesets (insufficient contact doesn't stop the match, half-points awarded to blows deemed likely superficial, time-based matches instead of point based, submissions allowed, etc.) could really help keep HEMA in a much closer context to what it was historically. Sure, it could STILL just become "sword MMA" with that approach, but I feel like the closer we can keep our sparring to the historical context, the longer the reconstruction aspect will stay VIABLE, if that makes any sense There's also the (controversial) topic of safety here. Historically speaking, most emphasis was put on training user restraint when it came to keeping people from hurting each other, now, its almost entirely based on protective gear and strict rulesets. I really do believe this is why polearm fighting is so unpopular nowadays. Even with a very light, padded weapon most schools are terrifed of you swinging it in any capacity. Why do quarterstaff if all you can do is lightly poke with it or slow-drill? Why do Halberd, Partisan or even simple spear if you can't do anything cool with it like you can with a longsword, per say? Again, it's borderline a taboo in most HEMA schools that I have seen so I'm not sure if it will change anytime soon. But I've been in kids karate classes that have had more lax rulesets when it comes to handling padded weapons, and MOST other Weapons' martial arts that I've seen still focus on self restraint vs crazy strict rulesets. So again, if we wanna KEEP HEMA's complete, multi-discipline reconstructive element, we need to actually ALLOW people to, well, practice closer to the way that THEY would've done it historically speaking
I think we need to get back to the heart of what these systems were all about: defense, and dueling. The rule sets need to reflect that. Renaissance era dueling was brutal, and the rule sets should be accordingly brutal. A cut or thrust to the head should end the match. Such a rule set would encourage deliberate, defense-oriented fencing. The current format encourages long sword or rapier sized epees with little presence in the bind that land ticky-tack blows that would have VERY little actual cutting capacity. Perhaps a standardized rating set for weapons would be useful. For example a cut from a schiavona (that must weight at least a certain amount) might be worth 3 points but a cut from a smallsword might be worth one or even zero. As people start to game the rules, we nerf them accordingly.
Climbing is going through something like this on a grander scale. Obviously HEMA and climbing are VASTLY different sports but I feel the principles at stake are similar. Anyway, In Britain at least, climbing traditionally was more of a lifestyle, with incidental athletic pursuits. There was a craft to be learned, particularly if you're interested in "Trad" (Traditional climbing, with natural protection, hexes nuts cams etc, utilising cracks, fissures and features in the rock) This takes years of development, lot's of practice and you essentially follow an apprenticeship of sorts. However, as it's gaining popularity gyms are filling up, awesome to be honest, but it's becoming more of an athletic endeavour in a traditional sense. Now, sport climbing (Glued and mechanical bolts drilled into the rock) is taking precedent. However, to the purist this may be viewed as a somewhat 'watered down' form of climbing. I personally believe a middle ground needs to be struck. I don't think a 'purist' approach can survive mass adoption.
I think as long as your honest with yourself, its fine to go down whichever route you choose. It becomes problematic when people decieve themselves, eastern martial arts have been struggling with this for years, if you want to sport spar, sport spar, but don't think for one second that you would survive against a medieval or renaissance trained combatant, the two things are world's apart. On the other extreme are the academics, who read a lot and practice a little, muscle memory and physical condition are fight winners. It's horses for courses, only one thing is certain, we are not trying to kill our opponent and they are not trying to kill us..... hopefully!
eh i mean sure who's on the right mind thinks that he stands a good chances against a seasoned soldier of medieval times that fought for a living when most hema practitioners started swordsmanship at their late 20s?
Ten year HEMA guy here. The school I went to is very source focused when I started, and still is (slowly getting back to class post-covid). I have friends at a school that is very tournament focused, while studying from the sources, the end goal was winning tournaments. One friend is heavily source focused as well as doing high quality living history and also an excellent tournament competitor in armor - very well rounded. Maybe it's "internet HEMA" making things seem farther away from the core of earlier HEMA, as I noticed so many people with little to no experience and with no reference to historical sources were giving their own interpretations and answers compared to the known, experienced instructors and students that the "signal to noise" ratio was pretty bad. I left the majority of online groups because of it, which was all I could do for the last few years. I think it's an inevitable change as the sport and/or fitness crowd outweighs the historical crowd by a considerable margin.
This reminds me of the story in shanghai of Japan challenging the devious brits to fencing with bayonets, and then japan wins by fighting dirty. Someone is trying to win/kill and someone is playing a sport.
Totally. Back in my day we couldn't do anything without proper sources, and to get those we had to walk to the library barefoot on the snow uphill both ways, so yeah.
I could agree with a division existing between those who seek to prove that certain techniques existed to a historical standard and those who seek to follow in the footsteps of the europeans of the medieval ages and just doing what works. I think both paths are valid, though. A mutually agreed upon division might be very useful in clearing up definitions and the contention around them. Edit: also, HEMA is not realistic to medieval, European combat. There is a world of difference between fighting to the first hit and fighting to a killing blow, or a succession of blows that would kill. One example is that there is no mechanism for what would be disabled in HEMA. For example (GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION WARNING), imagine two people are fighting with maces. One crushes the other’s weapon wrist, and the wounded individual tackles the other to the ground and proceeds to gouge out his opponent’s eyes with one hand. Whilst these things happen in historical combat, HEMA never accounts for them. The fight would end with the first blow in HEMA. Edit 2: Unless I am mistaken as to the rules, that is. I am open to being corrected.
I've trained at or visited quite a few clubs and would say that a slight majority of them "account" for this in one way or another. Certainly none were down for regularly practicing their eye-gouging technique, but most do not stop at first contact. Nearly all allow for follow-up strikes with the weapon. I've only seen a few examples of the "well, you would have been disabled first by my strike" fallacy. Mostly a successful follow up within a few seconds of the initial clean contact is interpreted along the lines of: "Damn, I didn't get away with that" or "I got you but would have had a nasty wound to show for it" follows by someone else pointing out the high likelihood you'd have died from infection anyway. A smaller number allow for grappling (mostly due to a perfectly reasonable assessment of risks to man and equipment from such exchanges), but some do. I will admit that no one trains realistically with maces … I don't think physics allows for such a thing. No glove/gauntlet ever made would protect you from a foot long lever with 2lbs on the end of it and conversely, any simulator that you could safely hit someone with wouldn't handle anything like the real thing.
Yup, me, HEMA is big in my area, a big renaissance fair in my town, so it's a big sport in my area. I signed up for my local school for this summer. I was out in my backyard getting a leg or well a sword length up for class this summer. Context would be king, even in sparing gear, I saw someone break their back getting power slammed on a hardwood floor. If you want a sport, then moves designed to do serious injury or kill someone, may not fit the context of a sport.
Our club got a smith to create Longswords which are normal swords in the strong and springs in the week part. They are save for 100% sparing and handle a lot more like swords then Springswords.
I just became interested in HEMA (by which I mean I've only watched videos and read articles about it online, haven't practiced it or went to a club yet), so what I say here is not necessarily true. I saw a video of people sparring with longswords on the forest floor, where the ground is uneven and kinda slippery. One person who's in the video commented (translated from Chinese): "The most important thing I learned from this experience is that many moves I usually make that rely on my physical/athletic abilities are absolutely useless on the grass, the most typical being repeated small adjusting steps and big lunges. I would only end up slipping and sliding with these. It made me feel the meaning of the phrase 'one step for one strike'. I feel like now I have a deeper understanding of swordsmanship, and furthermore, I realized why the masters wrote what they wrote in the treatises." Following that are other comments discussing how langort and master strikes may become more favorable when sparring on such terrain, how sparring will become more strategic and have slower tempo, among other things. I think this potentially shows that modern HEMA competitions may become more interesting and historically accurate by having matches on different surfaces, like grass, dirt, cobblestone, gravel, etc. that are either dry or wet. Here's the link to that video (in Chinese): www.bilibili.com/video/BV1at4y1e7P2
I think it depends on how each club behave. Not every club have the same style of practice HEMA. Some clubs maybe really focus more on historical/realisitc style while others are more for getting points. My HEMA club focus on how to stay alive in a real sword fight and hit your opponent while you are in a safe position to not get a double. Also our rules with sparring are that the lower arms and the legs are not valid targets, as those areas have less chance you will get killed if you got hit there.
What I would like to see is a club that has its students take exams of a sense. Every 6 months the club chooses a new topic/weapon to focus on or at the start a student must learn the basics of all the weapons the club has and write a report about their favourite and least favourite. Talking about historical details of both and why they like one and dislike the other. After this report is given to the head the student can then choose what styles they wish to study more into. They must not just spa but like how I have done in karate they must show the drills and even give a lecture to the rest of the class about what they know. I would imagine the student would be given some sort of club badge for each of these let’s say for example 6 stripes can be obtained per weapon. And these lectures/exams happen every 6 months. That’s three years of experience and research into a weapon which I feel would give you a very good understanding of it and it’s history. I know we no longer have Fencing masters. But I’m sure if people set some sort of test like this. One could be considered a near master in that art of a specific weapon. Obviously there is a lot I’ve just written that most likely has problems with it but hey I’m spitballing
One problem is that there are quite a few people who are focussed on reconstructing a single manual who only fight their students, and don't free spar widely with other styles. I'd love to spar and systematically train more with people working from manuals - but they often tend to stay in their own groups and don't interact beyond them that much. I think part of that is also that they often have a commercial structure, and it makes sense for these more serious groups to charge for entry and not send their students out to other groups (admittedly, one of the commercial schools in my area was having one night a week where people from other schools were invited to drop by and pay a flat rate for the night - so that was pretty good).
The conceptual style of Jeet Kune Do is about using what works from any style or system, including historical fencing and HEMA (which Bruce even took some things from). The Tao for instance has judo/jiu-jitsu, wrestling, muay thai, boxing, wing chun, etc. All the main styles of modern MMA and more; Gi grappling for street clothes, headbutts, eye/throat attacks. I love and train MMA, yet there are martial arts techniques that are effective in self defense, but illegal or irrelevant in the octagon.
Excellent topic. As for me the question about HEMA pure systems vs competition is like asking me what topings do I like on my pizza. My answer is yes, more please.
For starters: Swords should have historical weights, proportions, and balance standards. It's not Historical if you're using a weapon with no historical equivalent. And very important: rules should adapt to, and preserve the "realistic/original" fighting style, instead of the reverse: where it's the participants who adapt the style to the rules, for the most part.
Thank you for this video. Somebody needed to say this. There is an increasing divided between sport and the original concept of many Martial arts. I'm not saying that one is better but there is, (at least to me) a clear and increasing difference between the original goals of many historical arts, which are often about survival and defense and teaching technique that might not be used in other circumstances and that of sport, which is about scoring points, winning under accepted rules and often fitness. I have always preferred the former but accept that the latter does appear more popular. With sport you can measure success and learn a technique and then use it, with perhaps greater ease than in a historical art, where techniques may be, if not more dangerous are at least less appropriate for competition. Often similar techniques can be found in both forms often with the sport form as a modification of the original.
I don't study hema as much as I like - gear is a bit too expensive for my situation - but I find this video interesting nonetheless. I am reminded of back when I did karate. We met three days a week, Tuesday and Thursday nights, and Saturday mornings. We focused on a different skill set each of those days: Tuesdays, we would learn traditional stuff, like a kata or special strike or something; Thursdays, we would learn practical self-defense techniques; and Saturdays would be sparring days, possibly learning specific competition sparring techniques. Could that be a possible solution.
One of the best things that modern Kendo has done is codified a set of 10 kata that preserve the original context and ideas of older Kenjitsu forms as they relate to the practice of Kendo. These 10 sequences, practiced by a “teacher” and “student” using wooden swords (and steel swords for advanced instructors) codify the original techniques of Japanese swordsmanship. These ideas, techniques and movements are performed, slowly with deadly seriousness and focus. They represent every thing that gets lost in contemporary competitive practice with bamboo shinai and protective bogu. I believe that HEMA would benefit from something similar. Think of it like an abstract movement manifesto for a particular weapon set. I think that such a meditative approach could ground and reconnect HEMA to the historical roots. A little bit about my background: Currently I am involved in HEMA ( almost a year), practicing regimental Scottish broadsword (Angelo, Roworth, Tuohy). Before that I studied Kendo in Japan (Shodan), Rapier (SCA) and Epee in college (US). Later about a year or so of Classical Foil. I am not an expert in any one martial art; however I am a keen observer with a broad background.
I don't really see anything wrong with a split between the competitive and the scholarly sides, so long as they visit for the holidays and exchange emails on occasion. For most people, the sport aspect is always going to be the most exciting. Modern sport fencing isn't even properly a combat sport anymore. It's become so heavily specialized that from the outside looking in, trying to figure out just what the hell is going on is a daunting task. It can be exciting once you learn a bit about the rules and tactics, but I think of it as being the swordplay version of golf: exciting for fans who are willing to learn about it, but dreadfully dull for everyone else. Visually, modern HEMA competitions are a lot more accessible. The pace is a little slower, the weapons are larger and easier to follow, and the exchanges often last more than the split second it takes to get a touch in sport fencing. More people are getting into it because, simply put, it's awesome. They might not care so much about the historical aspect, but that's okay. They're still interested, they're getting their friends interested, and they're taking something that was niche a decade ago and making it mainstream. As much as purists might hate it, that's not a bad thing. More interest means more resources, and besides, some of those who come purely for the action are going to get interested in the scholarly side. The scholarly side is still free to research the primary sources and work out what makes them tick. There's enough material out there to fuel the research for generations to come, and that's also a good thing. Learning for the sake of learning will never be a bad thing, with the possible exception of things that could destroy life on earth as we know it. Anyway, even as competitive HEMA evolves, there's still plenty of room to for the scholarly side to influence its progression. Maybe the best thing that could happen is for a governing body of some sort to crop up so the various schools can cross pollinate and establish a baseline for what still counts as HEMA and what's diverged enough that it should no longer be considered historical.
I don't study from the sources to do better at tournaments, I do tournaments to test a certain limited part of what I study from the sources. So far, I've been under the impression that the majority of HEMA practitioners have pretty much the same mindset. So I don't think we are losing our way just because some people focus on the meta game of tournaments.
Agreed. And it's not even like the top of the ratings is dominated by people who game the rules, which to me suggests playing sport fencing with longswords isn't as effective a strategy as this video seems to make it out to be.
It is also nice to have different tourneys with different rulesets so you can test different aspects of your knowledge. A lot of people talk smack about olympic fencing but it has its own benefits.
In addition, I would say that my experience in video games' "meta" is that it's constantly shifting and changing, so a technique that sees little use at one moment might suddenly become all the rage because someone pulls it off from nowhere in a tournament and spectacularly defeats his opponent with it. So, I feel that all the "meta" talks is ultimately quite superfical and in the end, unless you're aiming for a professional career, it doesn't really matter most of the time.
I am not a practitioner, just follow this channel and a few others like it, but my outsider’s observation is that as the activity gets structured as a competition, the techniques will quickly adapt towards maximizing efficacy at said competition and its given set of rules. Since the original techniques were meant to maximize efficacy in life and death situations that cannot be replicated just for sport today, the competition approach is unavoidably going to take HEMA techniques gradually further away from real dueling techniques, and towards techniques specific to winning HEMA matches. I have also watched some events of something called medieval combat, which had one on one contests, and team matches of various team sizes. In real life, people would have focused on stabbing or injuring the opponents. But since that cannot be done for sport, the teams that win seem to have developed techniques combining pushing, tackling and tripping the opponents (what actually leads to victory) more than techniques for striking the opponents with their weapons (which mostly seems to annoy them but won’t defeat them). I guess the same happens in mixed martial arts. Every single thing that someone would use in a life or death situation is forbidden in the combat sport, for obvious reasons. So, as the techniques become streamlined and specialized to win MMA fights, I would guess they would evolve away from the hand to hand combat techniques that I imagine a navy SEAL would need to learn to apply in situations in which the goal is to kill an enemy. Back to HEMA, maybe it would be a good idea to separate the reconstruction of the old combat techniques for dueling from the modern sport, so that both things can happen concurrently without one substituting the other one. It is possible to deepen our knowledge of our historical past with a scientific spirit, while at the same time people can also enjoy a sport which is fun independently of its reenactment accuracy value.
Thinking further. In a competition, the incentive driving the evolution of the techniques is victory. It’s hard to also introduce accuracy as a goal, if accuracy and victory come into conflict (which they will, as life and death conditions cannot be replicated in the sport). The only way to steer the practice towards accuracy would be to replace the system of incentives. If the matches were not won by defeating the opponent, but were punctuated in the same manner as, say, gymnastics are, and a number of judges would give points to historical accuracy, only. Under such incentives, the practice would naturally steer towards seeking greater accuracy, without anyone having to twist the practitioners arms to make them study the historical treatises. In the absence of that, the incentive of winning will develop new techniques unique to the sport, without much basis in real dueling techniques (except when they coincidentally will also work for a sport in which you can’t kill or wound the opponent). That’s why I thought maybe keeping both branches separate would ensure that the historical reconstruction of the techniques is not lost.
Good words! There seems to be a tendency of practitioners validating their approach to HEMA by their success in competition. Of course if you train for competitions then it is of course correct, but one trains for the traditional context then maybe not so much. I think the problem might be that the competition winners will earn a lot more Cool Points than the people doing quietly the other approach. @scholagladiatoria , you mentioned that the federschwerts are used nowdays differently than they were historically. Could you expand that a little? New thing for me and I would like to hear more.
The issue isn’t that tournaments are used for validation. It’s that there are a flood of people entering into the hobby who are only looking to win competition and lack some fundamental understanding that the tournaments only function as a “pressure test” if the participants are acting in good faith.
Basically sport fencers who realize HEMA is closer to “sword fighting” than what they do. Transitioning to HEMA but continuing to do the same bullshit because it’s infeasible to make a rule set that can’t be games by people participating in bad faith.
shouldn't there be 3 branches? One that deal with treatises, one with what's possible with the equipment and one for scoring points? Also seems like a "branding" issue, where anyone remotely interested in the field will come accross HEMA and there's bound to be disappointment. Plus HEMA has been around long enough that shifts can be seen within the community, so I'd say it's a natural process, which could be guided somewhat.
"so I'd say it's a natural process, which could be guided somewhat." The problem with trying to guide the way a group branches is that there's always someone else who wants to branch in a different way.
You should read The Truth of Ancient Ways by Anatoli Anshin about Yamaoka Tesshu. Tesshu was a sword master in 1800s Japan who believed that the introduction of the shinai and competition had caused the samurai to lose the true combative aspects of swordplay. He dedicated his life to trying to recreate the battlefield skills of the warring period. This may be similar to what you have observed in HEMA.
Well said. Though I do want to argue. I think there's value in understanding the context of a manual, especially when the manual is focused on life and death. I don't think making our training focused around that is necessarily a good thing. Yes, we are training in what can be described as lethal arts, lethal forms. We don't exactly want the next tournament to need a funeral for all of the competitors apart from the winner, do we? I think acknowledging and understanding is important. I also think moderating that influence intentionally is also important. Yes, we can have tournaments and yes, we can have rules from the tournaments in the past and we can use them to write our own rules. We can come up with superior protective equipment that allow us to engage in bouts and leave with less bruises, never mind broken bones. That doesn't mean we're walking away from it, the study of swordsmanship. Like all things, the reality of the world changes, so to do the arts, styles and interests of the world. I would rather see HEMA, as a whole, adapt to the current world while honouring the past, than tear itself apart, argue with itself over historical accuracy until it disappears. If that means HEMA gets a broader scope, a wider range of interests and a wider community, all of us studying some form of martial art, swordsmanship, I don't think I'll complain at all. Sure, finding my little part of it might be harder, but if that means I go to two clubs instead of one, that doesn't sound so bad to me. Actually sounds pretty good, to be honest.
Oooh. I have some thoughts on this. First off, atleast my goal is to recreate the martial art dedcribed in the treatises or manuals, not what i think historical violence looked like, but rather the system people trained to prepare themselves for that. Those two mever look the same and thats ok. I think that competing historicly was seen as a good way to prepare oneself for actual combat, even though there are clear differences between combat and competition. I think this translates well to modern martial arts as well, mike tyson would be a very formidable opponent in an actual unarmed fight despite boxing being "just a sport" and not the same as real combat. However i think we must also try to keep in mind rhat if we see something in pur treatises that we cannot make work in sparring, we need to try to understand why our context differs to make that so. If i look at modern HEMA competitions in longsword for examole, theres a tendancy to forego the use of many guards in the favour of something between langenort and pflugh and staying there. I am working on a ruleset and format of sparring that will make (hopefully) competing with daggers in a way thst is fairly close to what seems to (me) to be described in the sources, because i think competitions make us better as practitioners and hopefully can drive thendagger to gain a perhaos more aknowledged or prominant place in HEMA, something i think it deserves.
Ultimately, it has come to the point where Hema itself, and those practicing it need to decide if it is going to be a Sport or a martial art. Both are fine choices, but not at the same time. Matt here hits it perfectly, a lot of Hema has recreated sport fencing with different swords and a tweaked rule set. Fine. Sounds fun. But maybe it is time to step out of the term "Hema" into Medieval fencing or some other such term. Personally, I do and will continue to pursue Hema as a martial art, and structure it around the preservation of technique and practice of source material. Up to and including the absolute exclusion of sparring if necessary. It is my personal opinion that Hema really needs to take a leaf out of the Asian tradition and adopt Kata as a central component of its teaching methods. Develop a context and apply it.
HEMA is becoming more and more sportbased and i get it its an clear goal to go for winning competitions rather than the more abstract goal of recreating something we to be honest never will fully recreat as it was. I don´t mind this but i do think we should talk about it and maybe even divide hema in to sport based hema and historical based hema or source based hema, it would be ashamed if we lose the connection to the sources.
One of my observations of HEMA is similar to my observations of Airsoft, which is that in real life, the risks one would take when real bullets or real sword fighting, IMO, profoundly changes one's approach. This is similar to watching point-based sport karate compared to MMA, or watching a real firearms fight taken by a police car's camera. The emphasis on defense and not getting hit, mixed with the movement and actions of one's body while terrified, looks very different. I just think in a real sword battle, most of those involved would be significantly less aggressive, unless that is their approach in an attempt to overwhelm the opponent with ferocity (which can backfire spectacularly and in a very catastrophic if not deadly manner). If it were possible, I think taser technology could be incorporated into the armor or under it, whereby depending on the hit, the person would feel a burst of intense pain. This real and dramatic consequence would change how people fight. You could "turn the shock down" for practice and only use the intense pain in competition. Part of this technology would incorporate the fact that different people's skin has different conductivity (in general, male skin is significantly thicker than female skin to the point where I have witnessed male electricians who can touch a 220 volt house current wire, twist it up, then cap it while its still "on." They still feel pain, and this is decidedly very dangerous, but they can do this while most people can't.)
1) A lot of issues can be better discussed of we had a clearer scope and definition of "sport" and "historical" in the _context_ of HEMA. 2) There is an overlap between sport and "competition" as well as sport "recreation." 3) What's the scope and limit of saying you have a "historical" approach towards fencing? Is it enough to read the manuals? What about bits of the manuals? What about commentaries on the manuals? Would I need to look at paintings and available records to put the manuals in context to say that I am using a "historical" approach? 4) Some of the HEMA oldies from the early 90's in the Anglosphere still call HEMA "WMA." Maybe that term needs to be considered again. Maybe we need terms that delineate the (recreational and competitive) combat sport from the (historical) martial art aspects of modern practice. 5) Or maybe, we don't. Several fencing sources do not make the distinction. Some fencing sources also say that this can be done as a club-based activity. 6) Even if you aren't interested in the "historical" approach, there are still many things to be gained from reading (if you pick a source you work with). A lot of the problems that people encounter today have already been solved yesterday.
I'm at 6 minutes 3 seconds in... Matt you're saying right now in the video that he was at a dangerous crossroads of potentially becoming reinvented sports fencing. That is a good way of putting it I think. I have been doing my swrd practices since around the year 2000. I went to a couple of early HEMA events; although back then it was still being called WMA. Since then I've had very little contact with any groups. So my perspective is a bit of an outsider's perspective. But on RUclips watching various other channels over the years, especially paying attention to videos on sparring, it seems very much that within sparring and tournament play most practitioners now have downgraded or abandoned the use of grappling in active swordplay. I realize it's specially in tournaments this is a safety concern however once you start taking out large components of a martial arts system you begin to Sportify it and change it in nature. I understand many schools (including kenjitsu schools and Hema schools) don't use grappling for safety reasons & kenjitsu schools avoid sparring for this reason also. But as grappling arts such as catch wrestling, judo, Jiu-Jitsu and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu all spar in a safe enough manner I personally feel there has to be a way to incorporate grappling with in the sparring of Hema weapons play and not sacrifice authentic techniques.
I want to do a “Viking” themed competition, three phases. First can you get there? Sailing course with navigation. Can you fight? Set of random encounters with different weapons and numbers of fighters. Does anyone know? Can you tell your story in a way that entertains and gets you remembered.
The focus on training for a modern sport fencing context, turned me off from becoming involved in organized HEMA, I wanted more to learn not dying in a duel or a battle. I understand that sport and competition is a draw for many and is probably the main reason for manufacturers increasingly making HEMA specific gear and weapons, though. So it’s a hard balance to strike.
That sounds like the club you went concentrated foremost on full sparring/tournament fencing? Other clubs may have different and more diverse aproaches. Where I learn only a minority is active in heavy sparring and tournaments. Also the schedule and curiculum are diversified for the different levels and interests. Many of us just want to learn and exercise and have fun overall.
@@stefanfranke5651 It can easily happen if the club is small and a few members are really into competition, and the club leader gets seduced by the attention of his members winning tournaments or gets roped into judging at them. Even if the club theoretically has a more diverse curriculum there is always some next big tournament around the corner that everyone should help prepare for, etc. Almost naturally, the instructor ends up hanging out a lot more with the students that accompany them to tournaments, their priorities come to dominate, and eventually other students just leave.
@@TrueFork That's kind of sad. A good instructor should be able to adress all levels of commitment and interest. I think they repel many people who might have the potential to be good tournament fighters but initially come with no big ambitions into the club but could grow eventually when they recognise their abilities. You can predict, managed like that, this club will forever be small.
@@stefanfranke5651 A big club could theoretically even hire more instructors, or assistant instructors, that way they could have someone who is dedicated to non-tournament, non-sport oriented training, for anyone who doesn’t care much about tournaments. I would also like it if there were tournaments that more accurately reconstructed the experience of battle or a duel. Like if they awarded points based on the probable effects of a strike, rather than where contact=hit. Where if you slap someone with the flat, of a lightweight sword very little damage results. If the edge alignment of a cut is shit, it receives less points than one where the alignment is precise. Perhaps even where you could lose use of a hand or arm if it is struck. Obviously I am just spitballing, and I do understand the reason for a simplified system of course, and I am not suggesting it should be done away with. I know some LARPers have tournaments that have some of what I’m talking about, but not with serious international competition. LARP is also not known for historical accuracy or serious practices of effective traditional martial arts. Although there are plenty of people involved in both.
I'd say you're extremely wrong by saying there was a big divide between kenjutsu and kendo in the 17th century. Wearing bogu and using shinai isn't doing kendo, gekken is a Meiji-era activity as well, basically Wrestlemania really (even Sasakibara Kenkichi thought so, he basically pulled a pythonesque “it’s a silly thing” on his own creation). Back in the Edo-era, the ryuha largely introduced shinai-geiko in their repertoire but it's certainly wrong to see this as a kendoification, that's like pure anachronism here! Shinai appeared in the middle of the 16th century with Shinkage-ryu, while the oldest style was about a century old only. The training practices simply evolved because, tada, the context of martial art practices evolved, the purpose of martial arts schools evolved since there was no all-out war (also it's entirely debatable if ryuha were ever meant to train people for war, I would say they weren't). Even TSKSR who nowadays is held as a kata-geiko paragon was participating in competition in the 18th and 19th centuries. Shinai-geiko is just a development of kenjutsu, hell there’s even kata-geiko done with shinai in so many ryuha! Budo and ryuha evolved with their times, thinking sparring and "kendoics" are "modern" and kata-geiko is "ancient" is just not right, this is just revisionism and anachronistic. Not even all ryuha endorese the same practices, where do you put Jigen-ryu pell striking into this? (except being the bestest most fighty ryuha that is) In doing this you're looking at the introduction of a new practice and informing its development through a modern eye and knowledge. This is not how to do history mister! Likewise, koryu nowadays changed are reverted back to kata-geiko precisely because kendo was created in 1912. Yet kendo has radically different goals and different means, the way to transmit knowledge is different, the way to train is different, the goal of the exercises, etc. It's just not the same sort of martial art. And it shows that the two activites exist side by side with zero problem or antagonism in Japan. You really ought to check further than the dated Draeger look on budo, I mean, even his students largely turned their back on what you’re saying, which is basically a fancy way of bringing back the -do vs -jutsu opposition, which didn’t exist historically and is purely fabricated in 20th century.
Where does the -do versus -jutsu opposition come from? I have only ever heard it from HEMA guys who use it to disparage gendai budo for being sport while their system totally isn't.
@@Ianmar1 As I said, as a strict opposition/separation, it comes mostly from Donn Draeger who was a pioneer when it comes to bringing eastern martial arts to western audiences. The issue of course is that just like many pioneers, he held ideas that got a lot of new intakes along the years. Basically the original opposition is more along the lines of warfare/practical (-jutsu) art vs civilian/development (-do) art. It still has some place as an idea but for instance, how exactly do you perform and practice a warfare art in a time of peace...? It's not uninteresting to see the development and use of styles, but just like in Europe, warfare needs and civilian practices often overlap at some point or the distinction really isn't that useful because koryu are living arts that evolve with their times. Katori-Shinto-ryu is usually thought to be one of the typical "warfare art" (its founder was a renowned warrior), compared to for instance Hokushin Itto-ryu (much more modern in its teaching method, different weapons, different context of invention). Do you think there's a major difference in their spirit right now? Now that no one trains those arts for their practical purpose? And then of course as a semantical thing it's silly because you have some styles with a -do who are coming from a warfare time and -jutsu with a civilian birth. It certainly leads to disparaging attitudes "My style is a real fighting art while yours is just for the dojo and looking good". "My dad's martial art is deadlier than your dad's because it's written with -jutsu!" And then, many individual japanese styles are very different from on another. There's some unifying traits: the kata-geiko regimen, the shu-ha-ri, the master-student relationship, but then as martial arts, they can be veeery diverse. Just like in Europe where you have Fiore, Thibault and Roworth who are all "HEMA", in Japan you have Nodachi Jigen-ryu, Jikishinkage-ryu and Owari-kan ryu Sojutsu who are all Koryu but eeeh, they are still very different in terms of their actual practice, so who cares really... The opposition -do / -jutsu is way to simplistic, it's better to look at individual traditions.
Allow for an afterblow. It very quickly reveals which techniques and timings would get you equally killed in a real duel. Doesn't really matter after all if your sword struck first only for theirs to come crashing through your skull a moment later.
In my informal practice with friends, this is what we do - an afterblow makes it a draw. Unless it's quite clear the afterblow would never have happened had the first strike been with a sharp sword - a cut to the arm followed by an afterblow only began after the strike for example. Makes you a lot more cautious about securing a solid advantage, and makes you use a more diverse array of guards. Sheer speed isn't everything if you actually have to protect yourself at the same time.
I definitely agree that there's been a drift to 2nd, 3rd hand teaching of modern interpretations. But the other thing in HEMA over the last... 3-4 years? Has been a kind of chasing after new/different weapons; spadroons, heater shields, pistols, armour fencing... all things that really are kind of fringe topics (if covered at all) in the sources. Which is fine, but what degree are people pursuing these at the expense of getting down to the basics with rapier, sabre/messer, sword and buckler, the weapons that are covered by 80% of the written sources.
@@RorikH Like I said, that's fine, but it's not going to help learning (or teaching) the basics of effective/authentic historical fencing. It's like going to a chess club and wanting to play Paradox-Billiards-Vostroyan-Roulette-Fourth Dimensional-Hypercube-Chess-Strip Poker.
@@joadams8022 Probably not, no. On the other hand if HEMA started incorporating guns and then slowly turned into people just shooting each other, that would be very historically accurate.
Did you get any footage from fight camp? My instructor went there and he said he had a blast. I’ve seen some sparring session from fight camp on other channels and I want more!!!
I don't know about Hima but my first renaissance fair I watched two dudes dressed up in armor made from old cars and whale on each other with maces and dull swords covered in rust it looked like a tavern duel of drunken flailing with the crunching of metal like a destruction derby minus the motor noise. then the next year at the fair it was these two skinny guys in armor with these tiny dowel rods going tap tap tap. I found out later that they got Regulated. well At least the Turkey legs were still good.
My trainer had a nice way of giving us hints in that he'd just cite some quotes in certain training situations as a kind of one-liner as well as giving us just the names so that in the end everyone would at least know a few sentences ("Merksätze") und names besides Lichtenauer. The rest was up to each of us of how much we wanted to delve deeper. He understood that people came for sports and not academia.
We've started doing this a bit. I think it's a really good way to integrate the sources into your usual training. Instead of just doing the pieces, before them we say the corresponding verses from the zettel to eachother. From a sport perspective, our training is basically the same, but additionally everyone slowly learns the verses from the zettel and can then also have his own thoughts if the trainers interpretation is right.
Actively integrating the sources into the training is often a lot less effort than you'd think
If there's anything that truly disappoints me, it's that the HEMA world still by and large focuses on longsword and some rapier here and there. Sidesword and messer are slowly gaining in popularity which is good news. But it's much harder to find people with whom to train wrestling, dagger and polearms. Wrestling is the unifying foundation of everything and should be a prerequisite for any armed HEMA study that deals with the context of 1 on 1 fighting.
It depends a lot on clubs as well, we did Paulus Hector Mair’s Poleaxe for a year, and are now doing Godinhos Montante rules (outside of longsword), rapier traing is relatively hard to find here Id say.
I've done a good deal of HEMA and you usually hit someone with a sword first before they can pull any kind of grappling. And also grappling requires non-lobstered-up hands, so it's a no go in proper sparring. Unless it isn't. Can you grapple someone in claws?
@@RorikH I'm currently working my way through the armored fencing chapter of Czynner which is chock full of grappling and so far every technique we worked on was easily possible even with clumsy SPES lobster gloves. No ju-jutsu style individual finger locks and such but a ton of grabbing wrists, upper arms and legs. Lots of gross motor movement.
@@chopstick1671 That's great, you are fortunate to have training partners for those things. I own a whole bunch of poleaxe and halberd trainers etc so I could equip a small group with the gear lying around at home but finding people to train with is the hardest part. Consistent training partners are worth their weight in gold. I've considered putting up posters around town to find interested people but for things like rondel dagger one can't (or perhaps should not) grab randoms off the street.
@@heirihunziker I wish you best of luck! Posters might not be a bad idea, definitely train new people before sparring haha
For me, the text-based work is very much an advantage: I turn 50 this year, and have only started HEMA (in particular: long sword) last winter. There's no way I could hold my own against all the young, fit dudes in our club competitively, but reading and drilling based on what I've read, is sure to keep me interested and active.
Similar for me. I started at 50.
I wouldn’t say you could never hold your own against younger people. Sure if this was unarmored combat you certainly would lose but melee weapons are equalizers to a degree.
Hema Fights are mostly determined by distance and timing. Does overall physical fitness help, of course but it’s not the be all end all.
Most of the people in my club aren't into either the sport nor the scholarly side. Many are just into it as a form of recreation: think people who swim or play tennis not for the competition but more as a casual activity to engage in. I suspect that depending on where you live, majority of students are like this.
That's what it would be to me
Exactly, but few men who train martial arts acknowledge that.
A while back I was on a martial arts forum, and was reading an article about why folks study martial arts. It was an interesting list:
"I want to defend myself" - Professional use of Force/Self-Defense
"I want to get in shape" - Physical Fitness
"I want to compete" - Competitive sport
"I want some discipline" - Cognitive development
"I want to look awesome" - Aesthetics/Performance
"I want to know my culture" - historical research/cultural exploration
And all of these reasons are perfectly fine reasons to study martial arts - as long as everyone involved (ie, the instructor and the student) understand what it is they're teaching/studying.
Obviously, a training methodology can cover multiple reasons: most kickboxing schools, for example, teach combative sport along with physical fitness, and can be structured to self-defense with a few tweaks.
Issues arive, however, when you THINK you're studying for one reason, but you're actually studying another. Self-defense, for example, is usually very much different in reality than what people think it is - it's mainly strategic avoidance and tactical de-escalation, plus running away and calling the cops. If you're spending a few hours a week practicing "self defense", you're probably doing it more for the fitness aspect - which, again, is fine: as long as everyone understands that.
I was interested in HEMA because I wanted to know how to kill people with certain weapons. The self-defense idea is pretty funny to me, comparatively speaking.
@@HamsterPants522 the most common weapon used in assaults are kitchen knives, so learning how to grapple around a blade is actually really important in terms of self defense.
@@NPS69 Okay, but that wasn't my point.
@@NPS69 I went to a knife class, and the first rule is that you shouldn't try to fight someone who has a knife barehanded because you'd die.
You can't really draw a longsword on a mugger.
0:00 Catching up
1:00 Have we lost our way?
1:55 Early days of HEMA
3:13 The modern evolution of HEMA
4:44 Looking at the evolution of Kenjitsu and Kendo
5:36 Will HEMA repeat this?
6:37 A need to drift back to the early context of HEMA
9:00 Those who do both
9:31 Looking at different viewpoints
In terms of Japanese swordsmanship there is an interesting book (imo) by Nakamura Taisaburo called The Spirit of the Sword.
He was one of the Toyama Ryu military school instructors in WW2 and amongst other subjects he talks about this issue. About how he feels Iaido schools are lacking because of not sparring and how Kendo schools not training with actual swords lack an understanding of correct form for live cutting and how both should inter-train and also include more target cutting.
Some of the other topics he talks about include how he found different climates affected blades from different makers, his experiance in learning one handed sword techniques after being stabbed in the hand after an accident in a bayonet drill, and loads of other stuff.
Fairly easy to find copies now, and I'd say it's worth a read if it's a subject that interests you, "The Spirit of the Sword: Iaido, Kendo, and Test Cutting with the Japanese Sword" is its full title blue cover with a picture of him on the front cutting a target.
This, I feel, is why it's important to spar and drill in multiple different tempos and rulesets, so that we don't become solely competition-focused, but rather become well-rounded martial artists. However, I'm no expert in this field, so who am I to say.
And yet you are exactly right. A static ruleset leads to sportification more than anything and that's the reason I hope HEMA never becomes an Olympic sport.
@@mysticmarbles Exactly!
I found out about HEMA through the SCA, back when it was treatise based. I'm still fond of comparing the techniques from my kenjutsu background to the ones in HEMA treatise for single edged cutting blades.
My study of HEMA isn't actually for HEMA, it's to improve my understanding of the nature of the sword - any technique from any school is worth learning, especially if you learn when and why to use it.
Sometimes I'm surprised when I read hema convos online and find that many people lack kind of a foundational knowledge of history in certain areas. I think it would be interesting if clubs encouraged reading material aside from the treatises, like survey books or general history books for example. Like having a reading list or book club attached to training.
In cases like this, I think there should be a distinction between the two. I noticed that Western Martial Arts is one that is being used in some contexts, and it would make sense to use that to differentiate the modernized competitive sparring as opposed to historically focused groups.
I think a lot could be achieved by encouraging asymmetric, even unfair sparring (both in clubs and maybe competitions). Spear vs sword, shield vs no shield, 2v1, weapon drawn vs sheathed... If it's a competition, you can switch, like in chess.
Maybe competitions should have a wider range of events: so keep the rapier and longsword duels but add the sabre vs bayonet event or the 2v2 spear & shield event, or the greatsword vs multiple opponents survival event, (and test cutting!), etc. and make the real prestigious events the HEMA triathlon/pentathlon/whatever.
In my club we used to (closed due to Covid) play a game called "The Nobleman and his Bodyguard" where you'd have a "nobleman" with a knife a "bodyguard" with a longsword and two "assassins" with long or short swords, and the nobleman had to get to the end of the sparring floor to escape to win. Whether the bodyguard died wasn't important. It was a good bit of fun. Also one of the guys who was really good was able to take out both assassins as the nobleman after his bodyguard died.
I don't think that really solves the problem. Most systems were written for two of the same weapons facing each other in a duel. If we want to remain true to the sources this is perhaps going off in a different direction. And the uneven matchups don't really lend themselves well to tournaments because you are now measuring which weapons work better in a first blood type duel instead of purely skill. I would definitely welcome them as training exercises though.
@@mysticmarbles Could be fun though. A little bit like MMA, where they test different styles against each other. Hobbies are allowed to be fun. Might get too optimized over time though and it'd be all spears all the time.
@@RorikH Yeah, would defenitely fun to watch and definetly more relatable to a broader viewership than only the cryptic 1on1 duels, where you sometimes really have to have eyes like a fly and require a basic understanding in what is going on.
@@mysticmarbles I'm not an expert but I remember in the Gladiatoria Group are some techniques concerning mixed weapon duels. There might be more treatises I'm not aware of.
Well, maybe not lost, but surely it's lacking ｃｏｎｔｅｘｔ.
I find the case of HEMA quite interesting. I practice both kendo and iaido and I often see people who only pratice one of them and don't see any use on the other. I myself think both approaches bring something useful for the table: you can't just take the adrenaline and fear out of the equation of swordsmanship; at the same time, whacking people with proxy weapons within a set of rules will simply not convey the same results as a real duel would. In the end, both are far from what real fights were, but both can teach you many aspects of swordsmanship.
Frankly, this is instructors' job to fix. The vast majority of casual HEMA students have absolutely 0 interest in picking up a treatise for themselves, and that will never change. It's instructors' (& competition organisers') job to make sure the environment and the rules encourage historically relevant swordsmanship.
A lot of people would also rather learn from instructors than treatises, since actually grokking a technique requires you to use it, and it's hard to use it right without really knowing how to do it, and having an instructor teaching it to you and showing it to you is the best way to do that, unless you've got a friend handy who's also reading the treatise and either knows it or can figure it out together with you. Just reading a book is not the best way to acquire knowledge of physical movements.
@@RorikH That's very true. As a total noob I am dependent on my instructor for providing me with the context and basic skills. But I find it very helpfull to cross referentiate with the treatises, especially to get the vocabulary right and to internalise the basic principles. I know it's not for everybody and that's completely ok, but at least everybody should give it a try.
The opposite of this is true in my experience. Everyone in my club spends time with the material. The people who come to train *want* to read historical texts. Honestly I don’t know why the hell you would pick up HEMA if you didn’t.
Maybe my group was an anomaly. We didn’t have any bored sports fencers trying to bring their thing into our thing.
@@bignasty389 Your group is an anomaly. Most people at most clubs joined because "swords are cool!"
@@RorikH You're right about that. The reality is that many of these treatises are awfully vague on many things that allow you to correctly use the technique described: footwork, correct edge alignment, using your whole body to power the cuts and not just your arms, etc. So, if you pick a treaty and start doing the technique with 0 coaching, you might think you get it right, but you might make a large number of mistakes that you're aren't aware of because you just don't know about it. And if you continue like that for years in isolation, you might pick bad habits that will be hard to break later or even injure yourself. I don't think most people can learn HEMA decently without the help of a decent instructor. I certainly wouldn't dare to try. This can make it tricky when you live in parts where there are no club nearby or one that teaches something that doesn't interest you.
By example, in my case, the only club in my city teaches techniques that some former canadian army officer invented based on his own take of historical techniques (some kind of modern reimagining if you will). It makes me reluctant to go there because I feel it awfully arrogant to pretend you can do better than what people who actually fought for their lives invented to fight and defend themselves over many centuries of trial and error. Also, I am a trained historian and my interest in HEMA comes from wanting to relive history a little bit and learn to fight like they used to as much as it's possible with the sources availlable. So quite frankly, what I want to learn are either the actual historical german or italian longsword tradition, not some modernish crap whether it works or not. I don't care about HEMA as a competitive sport either. I just want to have fun. So, what I might have to do is to learn the basis from them and enrich it with the proper historical techniques using training videos I find or trying directly what is in the treatises. But that will certainly be challenging. I'm sure a lot of people face similar situations.
Thank you very much for mentioning me Matt, and I am very much with you in your analysis and, I would say, message.
My suspicion is that the people who are very strongly into researching and respecting the sources are a minority.
As HEMA will grow, they will continue to dwindle in proportion to the rest of the practitioners, even if their number actually increases.
So you could get 10 more people interested in historical research, and 100 who just want to play a sport.
I agree. I am actually one of the guys that would like to do it as a sport (there are no HEMA schools in my part of Brazil). I would love to read the sources and talk to actual researchers, but I personally just want to know how to fence with a sword and duel in amateur competitions. I just fear that guys with the same inspirations as I will start to present themselves as "experts", just because they learned how to properly hold a sword and know a few guards. I would not do such thing, but I think this kind of behavior would be inevitable as hema grows as an sport
@@eliasbram3710 well it would and thats okay....as long as you present the context of it being an expert in the modern SPORT
Not the historical side. Thats the key there. So it all depends on if and how that split happens
That is the case with almost everything. Casuals make up most of the base, with the hardcore comprising a small foundational core.
@@drizzt102 indeed, that's true
What about people who dont actively research the manuals, but still fully focus on the martial arts thing?
I did reenactment and HEMA from a martial arts background.
I had done muay thai for years but wanted to learn to fight with a blade, against groups. To defend myself in extreme (and increasingly likely) conditions.
In both reenactment, the obsession with rules, safety and authenticity seemed to bother people more than their learning.
There was a culture of finger-wagging condescension that has emerged in the last few years until I couldn't stomach it any more. I left reenactment after 8 beloved years because the rules and regulations based culture in there was stifling.
I'm a fighter and I saw early that HEMA was a scholarly pursuit and respected that and went a different way. Though I respect the work you guys are doing in restoring a treasured part of our history.
I just want to brawl, study edged weapons and polearms and celebrate my heritage.
Still haven't found what I'm looking for
Worth appreciating that this is a fairly unique problem, and glad people are thinking about it seriously. I suspect a lot of it in the near-medium term can he helped by the sporting regulation design, which from what little I’ve seen is already pretty smartly done, but players will always optimize and competition will quickly move to fit the shape of the box it’s in.
There’s a 2018 Romanian documentary called Infinite Football that might set your brain on fire about game/sport regulation. It’s fascinating how a few tweaked parameters can change the focus or roles of the practice, even with the same win condition. Highly recommend
Anyone that claims to study Fiore and doesnt begin by studying his wrestling and then dagger plays hasnt read Fiore. His long sword work is entirely built on his grappling and he constantly references it in the accompanying text. Those that jump straight to the sword miss the point of the work entirely
I don't disagree per se, but I know plenty of good wrestlers who are terrible at the swordplay part. You can only successfully do the grappling, if you can use the sword effectively. If you look at the Morgan version, then he starts with mounted combat, and indeed he references aspects of swordplay in the mounted section of Getty. So someone could riposte to you, saying that a person cannot study Fiore without learning to ride. Clearly there are different ways to approach a source. This being said, I personally did start with the grappling and dagger stuff, but note that the abrazare section is *tiny*. Most of the 'grappling' in Fiore, and the biggest section, is dagger defence. Which is not exactly typical wrestling, as a weapon is involved. Which of course makes it more like swordplay.
@@scholagladiatoria And to add to that, there's a lot of overlap between the sections (theoretically to save on ink). For instance, certain dagger plays can be executed with the grip and pommel of the sword, sword in one hand can be performed in two hands, etc. There's even secrets within secrets, as some have cited an alleged kata within the order and pairing of Fiore's posta. It's really interesting.
This was a point I brought up when you made your "is HEMA elitist" video. I have a really hard time understanding how some people can be super critical of technique that may take liberties with historical techniques (see Shad) and then go and participate in HEMA competitions where historical accuracy takes a back seat to scoring points.
But tournaments took place in the past, when HEMA was just EMA, and they also developed techniques and tactics to "score points". Is it not historical to follow in that "tradition", instead of imagining a period of history where everyone fought according to their style?
@kwanarchive a) They didn't fight to score points in tournaments, they fought to submission or surrender with the goal of earning a ransom. b) outside of special circumstances a swordsman generally fought in a style consistent with others of their location and period. A Swordsman from Bologna in 15th century probably fought in the Bolognese Style of 15th century, also known as the Dardi School. They may have also encountered fencers from contemporary schools of different geographical locations but the likelihood of facing someone using out of period techniques developed elsewhere for a non contemporary sword is rather unlikely for a medieval swordsman. There was never a generalized "EMA," and there's never been an "imaginary period where everyone fought a certain way." By the way a "technique" is not a style of swordmanship but rather specific "moves" contained within a "style." And what I am referring to is the evolution that can be observed in HEMA competitions where historical techniques evolve in ways that do not reflect historical combat, but rather the the constraints of the HEMA scoring system. That would mean it's "modern sport techniques" rather than "historical combat techniques" and the "tradition" of which you suggest we follow didn't ever exist, you literally just made it up. The tradition which we should follow exists in the medieval fencing treaties of which there are numerous.
@@Adam_okaay I put "score points" in quotes. You put a lot of things in quotes too, so you know how they work, therefore have no excuse to deliberately misread what I wrote.
How the winning actions were counted doesn't matter. There was an objective for given rules, beside killing the other person. And people played to those rules. That cannot be denied. I don't care if you call them points or not - some measure was applied to judge a winner.
The rest of your blathering is irrelevant. My point is historical people played to the rules just as people do today. They got away with whatever they could to win within the rules. In the end, their technique was irrelevant to how they were judged to be the winner or the loser.
@@kwanarchive I didn't "deliberately misread what you wrote," you responded to my comment in which I had used "score points" literally; specifically referencing the scoring systems used in HEMA competitions. The intended purpose of these scoring systems is to simulate injuries sustained during historical combat, so that practioners of these systems can test their skill at historical techniques against one another, with every reset after a score representing a new duel essentially. Yes everyone is trying to win, but the focus is on historical role-playing, and skillfully using accurate historical techniques.
Revising and modifying these techniques as well as tactics, so they more effective at scoring literal points, is essentially metagaming for min/max purposes. I mean people take this to the point that they will "trade hits" or accept an afterblow that a historical fencer would not because it would cause either a severely debilitating or potentially fatal injury. If you only care about scoring more points this may be an acceptable trade if you can land a strike worth more points.
Calling that Historical is anachronistic and completely inaccurate, it's HEMA based, but it isn't HEMA and it undermines the purpose of HEMA, and should be treated as a separate thing, because it is.
Just add one rule to competitions: "If you're hit back both score minus."
It's the most important point. When You simulate real fight You want to win not being hit. If You score double it means You are wounded or dead after the fight.
We have a rule to eliminate both fencers after couple of doubles. It's working not bad.
@@adamjaworski3913 Yeah,it's hard to make it faithful if it turns into a point hunt. So you gotta discourage such behaviours
Yep, I've done a few matches and universally the main issues i had with most of the larger groups of HEMA is that aggression seemed more rewarded than footwork and grappling though there were several practitioners who tried to incorporate grappling as at certain junctures of a match it just seems natural but few knew how to do it correctly and a big thing was to grapple safely both match partners should know what the other person is intending even if they are not of equal skill they should be matched closer than what I saw.
Partly it is about inclusion from a relatively small group of people who are interested but more often it is about ego and overall lack of training to be able to identify who actually has more skill, especially when most sparring sessions do not emphasize minimizing double hits.
@@AlanLamb11 Hmm... Feder rules allows grapling, punching, kicking and catching the weapon. For me grapling and catching weapon should be allowed only for short while because we want to concentrate more on fencing game not real-open fight. It's my opinion. More grapling is allowed then You have less fencing.
If someone likes to kick opponent at fencing at Feder rules he will do it at any occasion. For me HEMA should limit actions to fencing and catching weapon without punches and kicking. I prefer this way of fighting.
@@adamjaworski3913 Grappling is no less fencing than hitting with the sword is. If you lost a sword fight to someone grappling you, he outfenced you.
Very interesting introspection. I've been watching your videos for years and it inspired me to go and get to know my local HEMA-club a few years ago. The reason I didn't end up staying was ultimately that there was very little sparring and physical challenge and in the end of the day, I was looking for a workout.
They were studying Fiore's longsword and a some langmesser and they were very serious with the sources and the living history side of things was absolutely fascinating. But I was also looking to practice a martial art/contact sport and that side was very slim. I wonder if this is the other side of the divide you were talking of.
If I ever end up near a club that has a good balance, I'm definitely giving HEMA another shot.
Very interesting and fairly and well analysed imo - always happy to hear your thoughts Matt.
When I observe the tournaments, I'd say HEMA definitely strayed away from the basics. It became too sport fencing based.
What exact technique differences are there? The video was clear that we were wrong, but not clear why.
Yeah, no grappling, no clinching, no taekwondo and muay thai left hi kicks, no disarms, hema practitioners are pretty lazy. On the battlefield. Your opponent isn’t going to play by the hema sports fencing rules.
@@ColossalSwordFormAndTechnique To be fair you have to get past the sword to do all of that, which is a not-insignificant issue.
@@RorikH Correct! But exchanges do often come to a grapple. It also has to be done safely, which is part of the same argument because many clubs and folks don't train these things. For various reasons, many clubs and individuals focus only on the sword, where other techniques are abundant in several sources. I think falling, grounding joint locks, and knowing when to tap should be part of training for any combat sport.
@@corrugatedcavalier5266 One issue with some of these things in sparring is that you wear lobster gauntlets to spar, and they don't really let you have the hand mobility to grab people well, and naturally any technique that people don't use in sparring tends to fall by the wayside due to lack of practice. Falling practice might be good though, shoving is still a common way to resolve a bind.
I may be optimistic, but I think it might be a worthwhile development, even if it's an eventual "split."
Having events themed around a developed "Olympic longswording", with a progression through codified rulesets would be good for some people.
Let them channel their competitive urges and their desire for "one system to rule them all" (even if it's multiple systems done in sequence), and I feel like the true HEMA community will get to flourish with that.
Very much agree. They are different things, and both are really cool! I am more into the sources, but will continue to go to tournaments for fun and to fight people outside my club. I would love to see some tournaments with rule sets supporting a more historical approach (safely, of course), but the specifics are the tough part.
As a practitioner of Asian martial arts (mostly Karate), I totally get what you're saying here. I, myself, try and train in all aspects of the martial arts. In my Karate Dojo, we mostly do traditional Karate, but also competitive Sport-Karate, and self-defense - which we base on Karate but adapt to modern and relevant situations. I think it gives the most complete approach to a martial art, and also allows people with somewhat different preferences to train together. I does, however, mean that we never get really good at any one aspect... My students can't compete at the same level as professional athletes, or use self defense as well as a high-level security guard, for example.
Anyway, that's what I think...
Keep the great content coming.
Cheers.
When did it become a sport? The Earl of Oxfords theater, The Curtain, was also used for fencing demonstrations and shows in the 1580's. There must have been some popular interest for people to pay a pence to watch? Earlier, we could call Joust with rules a sport too. There are texts on all sorts of martial arts but, their all based on study with a master and there a few about with notches on their sword.
I haven’t seen this video yet . But from reading the comments I already have an opinion . As Mat said in a previous video there is nothing new under the sun . Treatise are more guidelines than actual rules , all that matters is that the sharp or pointy end goes in the other man . Hell you can even use the blunt end as long as you kill or terribly maim the other person . And of course when I said kill or maim the other person I mean simulate maiming or killing them with blunted metal or very hard plastic while their wearing the proper protective gear .
It’s really not as simple as you’re framing it. The game is “kill and don’t be killed” with a lot of nuance resulting from the practicalities of practicing and testing yourself.
@@bignasty389 Fair enough , I should have put that in my comment ( honestly before it got so many likes I was thinking about re writing it ) but it’s popular what are you going to do ?
Agree. There is an identifiable issue here in Germany that there are no digitally accessible, modern translations and this is a huge barrier to people reading more. I have spoken to various people including those who run the HEMA scene here and mentioned I structure my lessons around early KdF manuals (as well being an active and relatively successful tournament fencer who transfers sport science, olympic methods and drills into these lessons) and got the response "oh that is just academic stuff" or "we do what works, not what is in old books" (!). Those same people also complain about things being too sporty (the mind boggles :'D ). I am then kinda wondering how people can say they teach German longsword - particularly in Germany - when they haven't read the German longsword manuals. They are full of amazing fencing advice, so I have no idea why people wouldn't read them if they want to become better fencers, especially to teach.
What I think would help is crowd-sourced modern translations of sources in modern, native languages. The English-speaking community is quite spoiled for choice but for anyone who does not speak it as a first language this is a barrier to engaging. I do feel it is really important - at least for instructors - to know their stuff. Plus I was taught German longsword from the sources by a very successful and competitive club and I do not think the two approaches are at all mutually exclusive. It is possible to fence both historically and technically well and competitively.
Sorry, no offense, I'm a bit baffled by your comment, perhaps I misread something. Especially here in Germany we are blessed with exellent transcriptions and translations, like the excellent 44 A 8 tranlated by Dierk Hagedorn. He also contributes to the Wiktenauer Database. I don't know if he provided a digital version of Cod. Danzig or Lecküchner already. Shouldn't be a problem to ask. But anyway, given all the expensive equipment already, 20€ for a book is not too much to ask and shouldn't be an excuse to disregard the treatises. Also the comments on german longsword by Bertram Koch I found quite usefull. Just google 'bertram koch liechtenauer pdf'. Don't know how non german and non english speaking learners manage. I'm intersted, is there a community active in translating to other languages?
@@stefanfranke5651 None taken! I should perhaps have said no good quality digital sources? I have however had exactly this comment from my club - they said "Oh but anyone can buy the Hagedorn book". The fact is: people don't, and if they do I'm pretty sure they don't read it. Eg. I have met resistance when trying to implement a basic training structure and some kind of informal test of knowledge to demonstrate the 17 Hauptstuecke of Liechtenauer and a few plays from them and I suspect this is because, quite frankly, the instructors don't know the plays. I believe this is because in English we have digital translations on Wiktenauer etc and I find this very convenient to make a lesson. Let's say I want to find all instances of "Schielhau"; I can Ctrl+F on Wikentauer or a pdf document with 3227a, Pvd and Ringeck side-by-side on my phone or laptop any time or place I have a few minutes free and see examples and illustrations from several manuscripts. To do that with a paper book is more time-consuming and presents a barrier in my opinion.
I have the Koch and there is PvD online in modern German but the formatting is not great and there are no pictures. I have tried to make pdfs and I send them to people but getting most of them to read is still a challenge. I reckon crowd-sourced modern language translation with illustrations is the way to go. Modern German language Wiktenauer: anyone? :D
@@stefanfranke5651 PS If you have any other links to modern German translations please do share them here, I would be really grateful
@@yawningangel8181 Sorry for I may not be the right person to adress, as I just startet with studying the treatises last year. Though I startet recently to dabble in translating some early new highgerman texts with the help of the FWB-online dictionary. Nothing near as learned as the real cracks atm. I fear the best would be to write those who are more competent and active directly and plead for a creation of consistent and easily accessable online learning material or in fact a expansion of the Meyer-App by Björn Rüthe from Hammaborg (Don't know if there's something planned already)
I'd Agree that there's a tendency of HEMA to start to split into HEMA and S-HEMA (S for sport :P).
A compromise to be made should made at least were foundations and technique should be HEMA first and foremost.
How one then implements that for competition purpose is down to the individuals/schools.
Though tbh all sports become "refined" as time passes and its very hard to stop that. Case in point Modern fencing, Kendo ...pommel horse etc.
Part of the technique issue might be that you can't do that much with your hands in Lobster Gauntlets, which takes away a lot of the krumping and zwerchauen so it's more about reflexes.
I actually think this might be the point. It might honestly be best to formally split the two. HEMA being the specific training of historical sources and Modern longsword fencing existing completely seperately and under a different umbrella and title. No reason someone who practices one couldnt do both or compete sideways but I think they need to exist in a completely delineated form for the sake of clarity.
@@jasonrogers8360 It doesn't really help with clarity if you've never done it but want to try and can't figure out why your local club (in the rare event that you have one) has a weird sub-designation. Also, don't the techniques still go back to the fechtbucher even if you're being taught them by a practiced instructor and not from a book?
@@RorikH I can hau zwerch and krump just fine in my lobster gauntlets, thank you very much.
@@Rasgonras Maybe I need to break mine in more, then.
Matt, thank you for answering my question, I appreciate your thoughtful response! I agree there needs to be greater emphasis on context as it illuminates why techniques are executed a specific way and why they even exist in the first place. Context should not only include the combative situation (judicial duel, street brawl, warfare, etc) but equipment used (weapon set, hand / head protection, armor, etc).
Secondly, tension already exists between training for a tournment versus training historically. Unfortunately, some of the odd tournament rules compel competitors to optimize their sparring in ways that drift from the sources (ie, hand and arm snipes, leg cuts, etc). Perhaps tournament rules need to be rethought and made more consistent to honor the art and proper techniques rather than just scoring a point and getting a win.
I too could see HEMA branching off into traditional schools and those dedicated to modern competition. I'm fine either way, as long as this is a conscious decision. I think the most important point you offer is: what kind of future do we envision for HEMA that still honors the past?
Great reflexion ! A lot of the points mentionned also can be easely transposed to various traditionnal martial arts that have a competitive sparring element that don't (and cannot) represent the martial / self defence context that those arts where created for.
It’s bothered me for a long time that many people seem to use the word HEMA to mean only the competitive side of the hobby. I almost wish we had another term just for the tournament scene to help HEMA remain as the term for the big tent that includes those of us who have little to no interest in the competitions.
I'm glad that my club works from the (translated) text and sometimes it tells you to do some very 'odd' things, sometimes that could be because of our misinterpretation of the instructions, but that's all part of the fun for us.
I think it would be a lot of fun to be part of a group like Hurstwic, who try to figure out Viking Age Scandinavian combat through a combination of saga sources, archeological research and experimentation through mock battles.
great point made, i feel that with the competive stuff moving forward everthings become very streamlined and people are there for points rather than technique.
Good video, thanks. I studied traditional "ninjitsu" for a number of years, which is very far removed from kendo and was really hoping for a European version of that when I took up HEMA. But I have been very disappointed from online sources I have watched, where it really does seem like sport fencing, where a mere tap wins a bout. A mere tap does NOT win a sword fight, humans can take a considerable amount of damage before they stop fighting back... that's when you win.
Holy crap, there are just so many parallels between HEMA and the HP(Historical Performance) movement in Medieval classical music!
The growing pains of HEMA follow the path of many sports and competitive hobbies as they gain a larger audience. For completions, the pressures of gamification and optimization are universal and without a counterbalance reduction and abstraction are inevitable. Competition will always draw more people than study because victory is more universally appealing than study meaning competitors set the popular rules. This can be seen in dog breeding as the need for working dogs declines, in shooting sports as the world has become more tame and in table top games like Warhammer or D&D because mechanical mastery and victory generally trump lore and defeat.
Please elaborate, I am most interested in learning more about medieval historical music performance. What do you and your friends practice and what have you found?
@@45calibermedic , So, I happen to be in the somewhat unique position being a HEMA enthusiast and a professional classical musician who specializes in Medieval, Renaissance and Baroque music. Most recently, however, my focus (obsession is more accurate) has been Late Medieval music. Many parallels exist between the disciplines of Western music and martial arts, and especially between the Historical Performance movement within the medieval music community, and HEMA: Both disciplines involve an ancient artform, yet they're both practiced today because they've enjoyed a relatively recent resurgence in popularity after a long period of neglect(i.e. with few exceptions, not very many people were interested in studying medieval fencing in the 18th, 19th or early 20th centuries, and the same can be said for medieval music); both areas have seen an increasing emphasis on historical accuracy, which applies to reproductions of instruments and weapons, as well as style (at least when it comes to music), and both have an enthusiastic amateur following, as well as a professional "elite" class of practitioners. The Italian RUclips fencing master Federico Malagutti also reminded me of how rhythm, timing and tempo are so integral to both music and fencing, which I had neglected to consider until he mentioned it. However, the real biggie is how amazingly fortunate we are to have surviving pieces of Medieval music, actually written down by real composers. I'm not sure if there is a HEMA equivalent in this particular area, as it's pretty flipping huge! I know there are the combat treatises, and in addition to the actual compositions, there are also many surviving medieval music treatises that are didactic in nature. To put things into perspective, the significance of written medieval music is so immense that it's tantamount to having, say, surviving video recordings of fencing matches demonstrating the techniques of Fiore, Talhoffer, Vadi, I:33, etc.! I really do consider it to be about the closest we can get to experiencing time travel!
Of course, when it comes to HEMA and weapons, it seems like the most popular period of study is the Late Middle Ages. Well, music composed during this period happens to be some of the most beautifully stunning classical music composed in human history. In many ways, it's actually more sophisticated than much of the music that came after it for a couple of centuries.
In addition to all of this, I have found at least four composers that lived between about 1170 and 1490, who were also documented knights! When I say knights, I don't mean composers who were just honorarily "knighted", as this did occur as well. These were composers who were documented to have been actual soldiers and men-at-arms. And all of this is just the "tip of the iceberg" in terms of the similarities! Anyway, sorry if I bombarded you with too much information!😀 If you'd like, I'd be happy to direct you to particularly good recordings of ensembles who know what the F they're doing when it comes to this repertoire. Just let me know.
@@andreweden9405 Direct away, I'd love to hear that
@@mjmal3741 , You'll notice that things are kinda keyboard-heavy, as that's primarily what I study these days. However, I also play recorder, and it was actually my principal instrument during my university studies.
Just to sort of put things in chronological perspective vis-a-vis HEMA, I'll tell you which historical treatises the music corresponds to (which you may already know😁).
From around the time of I:33 (the setting is from about 1360, but the source material is from closer to 1310-1315)...
ruclips.net/video/_VRNTCHx2x8/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/qteH9ehQMPg/видео.html
Music contemporaneous with the beginning of the Hundred Years War...
ruclips.net/video/Bfmnuh33_Ec/видео.html
A couple pieces of Italian music pretty much from the exact time that Fiore was flourishing...
ruclips.net/video/tXPI8JfQBc4/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/i_pWfdxP6Jg/видео.html
And German music that is exactly contemporaneous with Hans Talhoffer (first published in 1452)...
ruclips.net/video/fLjZjyzbSLw/видео.html
Also, a breathtakingly gorgeous section of a mass by Jacob Obrecht (1457-1504), who was Flemish by birth, but was working in northern Italy at the time that Filipo Vadi was publishing his 1480 treatise. During the Late Middle Ages (many people would actually consider this Early Renaissance), Flemish composers and musicians were all the rage, and the best of them were in-demand at the princely courts of northern Italy and Spain, as well as at Spanish Naples. By the way, the story behind the tune he's setting here, "L'homme armé", is really cool! It involves the Order of the Golden Fleece, a planned 1454 crusade against the Ottomans, and a lavish dinner banquet called the Feast of the Pheasant!😁
ruclips.net/video/SC6bBBaKTVU/видео.html
Maybe it's time to recognize the spectrum that exists in HEMA, which exists in a similar fashion in reenactment. There are those who focus on authenticity to an almost academic degree, those who do it mostly for the fun of it with little regard to authenticity; and everything in between.
The authenticity side is honestly kinda jarring to me. Certainly the academic side is aware that the treatises don't cover every possible cut and attack? I feel feders are decent enough to the real thing that if a technique is viable ion the modern day, it must certainly have been used historically. We have like 7 books to cover 800 years worth of sword fighting. That's not even remotely close to being competent in deciding what's historical or not.
I fell out after about 2 years of "training", I used Guy Windsor's book on the italian masters and my friends joined me during that time but refused to buy protective gear. At the end of those 2 years we were proficient enough that going any further without protective gear would've seriously injured all us. The only things we used for material during that time was Guy Windsor and a few of the videos you put out at the time of you leading people at your gym in drills.
You have a lot of material available on Wiktenauer, maybe try again?
An issue will be in how many elements(ranges) of combat are you training. Meaning, there might be the sword to sword skills, but there is also disarms, standing grappling, some amount of striking, just within real sword skills. The more that a student is able to play those elements the closer the student will come to understand the complexity of the original work. If you can link that up with the self defense so the student gets the feeling their life is really involved, the closer to real world it will be.
Schisms come with gaining popularity. We see this with every new idea and group through history. Eventually there comes a time where the original is outcasted by the new majority. Attacks will come, and label the original as elites, corrupted, or gatekeepers, but its the responsibility of the few to ensure that the real treasure is not lost. Even if it takes criticism or worse, stay true to what you are, and the conduct you wish to follow. In the future likeminded individuals will return to what is true, not what is always more socially acceptable. Quality over Quantity.
I feel that competition is running into more and more protective equipments, leading a even more brute force used in tournaments and a lot of doubles.
With some other hema clubs we are experiencing fencing with just head protection and gloves. Doubles score as - 1 to both fencers.
It gives a bright new insight into the combats since you don't want to get hurt and don't want to hurt your friend. We get much more interesting swordplay in this way, and.... Much less injuries as well.
Nah, you get crappy "swordplay" that is far removed from combat.
Matt, I have been enjoying and learning from your videos for over a year now and this one seems to me to be you at your best. Sadly, too many people define "effective" and "correct" to the particular interest in their art and their own personal interest in pursuing it. This video provides context without division that the sport-types, history-types, sword-romantic-types, and perhaps practical combat types all are legitimate within their own intention. When I first became aware of HEMA back in the early 2000s I was impressed by the academic and historic efforts such as translating old fechtbuchs. Reconnecting now almost twenty years later, I see a sport or MMA influence taking dominance. This would be fine, if there was an open understanding that this has evolved away from historic and practical combat ideas into that of sport and spectacle. I have had "masters" tell me that this particular technique isn't in the books, but works very well about one-third of the time. That is fine for the infinite resurrection of the salle, but awful if you are planning to face another person with live steel and deadly intent. To prefer one approach does not invalidate the other, and we should all reflect on this as you have done. Thank you for this.
I'm having a good time and while my two clubs trains longsword and broadsword, primarily and respectively, we train a lot of other stuff too. Wrestling, polearms of all sorts, Messer, sword and buckler, sidesword, etc.
Agreed. When a martial art is developing, such divisions occur and must occur. I can see several types of HEMA already: Traditional HEMA, Sports HEMA, Historical Reenactment HEMA, Self Defense HEMA, Medieval Fantasy HEMA etc. etc.
Modern sparing is excellent way for "volume" of practice, which is probably main advantage we have over people in the past. So personally I be less into getting back to sources, and more into looking again on sources from perspective provided by modern sparing (and other way around).
Did they not spar in the past?
@@Grauenwolf oh thats interesting. Did they not have the appropriate gear or did they just choose not to use it?
@@antondelacruz9362 I don't think they could do so safely as it is possible nowadays. Which has its pros and cons, but one of the pros of modern approach is possibility to put yourself in otherwise dangerous situations much more and get experience from it. It is easier to learn when you can fail without serious consequences. It is also easier do stupid things, but that is another story.
@@Grauenwolf Based on Joseph Swetnam, they still did target the face & did have ways to make it safer. Swetnam wrote: "button both thy foiles and thy staves before the practice with them, for otherwise the unskilfull may thrust out one anothers eyes, yea although there was no harme meant, yet an eye may be lost except the occasion be prevented." It seems like Swetnam expected a good fencer to be able to avoid accidentally taking out their sparring or drilling partner's eye, presumably via control, but that these safety measures were important for learning with less risk of permanent injury. Of course, that's early 17th century, so rather late.
@@kamilri didnt they have a lot of options for real armor in the past that they couldve used in training?
This comment is in response to what you said toward the end of the video about how a lot of styles deviate from the older treatises due to gearing their students more towards competitive modern fighting tournaments. I have practiced Wing Chun in America for the last 6 ish years and on average practice 3-5 days a week and the thing people complain or criticize the most about the classes I specifically take once they overhear me talking about it or if they witness our classes personally is that we train in "dirty" fighting. Specifically that practicing breaking of the knees, hitting of the eyes, hitting the throat or using elbows strikes to the face is something that is "dirty" in their opinion. When I have confronted individuals about this they usually end up comparing Wing Chun to Boxing or to Karate, which is what is very popular in the area I train in. However, both Boxing and Karate have competitive tournaments they attend and that they all train for specifically where as in my Wing Chun classes we talk about getting mugged in the street and here's what you can do to help if you are forced to defend yourself or someone else and can't run. My Wing Chun classes are not ever to be used for some kind of tournament setting and we tell new students this as well but usually when you are talking to someone in public about it or if someone sees just one class the context can get lost to what we are actually practicing for. I have stopped telling people exactly what I do recently and instead say things like oh I go to self defense classes so I can defend myself if I ever have to or I say something about just working out instead so that I stop getting into little mini arguments with people whom I don't particularly have a strong connection to or even to closer friends because of running into that exact "dirty" fighting phrase so many times. It might be similar to what this video is about and especially to what you are saying at the end. So many people just paint their realities in such broad mono colored strokes that I think it is hard for a lot to realize how complex and specific things can be. Thanks for the videos!
We are still studying the sources at the Stahlakademie in Leipzig(Germany). I am a beginner, but I feel our school does a pretty good job at being diverse with the training content:).
I have an idea on how to fix it: In longsword competition some kind of hits should end the match instantly, no matter if it is a double hit or not (eventually ending it for both). Like a nice thrust to the face or bib, a full cut over the stomach and things. You know, these moments BAM followed by uhhhhh from the audience. - Currently I like watching amateur longsword matches more than pro, because amateurs somehow at least try to do something good looking. High profile sparring also looks good often. But in competitions its like running to the opponent, chopping in and doing helicopter of death. Some specialized in Absetzen. I know it's not that simple and this stuff requires true skill or somebody else would be in the finals. But some high profile matches just look ugly and boring, because they fight the longword without the slightest bit of caution and go for a double hit too easy. Meyer and others have been writing so much about being careful and they are right imao. I would like to see us fighting more careful, that would help a lot. Modern Kamikaze style just sucks, even if it wins after getting 5 single hits with 15 double hits in between.
Very interesting video.
One thing I was thinking of was my hometown where, after England, the second most common place for residents to be born is Scotland (about 1% of residents are born in Scotland), the reason I bring this up is because we have 2 Scottish Societies, the reason behind this is simple in a way; there once was one Scottish Society, over time it started to have somewhat of a social club vibe, however this caused a split between those who liked having a Scottish themed social venue and those who wanted the focus to be more about Scottish culture, both have good goals social spaces are good and so is Scottish Culture, I'm a 1/4 Scottish so I may be biased, but still culture is good. Thus we ended up with 2 Scottish Societies.
Thus I was wondering, whether you have any tips for avoiding a schism within HEMA between those who like it for the historical study and those who like it for the sporting community?
Honestly, I feel like more relaxed rulesets and a greater emphasis on Mixed weapons sparring could really help here. I feel like allowing grappling into most matches/changing scoring rulesets (insufficient contact doesn't stop the match, half-points awarded to blows deemed likely superficial, time-based matches instead of point based, submissions allowed, etc.) could really help keep HEMA in a much closer context to what it was historically. Sure, it could STILL just become "sword MMA" with that approach, but I feel like the closer we can keep our sparring to the historical context, the longer the reconstruction aspect will stay VIABLE, if that makes any sense
There's also the (controversial) topic of safety here. Historically speaking, most emphasis was put on training user restraint when it came to keeping people from hurting each other, now, its almost entirely based on protective gear and strict rulesets. I really do believe this is why polearm fighting is so unpopular nowadays. Even with a very light, padded weapon most schools are terrifed of you swinging it in any capacity. Why do quarterstaff if all you can do is lightly poke with it or slow-drill? Why do Halberd, Partisan or even simple spear if you can't do anything cool with it like you can with a longsword, per say? Again, it's borderline a taboo in most HEMA schools that I have seen so I'm not sure if it will change anytime soon. But I've been in kids karate classes that have had more lax rulesets when it comes to handling padded weapons, and MOST other Weapons' martial arts that I've seen still focus on self restraint vs crazy strict rulesets. So again, if we wanna KEEP HEMA's complete, multi-discipline reconstructive element, we need to actually ALLOW people to, well, practice closer to the way that THEY would've done it historically speaking
I think we need to get back to the heart of what these systems were all about: defense, and dueling. The rule sets need to reflect that. Renaissance era dueling was brutal, and the rule sets should be accordingly brutal. A cut or thrust to the head should end the match. Such a rule set would encourage deliberate, defense-oriented fencing. The current format encourages long sword or rapier sized epees with little presence in the bind that land ticky-tack blows that would have VERY little actual cutting capacity. Perhaps a standardized rating set for weapons would be useful. For example a cut from a schiavona (that must weight at least a certain amount) might be worth 3 points but a cut from a smallsword might be worth one or even zero. As people start to game the rules, we nerf them accordingly.
Climbing is going through something like this on a grander scale. Obviously HEMA and climbing are VASTLY different sports but I feel the principles at stake are similar. Anyway, In Britain at least, climbing traditionally was more of a lifestyle, with incidental athletic pursuits. There was a craft to be learned, particularly if you're interested in "Trad" (Traditional climbing, with natural protection, hexes nuts cams etc, utilising cracks, fissures and features in the rock) This takes years of development, lot's of practice and you essentially follow an apprenticeship of sorts. However, as it's gaining popularity gyms are filling up, awesome to be honest, but it's becoming more of an athletic endeavour in a traditional sense. Now, sport climbing (Glued and mechanical bolts drilled into the rock) is taking precedent. However, to the purist this may be viewed as a somewhat 'watered down' form of climbing.
I personally believe a middle ground needs to be struck. I don't think a 'purist' approach can survive mass adoption.
I think as long as your honest with yourself, its fine to go down whichever route you choose. It becomes problematic when people decieve themselves, eastern martial arts have been struggling with this for years, if you want to sport spar, sport spar, but don't think for one second that you would survive against a medieval or renaissance trained combatant, the two things are world's apart. On the other extreme are the academics, who read a lot and practice a little, muscle memory and physical condition are fight winners. It's horses for courses, only one thing is certain, we are not trying to kill our opponent and they are not trying to kill us..... hopefully!
eh i mean sure who's on the right mind thinks that he stands a good chances against a seasoned soldier of medieval times that fought for a living when most hema practitioners started swordsmanship at their late 20s?
Oh gosh, anyone who reckons they've got a chance against a trained fighter of the period would be in for a very rude awakening anyway.
Ten year HEMA guy here. The school I went to is very source focused when I started, and still is (slowly getting back to class post-covid). I have friends at a school that is very tournament focused, while studying from the sources, the end goal was winning tournaments. One friend is heavily source focused as well as doing high quality living history and also an excellent tournament competitor in armor - very well rounded. Maybe it's "internet HEMA" making things seem farther away from the core of earlier HEMA, as I noticed so many people with little to no experience and with no reference to historical sources were giving their own interpretations and answers compared to the known, experienced instructors and students that the "signal to noise" ratio was pretty bad. I left the majority of online groups because of it, which was all I could do for the last few years. I think it's an inevitable change as the sport and/or fitness crowd outweighs the historical crowd by a considerable margin.
This reminds me of the story in shanghai of Japan challenging the devious brits to fencing with bayonets, and then japan wins by fighting dirty. Someone is trying to win/kill and someone is playing a sport.
First rule of Fight Camp is that you don't talk about Fight Camp.
The second rule of Fightcamp is don’t block with your head.
Totally. Back in my day we couldn't do anything without proper sources, and to get those we had to walk to the library barefoot on the snow uphill both ways, so yeah.
I could agree with a division existing between those who seek to prove that certain techniques existed to a historical standard and those who seek to follow in the footsteps of the europeans of the medieval ages and just doing what works. I think both paths are valid, though. A mutually agreed upon division might be very useful in clearing up definitions and the contention around them.
Edit: also, HEMA is not realistic to medieval, European combat. There is a world of difference between fighting to the first hit and fighting to a killing blow, or a succession of blows that would kill. One example is that there is no mechanism for what would be disabled in HEMA. For example (GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION WARNING), imagine two people are fighting with maces. One crushes the other’s weapon wrist, and the wounded individual tackles the other to the ground and proceeds to gouge out his opponent’s eyes with one hand. Whilst these things happen in historical combat, HEMA never accounts for them. The fight would end with the first blow in HEMA.
Edit 2: Unless I am mistaken as to the rules, that is. I am open to being corrected.
I've trained at or visited quite a few clubs and would say that a slight majority of them "account" for this in one way or another. Certainly none were down for regularly practicing their eye-gouging technique, but most do not stop at first contact. Nearly all allow for follow-up strikes with the weapon. I've only seen a few examples of the "well, you would have been disabled first by my strike" fallacy. Mostly a successful follow up within a few seconds of the initial clean contact is interpreted along the lines of: "Damn, I didn't get away with that" or "I got you but would have had a nasty wound to show for it" follows by someone else pointing out the high likelihood you'd have died from infection anyway. A smaller number allow for grappling (mostly due to a perfectly reasonable assessment of risks to man and equipment from such exchanges), but some do.
I will admit that no one trains realistically with maces … I don't think physics allows for such a thing. No glove/gauntlet ever made would protect you from a foot long lever with 2lbs on the end of it and conversely, any simulator that you could safely hit someone with wouldn't handle anything like the real thing.
Yup, me, HEMA is big in my area, a big renaissance fair in my town, so it's a big sport in my area. I signed up for my local school for this summer. I was out in my backyard getting a leg or well a sword length up for class this summer. Context would be king, even in sparing gear, I saw someone break their back getting power slammed on a hardwood floor. If you want a sport, then moves designed to do serious injury or kill someone, may not fit the context of a sport.
Our club got a smith to create Longswords which are normal swords in the strong and springs in the week part. They are save for 100% sparing and handle a lot more like swords then Springswords.
Strong agree. And maybe it's not a bad thing to have 2 related but distinct branches - "sports E.M.A" and "H.E.M.A".
I just became interested in HEMA (by which I mean I've only watched videos and read articles about it online, haven't practiced it or went to a club yet), so what I say here is not necessarily true. I saw a video of people sparring with longswords on the forest floor, where the ground is uneven and kinda slippery. One person who's in the video commented (translated from Chinese):
"The most important thing I learned from this experience is that many moves I usually make that rely on my physical/athletic abilities are absolutely useless on the grass, the most typical being repeated small adjusting steps and big lunges. I would only end up slipping and sliding with these. It made me feel the meaning of the phrase 'one step for one strike'. I feel like now I have a deeper understanding of swordsmanship, and furthermore, I realized why the masters wrote what they wrote in the treatises."
Following that are other comments discussing how langort and master strikes may become more favorable when sparring on such terrain, how sparring will become more strategic and have slower tempo, among other things.
I think this potentially shows that modern HEMA competitions may become more interesting and historically accurate by having matches on different surfaces, like grass, dirt, cobblestone, gravel, etc. that are either dry or wet.
Here's the link to that video (in Chinese): www.bilibili.com/video/BV1at4y1e7P2
I think it depends on how each club behave. Not every club have the same style of practice HEMA. Some clubs maybe really focus more on historical/realisitc style while others are more for getting points. My HEMA club focus on how to stay alive in a real sword fight and hit your opponent while you are in a safe position to not get a double. Also our rules with sparring are that the lower arms and the legs are not valid targets, as those areas have less chance you will get killed if you got hit there.
Such is the way of things with hobbies. You come to love something at a point in time and if it becomes more popular it will nearly always dumb down
What I would like to see is a club that has its students take exams of a sense.
Every 6 months the club chooses a new topic/weapon to focus on or at the start a student must learn the basics of all the weapons the club has and write a report about their favourite and least favourite. Talking about historical details of both and why they like one and dislike the other. After this report is given to the head the student can then choose what styles they wish to study more into.
They must not just spa but like how I have done in karate they must show the drills and even give a lecture to the rest of the class about what they know.
I would imagine the student would be given some sort of club badge for each of these let’s say for example 6 stripes can be obtained per weapon. And these lectures/exams happen every 6 months. That’s three years of experience and research into a weapon which I feel would give you a very good understanding of it and it’s history.
I know we no longer have Fencing masters. But I’m sure if people set some sort of test like this. One could be considered a near master in that art of a specific weapon.
Obviously there is a lot I’ve just written that most likely has problems with it but hey I’m spitballing
One problem is that there are quite a few people who are focussed on reconstructing a single manual who only fight their students, and don't free spar widely with other styles. I'd love to spar and systematically train more with people working from manuals - but they often tend to stay in their own groups and don't interact beyond them that much. I think part of that is also that they often have a commercial structure, and it makes sense for these more serious groups to charge for entry and not send their students out to other groups (admittedly, one of the commercial schools in my area was having one night a week where people from other schools were invited to drop by and pay a flat rate for the night - so that was pretty good).
The conceptual style of Jeet Kune Do is about using what works from any style or system, including historical fencing and HEMA (which Bruce even took some things from). The Tao for instance has judo/jiu-jitsu, wrestling, muay thai, boxing, wing chun, etc. All the main styles of modern MMA and more; Gi grappling for street clothes, headbutts, eye/throat attacks. I love and train MMA, yet there are martial arts techniques that are effective in self defense, but illegal or irrelevant in the octagon.
Excellent topic. As for me the question about HEMA pure systems vs competition is like asking me what topings do I like on my pizza. My answer is yes, more please.
For starters: Swords should have historical weights, proportions, and balance standards. It's not Historical if you're using a weapon with no historical equivalent.
And very important: rules should adapt to, and preserve the "realistic/original" fighting style, instead of the reverse: where it's the participants who adapt the style to the rules, for the most part.
Thank you for this video. Somebody needed to say this. There is an increasing divided between sport and the original concept of many Martial arts. I'm not saying that one is better but there is, (at least to me) a clear and increasing difference between the original goals of many historical arts, which are often about survival and defense and teaching technique that might not be used in other circumstances and that of sport, which is about scoring points, winning under accepted rules and often fitness.
I have always preferred the former but accept that the latter does appear more popular. With sport you can measure success and learn a technique and then use it, with perhaps greater ease than in a historical art, where techniques may be, if not more dangerous are at least less appropriate for competition. Often similar techniques can be found in both forms often with the sport form as a modification of the original.
A true historian looks at the sources humbly and soberly. This is why I highly respect this channel.
I don't study hema as much as I like - gear is a bit too expensive for my situation - but I find this video interesting nonetheless.
I am reminded of back when I did karate. We met three days a week, Tuesday and Thursday nights, and Saturday mornings. We focused on a different skill set each of those days: Tuesdays, we would learn traditional stuff, like a kata or special strike or something; Thursdays, we would learn practical self-defense techniques; and Saturdays would be sparring days, possibly learning specific competition sparring techniques. Could that be a possible solution.
One of the best things that modern Kendo has done is codified a set of 10 kata that preserve the original context and ideas of older Kenjitsu forms as they relate to the practice of Kendo. These 10 sequences, practiced by a “teacher” and “student” using wooden swords (and steel swords for advanced instructors) codify the original techniques of Japanese swordsmanship. These ideas, techniques and movements are performed, slowly with deadly seriousness and focus. They represent every thing that gets lost in contemporary competitive practice with bamboo shinai and protective bogu. I believe that HEMA would benefit from something similar. Think of it like an abstract movement manifesto for a particular weapon set. I think that such a meditative approach could ground and reconnect HEMA to the historical roots.
A little bit about my background: Currently I am involved in HEMA ( almost a year), practicing regimental Scottish broadsword (Angelo, Roworth, Tuohy). Before that I studied Kendo in Japan (Shodan), Rapier (SCA) and Epee in college (US). Later about a year or so of Classical Foil. I am not an expert in any one martial art; however I am a keen observer with a broad background.
I don't really see anything wrong with a split between the competitive and the scholarly sides, so long as they visit for the holidays and exchange emails on occasion. For most people, the sport aspect is always going to be the most exciting. Modern sport fencing isn't even properly a combat sport anymore. It's become so heavily specialized that from the outside looking in, trying to figure out just what the hell is going on is a daunting task. It can be exciting once you learn a bit about the rules and tactics, but I think of it as being the swordplay version of golf: exciting for fans who are willing to learn about it, but dreadfully dull for everyone else.
Visually, modern HEMA competitions are a lot more accessible. The pace is a little slower, the weapons are larger and easier to follow, and the exchanges often last more than the split second it takes to get a touch in sport fencing. More people are getting into it because, simply put, it's awesome. They might not care so much about the historical aspect, but that's okay. They're still interested, they're getting their friends interested, and they're taking something that was niche a decade ago and making it mainstream. As much as purists might hate it, that's not a bad thing. More interest means more resources, and besides, some of those who come purely for the action are going to get interested in the scholarly side.
The scholarly side is still free to research the primary sources and work out what makes them tick. There's enough material out there to fuel the research for generations to come, and that's also a good thing. Learning for the sake of learning will never be a bad thing, with the possible exception of things that could destroy life on earth as we know it.
Anyway, even as competitive HEMA evolves, there's still plenty of room to for the scholarly side to influence its progression. Maybe the best thing that could happen is for a governing body of some sort to crop up so the various schools can cross pollinate and establish a baseline for what still counts as HEMA and what's diverged enough that it should no longer be considered historical.
I don't study from the sources to do better at tournaments, I do tournaments to test a certain limited part of what I study from the sources. So far, I've been under the impression that the majority of HEMA practitioners have pretty much the same mindset. So I don't think we are losing our way just because some people focus on the meta game of tournaments.
Agreed. And it's not even like the top of the ratings is dominated by people who game the rules, which to me suggests playing sport fencing with longswords isn't as effective a strategy as this video seems to make it out to be.
It is also nice to have different tourneys with different rulesets so you can test different aspects of your knowledge. A lot of people talk smack about olympic fencing but it has its own benefits.
In addition, I would say that my experience in video games' "meta" is that it's constantly shifting and changing, so a technique that sees little use at one moment might suddenly become all the rage because someone pulls it off from nowhere in a tournament and spectacularly defeats his opponent with it. So, I feel that all the "meta" talks is ultimately quite superfical and in the end, unless you're aiming for a professional career, it doesn't really matter most of the time.
I am not a practitioner, just follow this channel and a few others like it, but my outsider’s observation is that as the activity gets structured as a competition, the techniques will quickly adapt towards maximizing efficacy at said competition and its given set of rules. Since the original techniques were meant to maximize efficacy in life and death situations that cannot be replicated just for sport today, the competition approach is unavoidably going to take HEMA techniques gradually further away from real dueling techniques, and towards techniques specific to winning HEMA matches. I have also watched some events of something called medieval combat, which had one on one contests, and team matches of various team sizes. In real life, people would have focused on stabbing or injuring the opponents. But since that cannot be done for sport, the teams that win seem to have developed techniques combining pushing, tackling and tripping the opponents (what actually leads to victory) more than techniques for striking the opponents with their weapons (which mostly seems to annoy them but won’t defeat them). I guess the same happens in mixed martial arts. Every single thing that someone would use in a life or death situation is forbidden in the combat sport, for obvious reasons. So, as the techniques become streamlined and specialized to win MMA fights, I would guess they would evolve away from the hand to hand combat techniques that I imagine a navy SEAL would need to learn to apply in situations in which the goal is to kill an enemy. Back to HEMA, maybe it would be a good idea to separate the reconstruction of the old combat techniques for dueling from the modern sport, so that both things can happen concurrently without one substituting the other one. It is possible to deepen our knowledge of our historical past with a scientific spirit, while at the same time people can also enjoy a sport which is fun independently of its reenactment accuracy value.
Thinking further. In a competition, the incentive driving the evolution of the techniques is victory. It’s hard to also introduce accuracy as a goal, if accuracy and victory come into conflict (which they will, as life and death conditions cannot be replicated in the sport). The only way to steer the practice towards accuracy would be to replace the system of incentives. If the matches were not won by defeating the opponent, but were punctuated in the same manner as, say, gymnastics are, and a number of judges would give points to historical accuracy, only. Under such incentives, the practice would naturally steer towards seeking greater accuracy, without anyone having to twist the practitioners arms to make them study the historical treatises. In the absence of that, the incentive of winning will develop new techniques unique to the sport, without much basis in real dueling techniques (except when they coincidentally will also work for a sport in which you can’t kill or wound the opponent). That’s why I thought maybe keeping both branches separate would ensure that the historical reconstruction of the techniques is not lost.
Good words! There seems to be a tendency of practitioners validating their approach to HEMA by their success in competition. Of course if you train for competitions then it is of course correct, but one trains for the traditional context then maybe not so much. I think the problem might be that the competition winners will earn a lot more Cool Points than the people doing quietly the other approach.
@scholagladiatoria , you mentioned that the federschwerts are used nowdays differently than they were historically. Could you expand that a little? New thing for me and I would like to hear more.
The issue isn’t that tournaments are used for validation. It’s that there are a flood of people entering into the hobby who are only looking to win competition and lack some fundamental understanding that the tournaments only function as a “pressure test” if the participants are acting in good faith.
Basically sport fencers who realize HEMA is closer to “sword fighting” than what they do. Transitioning to HEMA but continuing to do the same bullshit because it’s infeasible to make a rule set that can’t be games by people participating in bad faith.
shouldn't there be 3 branches? One that deal with treatises, one with what's possible with the equipment and one for scoring points? Also seems like a "branding" issue, where anyone remotely interested in the field will come accross HEMA and there's bound to be disappointment. Plus HEMA has been around long enough that shifts can be seen within the community, so I'd say it's a natural process, which could be guided somewhat.
"so I'd say it's a natural process, which could be guided somewhat."
The problem with trying to guide the way a group branches is that there's always someone else who wants to branch in a different way.
You should read The Truth of Ancient Ways by Anatoli Anshin about Yamaoka Tesshu. Tesshu was a sword master in 1800s Japan who believed that the introduction of the shinai and competition had caused the samurai to lose the true combative aspects of swordplay. He dedicated his life to trying to recreate the battlefield skills of the warring period. This may be similar to what you have observed in HEMA.
Well said.
Though I do want to argue. I think there's value in understanding the context of a manual, especially when the manual is focused on life and death.
I don't think making our training focused around that is necessarily a good thing. Yes, we are training in what can be described as lethal arts, lethal forms. We don't exactly want the next tournament to need a funeral for all of the competitors apart from the winner, do we?
I think acknowledging and understanding is important.
I also think moderating that influence intentionally is also important. Yes, we can have tournaments and yes, we can have rules from the tournaments in the past and we can use them to write our own rules. We can come up with superior protective equipment that allow us to engage in bouts and leave with less bruises, never mind broken bones. That doesn't mean we're walking away from it, the study of swordsmanship.
Like all things, the reality of the world changes, so to do the arts, styles and interests of the world. I would rather see HEMA, as a whole, adapt to the current world while honouring the past, than tear itself apart, argue with itself over historical accuracy until it disappears. If that means HEMA gets a broader scope, a wider range of interests and a wider community, all of us studying some form of martial art, swordsmanship, I don't think I'll complain at all. Sure, finding my little part of it might be harder, but if that means I go to two clubs instead of one, that doesn't sound so bad to me.
Actually sounds pretty good, to be honest.
Oooh. I have some thoughts on this. First off, atleast my goal is to recreate the martial art dedcribed in the treatises or manuals, not what i think historical violence looked like, but rather the system people trained to prepare themselves for that. Those two mever look the same and thats ok. I think that competing historicly was seen as a good way to prepare oneself for actual combat, even though there are clear differences between combat and competition. I think this translates well to modern martial arts as well, mike tyson would be a very formidable opponent in an actual unarmed fight despite boxing being "just a sport" and not the same as real combat.
However i think we must also try to keep in mind rhat if we see something in pur treatises that we cannot make work in sparring, we need to try to understand why our context differs to make that so. If i look at modern HEMA competitions in longsword for examole, theres a tendancy to forego the use of many guards in the favour of something between langenort and pflugh and staying there.
I am working on a ruleset and format of sparring that will make (hopefully) competing with daggers in a way thst is fairly close to what seems to (me) to be described in the sources, because i think competitions make us better as practitioners and hopefully can drive thendagger to gain a perhaos more aknowledged or prominant place in HEMA, something i think it deserves.
I usually stay in Alber ...
@@Rasgonras Meyer atleast makes a very clear point about not lingeribg in one guard
@@shotgunridersweden Now that's alchemy.
Ultimately, it has come to the point where Hema itself, and those practicing it need to decide if it is going to be a Sport or a martial art.
Both are fine choices, but not at the same time.
Matt here hits it perfectly, a lot of Hema has recreated sport fencing with different swords and a tweaked rule set.
Fine. Sounds fun. But maybe it is time to step out of the term "Hema" into Medieval fencing or some other such term.
Personally, I do and will continue to pursue Hema as a martial art, and structure it around the preservation of technique and practice of source material.
Up to and including the absolute exclusion of sparring if necessary.
It is my personal opinion that Hema really needs to take a leaf out of the Asian tradition and adopt Kata as a central component of its teaching methods.
Develop a context and apply it.
HEMA is becoming more and more sportbased and i get it its an clear goal to go for winning competitions rather than the more abstract goal of recreating something we to be honest never will fully recreat as it was.
I don´t mind this but i do think we should talk about it and maybe even divide hema in to sport based hema and historical based hema or source based hema, it would be ashamed if we lose the connection to the sources.
One of my observations of HEMA is similar to my observations of Airsoft, which is that in real life, the risks one would take when real bullets or real sword fighting, IMO, profoundly changes one's approach. This is similar to watching point-based sport karate compared to MMA, or watching a real firearms fight taken by a police car's camera. The emphasis on defense and not getting hit, mixed with the movement and actions of one's body while terrified, looks very different. I just think in a real sword battle, most of those involved would be significantly less aggressive, unless that is their approach in an attempt to overwhelm the opponent with ferocity (which can backfire spectacularly and in a very catastrophic if not deadly manner).
If it were possible, I think taser technology could be incorporated into the armor or under it, whereby depending on the hit, the person would feel a burst of intense pain. This real and dramatic consequence would change how people fight. You could "turn the shock down" for practice and only use the intense pain in competition. Part of this technology would incorporate the fact that different people's skin has different conductivity (in general, male skin is significantly thicker than female skin to the point where I have witnessed male electricians who can touch a 220 volt house current wire, twist it up, then cap it while its still "on." They still feel pain, and this is decidedly very dangerous, but they can do this while most people can't.)
1) A lot of issues can be better discussed of we had a clearer scope and definition of "sport" and "historical" in the _context_ of HEMA.
2) There is an overlap between sport and "competition" as well as sport "recreation."
3) What's the scope and limit of saying you have a "historical" approach towards fencing? Is it enough to read the manuals? What about bits of the manuals? What about commentaries on the manuals? Would I need to look at paintings and available records to put the manuals in context to say that I am using a "historical" approach?
4) Some of the HEMA oldies from the early 90's in the Anglosphere still call HEMA "WMA." Maybe that term needs to be considered again. Maybe we need terms that delineate the (recreational and competitive) combat sport from the (historical) martial art aspects of modern practice.
5) Or maybe, we don't. Several fencing sources do not make the distinction. Some fencing sources also say that this can be done as a club-based activity.
6) Even if you aren't interested in the "historical" approach, there are still many things to be gained from reading (if you pick a source you work with). A lot of the problems that people encounter today have already been solved yesterday.
Nice vid mate, all your kenjutsu info,..... Spot on.... Really enjoyed it, see you at fight camp. 👍
I'm at 6 minutes 3 seconds in...
Matt you're saying right now in the video that he was at a dangerous crossroads of potentially becoming reinvented sports fencing.
That is a good way of putting it I think.
I have been doing my swrd practices since around the year 2000. I went to a couple of early HEMA events; although back then it was still being called WMA.
Since then I've had very little contact with any groups.
So my perspective is a bit of an outsider's perspective.
But on RUclips watching various other channels over the years, especially paying attention to videos on sparring, it seems very much that within sparring and tournament play most practitioners now have downgraded or abandoned the use of grappling in active swordplay.
I realize it's specially in tournaments this is a safety concern however once you start taking out large components of a martial arts system you begin to Sportify it and change it in nature.
I understand many schools (including kenjitsu schools and Hema schools) don't use grappling for safety reasons & kenjitsu schools avoid sparring for this reason also.
But as grappling arts such as catch wrestling, judo, Jiu-Jitsu and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu all spar in a safe enough manner I personally feel there has to be a way to incorporate grappling with in the sparring of Hema weapons play and not sacrifice authentic techniques.
I want to do a “Viking” themed competition, three phases.
First can you get there?
Sailing course with navigation.
Can you fight?
Set of random encounters with different weapons and numbers of fighters.
Does anyone know?
Can you tell your story in a way that entertains and gets you remembered.
The focus on training for a modern sport fencing context, turned me off from becoming involved in organized HEMA, I wanted more to learn not dying in a duel or a battle.
I understand that sport and competition is a draw for many and is probably the main reason for manufacturers increasingly making HEMA specific gear and weapons, though. So it’s a hard balance to strike.
That sounds like the club you went concentrated foremost on full sparring/tournament fencing? Other clubs may have different and more diverse aproaches. Where I learn only a minority is active in heavy sparring and tournaments. Also the schedule and curiculum are diversified for the different levels and interests. Many of us just want to learn and exercise and have fun overall.
@@stefanfranke5651 It can easily happen if the club is small and a few members are really into competition, and the club leader gets seduced by the attention of his members winning tournaments or gets roped into judging at them. Even if the club theoretically has a more diverse curriculum there is always some next big tournament around the corner that everyone should help prepare for, etc. Almost naturally, the instructor ends up hanging out a lot more with the students that accompany them to tournaments, their priorities come to dominate, and eventually other students just leave.
@@TrueFork That's kind of sad. A good instructor should be able to adress all levels of commitment and interest. I think they repel many people who might have the potential to be good tournament fighters but initially come with no big ambitions into the club but could grow eventually when they recognise their abilities. You can predict, managed like that, this club will forever be small.
@@stefanfranke5651 A big club could theoretically even hire more instructors, or assistant instructors, that way they could have someone who is dedicated to non-tournament, non-sport oriented training, for anyone who doesn’t care much about tournaments.
I would also like it if there were tournaments that more accurately reconstructed the experience of battle or a duel. Like if they awarded points based on the probable effects of a strike, rather than where contact=hit.
Where if you slap someone with the flat, of a lightweight sword very little damage results.
If the edge alignment of a cut is shit, it receives less points than one where the alignment is precise. Perhaps even where you could lose use of a hand or arm if it is struck. Obviously I am just spitballing, and I do understand the reason for a simplified system of course, and I am not suggesting it should be done away with.
I know some LARPers have tournaments that have some of what I’m talking about, but not with serious international competition. LARP is also not known for historical accuracy or serious practices of effective traditional martial arts. Although there are plenty of people involved in both.
I'd say you're extremely wrong by saying there was a big divide between kenjutsu and kendo in the 17th century. Wearing bogu and using shinai isn't doing kendo, gekken is a Meiji-era activity as well, basically Wrestlemania really (even Sasakibara Kenkichi thought so, he basically pulled a pythonesque “it’s a silly thing” on his own creation).
Back in the Edo-era, the ryuha largely introduced shinai-geiko in their repertoire but it's certainly wrong to see this as a kendoification, that's like pure anachronism here! Shinai appeared in the middle of the 16th century with Shinkage-ryu, while the oldest style was about a century old only. The training practices simply evolved because, tada, the context of martial art practices evolved, the purpose of martial arts schools evolved since there was no all-out war (also it's entirely debatable if ryuha were ever meant to train people for war, I would say they weren't). Even TSKSR who nowadays is held as a kata-geiko paragon was participating in competition in the 18th and 19th centuries. Shinai-geiko is just a development of kenjutsu, hell there’s even kata-geiko done with shinai in so many ryuha!
Budo and ryuha evolved with their times, thinking sparring and "kendoics" are "modern" and kata-geiko is "ancient" is just not right, this is just revisionism and anachronistic. Not even all ryuha endorese the same practices, where do you put Jigen-ryu pell striking into this? (except being the bestest most fighty ryuha that is)
In doing this you're looking at the introduction of a new practice and informing its development through a modern eye and knowledge. This is not how to do history mister! Likewise, koryu nowadays changed are reverted back to kata-geiko precisely because kendo was created in 1912. Yet kendo has radically different goals and different means, the way to transmit knowledge is different, the way to train is different, the goal of the exercises, etc. It's just not the same sort of martial art. And it shows that the two activites exist side by side with zero problem or antagonism in Japan.
You really ought to check further than the dated Draeger look on budo, I mean, even his students largely turned their back on what you’re saying, which is basically a fancy way of bringing back the -do vs -jutsu opposition, which didn’t exist historically and is purely fabricated in 20th century.
Where does the -do versus -jutsu opposition come from? I have only ever heard it from HEMA guys who use it to disparage gendai budo for being sport while their system totally isn't.
@@Ianmar1 As I said, as a strict opposition/separation, it comes mostly from Donn Draeger who was a pioneer when it comes to bringing eastern martial arts to western audiences. The issue of course is that just like many pioneers, he held ideas that got a lot of new intakes along the years.
Basically the original opposition is more along the lines of warfare/practical (-jutsu) art vs civilian/development (-do) art. It still has some place as an idea but for instance, how exactly do you perform and practice a warfare art in a time of peace...? It's not uninteresting to see the development and use of styles, but just like in Europe, warfare needs and civilian practices often overlap at some point or the distinction really isn't that useful because koryu are living arts that evolve with their times.
Katori-Shinto-ryu is usually thought to be one of the typical "warfare art" (its founder was a renowned warrior), compared to for instance Hokushin Itto-ryu (much more modern in its teaching method, different weapons, different context of invention). Do you think there's a major difference in their spirit right now? Now that no one trains those arts for their practical purpose?
And then of course as a semantical thing it's silly because you have some styles with a -do who are coming from a warfare time and -jutsu with a civilian birth. It certainly leads to disparaging attitudes "My style is a real fighting art while yours is just for the dojo and looking good". "My dad's martial art is deadlier than your dad's because it's written with -jutsu!"
And then, many individual japanese styles are very different from on another. There's some unifying traits: the kata-geiko regimen, the shu-ha-ri, the master-student relationship, but then as martial arts, they can be veeery diverse. Just like in Europe where you have Fiore, Thibault and Roworth who are all "HEMA", in Japan you have Nodachi Jigen-ryu, Jikishinkage-ryu and Owari-kan ryu Sojutsu who are all Koryu but eeeh, they are still very different in terms of their actual practice, so who cares really... The opposition -do / -jutsu is way to simplistic, it's better to look at individual traditions.
Allow for an afterblow. It very quickly reveals which techniques and timings would get you equally killed in a real duel. Doesn't really matter after all if your sword struck first only for theirs to come crashing through your skull a moment later.
In my informal practice with friends, this is what we do - an afterblow makes it a draw. Unless it's quite clear the afterblow would never have happened had the first strike been with a sharp sword - a cut to the arm followed by an afterblow only began after the strike for example. Makes you a lot more cautious about securing a solid advantage, and makes you use a more diverse array of guards. Sheer speed isn't everything if you actually have to protect yourself at the same time.
Literally every competition does this already. It’s not a cure all for gamesmanship.
I definitely agree that there's been a drift to 2nd, 3rd hand teaching of modern interpretations. But the other thing in HEMA over the last... 3-4 years? Has been a kind of chasing after new/different weapons; spadroons, heater shields, pistols, armour fencing... all things that really are kind of fringe topics (if covered at all) in the sources. Which is fine, but what degree are people pursuing these at the expense of getting down to the basics with rapier, sabre/messer, sword and buckler, the weapons that are covered by 80% of the written sources.
It's possible, nay, probable, they are just trying to have fun, as one does when pursuing a hobby.
@@RorikH Like I said, that's fine, but it's not going to help learning (or teaching) the basics of effective/authentic historical fencing. It's like going to a chess club and wanting to play Paradox-Billiards-Vostroyan-Roulette-Fourth Dimensional-Hypercube-Chess-Strip Poker.
@@joadams8022 Probably not, no. On the other hand if HEMA started incorporating guns and then slowly turned into people just shooting each other, that would be very historically accurate.
Did you get any footage from fight camp? My instructor went there and he said he had a blast. I’ve seen some sparring session from fight camp on other channels and I want more!!!
If it's not survival it's entertainment. The source was about surviving your next fight. Tough to practice that mentality without stakes.
Same shoutout to Kim Young and Aberdeen Swordsmanship Group!
gutted I couldnt make fight camp this year. I will make a point of it next year.
I don't know about Hima but my first renaissance fair I watched two dudes dressed up in armor made from old cars and whale on each other with maces and dull swords covered in rust it looked like a tavern duel of drunken flailing with the crunching of metal like a destruction derby minus the motor noise. then the next year at the fair it was these two skinny guys in armor with these tiny dowel rods going tap tap tap. I found out later that they got Regulated. well At least the Turkey legs were still good.