Just some stuff I think you got wrong when it comes to HEMA, though it probably in some points it's dependent on the specific club or tournament. 1. You don´t have to only use techniques from the manuscripts. When it comes to tournaments or sparring, you can do whatever works for you. 2. You are allowed to use force to break an attack or a defense, also pushing and wrestling is allowed. 3. I think you assume that as soon as you touch your opponent with your weapon you get a point. That's wrong. Only real hits count. For example the tip of the blade has to travel a certain amount of space or with thrusts the blade has to bend. You will get bruises quite often and to be honest if you do a hobby you don´t want to get anything more than bruises. The big difference is that HEMA for the most part simulates unarmored combat. Because of that there have to be compromises between safety gear and freedom of movement and weight. With what equipment is available now it isn't possible to go at each other with full force without getting seriously injured every other day. The weapons are still made out of steel and the flex doesn't apply if you hit with the blade. Going full force would result in broken bones and concussions on a daily basis. Still a lot of the hits you receive in HEMA, if you imagine the blades where sharp and stiffer and you wouldn't be wearing the safety equipment, would be devastating or lethal. HEMA weapons and gear work nice for most swords. One fun side fact I found during some research for a university paper is, that there where some kind of Buhurt style events in medieval times. These where basically sport events as side shows of jousting tournaments also fought with blunts. I get that Buhurt has the force, the weight of the armor, the feel of a battlefield and so on which HEMA might miss but at the same time without thrusting and aiming at weak spots I find it at times kinda weird as the combat system is far more restricted than HEMAs. Buhurt can probably make you feel that you are in real danger, while in HEMA you are 90% sure that if you mess up you won't be insured badly, so that's probably what you meant by fighting vs. fencing from a psychological point of view. However to know that one received blow could decide over winning or losing comes with it's own stress. But hey...in the end I guess we enjoy pretty similar things and both sides would profit if we would get together more often, try out, work on gear, share techniques and so on. In my opinion HEMA and Buhurt are such different sports that I don´t understand all the discussions about what is the real deal.
This video is pretty ill-informed, and that's partly why it is so off-base. 1. HEMA is called "Fencing" because the term "fencing" itself is derived from the Latin "Defensa," or defense, shortened from the French "Defens" into "Fens." George Silver's 1599 treatise on the use of weapons was called "Paradoxes of Defense." The activity, as defined by contemporaries was "Fencing." The term doesn't describe a game of sword tag or "touching without -being touched"- it means to learn martial applications in the interest of staying alive- typically in a dueling setting, rather than a melee setting. The modern term as it is applied to Olympic sport is irrelevant to HEMA, as HEMA practitioners are seeking to understand and utilize the techniques recorded by Fencing Masters (In a non-lethal setting, yes). 2. HEMA practitioners don't only use what is in the source materials, as the Source Materials are so scant that it would be impossible to reconstruct a complete martial art with them. Matt Easton actually made a recent video about Liechtenauer's Longsword that makes an important point. He discusses how the traditions of Johannes Liechtenauer as well as I.33 make it very clear that these systems were designed to beat the "common fencer." They assume that the reader at the time it was written had awareness of, if not knowledge of a style of fencing that was somewhat "common" knowledge. In addition, these books (except, per se, Giganti's La Salle) were not designed as curriculum. They only show elements of a system, and so HEMA practitioners have had to fill in the gaps- drawing across traditions and using some common sense to fill in the blanks. For example, Silver's aforementioned work is often viewed with some skepticism- but it is also one of the few resources that discusses footwork, or positioning along the line. If HEMA practitioners only did what was on the page, they wouldn't really be able to execute it, especially as what is on the page is often poorly illustrated- if at all. Terms are confusing or confused, techniques spelled or worded differently page to page, or left entirely unexplained. That HEMA practitioners can fence at all- and many of them quite well- is a testament to the work that has been done to establish the so-called "Common Fencing" that the plays and master cuts are designed to work around. 3. Furthermore, in regards to the technique you describe with the false edge, you have to remember that within HEMA there is a huge difference between Blossfecthen, (bare fighting) and Harnessfechten (armored fighting), and this is my primary "issue" with Bohurt fighters criticising HEMA. Harness and Blossfechten use vastly different techniques as illustrated in the resources. The overwhelming majority of HEMA tournaments are Blossfechten and performed with swords (usually Longswords), in which it is assumed that one isn't wearing armor- that's why the cuts are scored, rather than fighting until someone is concussed (though I myself have been concussed). True - armor negates most damage done by swords - but the majority of HEMA practitioners aren't trying to simulate armored combat, so criticizing the realism on that basis is seriously missing the point. There are actually HEMA-ists who study Harnessfechten as well, and it looks nothing like Bohurt- because it takes reality into consideration. Unarmored fighting that relies on cutting tools can be practiced "safely-" avoiding death while still suffering ample injuries from blunted swords. Armored fighting can too- but it's primarily a game of stabbing someone in the right place, not beating someone until they give up. Once you use a Poleaxe, if the person isn't dead you aren't doing it right, to use your logic. 4. On the note of distinguishing armored techniques from unarmored techniques; one of my common issues with Bohurt is that from what I've seen Bohurt fighters, while armored, don't actually use techniques designed for dealing with an armored opponent. The techniques illustrated in the works of Fiore, for example, are primarily seeking out and thrusting against the weak spots in armor in hopes of severing tendons and arteries. This wouldn't result in concussion so much as maiming, or death. Bohurt actively works to disallow this: making attacks to the back of the knee and neck, groin and skull base is illegal. These are, however, exactly some of the targets illustrated in the manuscripts because they are lethal against an armored opponent. I seldom, if ever, see Bohurt practitioners using Half-Swording or leverage to force their point into the armpit, under the Gorget, or forcing the visor up to deliver a coup de grace because thy might actually kill each other. At the end of the day the majority of Bohurt attacks are blunt force oriented- using techniques that are illustrated not in the armored, but the *unarmored* sections- cuts that would only work against an unarmored opponent and so are largely out of place in an armored melee setting. For example, you mention the cut with the false edge from the bind. You wouldn't have thought of that in part because it doesn't belong on a battlefield. A dropped false edge will do nothing against a helmet. It's not the right technique. It is structurally too weak to have any effect. On a bare scalp, however, is another story entirely. That's where the technique belongs. 5. Using force is absolutely encouraged in HEMA fencing, so I don't know where you're getting the idea that it is discouraged. One of the most important elements of German fencing is siezing the Vor- using ceaseless unrelenting attacks. One of the common attacks is the Zornort or "Thrust of Wrath-" where you simply shove your sword through the opponent's defenses and stab them. Others include the Zornhau- a cut which is specifically designed to break an opponent's guard with force- followed by stabbing them directly in the face. It's not that force isn't advised or allowed that motivates fencers to utilize more delicate maneuvers- it's the fact that doing so means one fully-commits to their maneuver and force, in an unarmored setting, can be easily beaten by speed. The fact that again, HEMA is mostly Blossfechten, means that you don't have plate to protect you should your opponent simply be faster, and the Zornort can be pretty easily deflected and countered by numerous attacks. Unrelenting, strong and heavy attacks are simply unsafe for the person using them if they are unarmored. It's choosing the right moment to use force that matters. 6. "If you don't hurt someone you are doing it wrong." Bohurt is fun, and cool- it's got lots of aggression and it is a combat sport- but it is by no means historical, nor are the methodologies necessarily "correct" when you take into consideration that if they were correct, they would be lethal against the armor worn. You say that "if you don't hurt someone you are doing it wrong"- but then what does that mean of the Bohurt setting where the rules explicitly disallow the very techniques which we know, from the resources and contemporary accounts of armored fights, are the ones necessary to kill a man in plate armor? HEMA practitioners are largely recreating unarmored combat, practicing with lighter blades, so they need to be judged according to that. Even so, they use plenty of composite armor to protect themselves because the techniques actually work very well, and they strike in ways that would cut and kill in a real duel with no armor and a sharp weapon. That is why HEMA tournaments are scored according to the force and effect- not just the touch. Weak strikes are usually discounted, and injuries are very common in the Longsword combats because of this. I was actually warned not to use steel armor because it would make the blows "sound harder than they actually were, and the judges would score it against me." In addition, there are Facebook pages dedicated to the injuries sustained in HEMA tournaments-usually to the hands. EMT's have to be present, because the trauma is often focused on the head and collarbone areas. Bohurt on the other hand is actually seeking to emulate armored melee combat, and they use armor that is very similar to the kind used, (though modified enough to be anachronistic.) That said, they score on whether or not someone has to quit the fight due to head trauma, or injury- things that while certainly effective aren't actually the purpose of the techniques we know men at arms used. Medieval people weren't trying to give someone a headache- they were trying to kill them. Their techniques would certainly work against an unarmored opponent- but that's not what they're trying to emulate. The techniques used in Bohurt simply don't kill in th,eir context and the rules make the historical targets off-limits. If you are limiting the parameters in this way, then you simply cannot seriously think you are experimenting with historical fighting techniques- certainly not more so than those who focus on Blossfechten. Bohurt is a cool combat sport- but it isn't historical, so criticizing HEMA (which you clearly don't understand) which does allow for these factors to exist within their context, is not only off-base, it also highlights your lack of understanding.
Most HEMA practices UNARMORED techniques. That is, the context in which the techniques are designed to be effective is with sharpened weapons against unarmored opponents. Because it's a sport, and we're not actually fighting to injury or kill the opponent, we use blunted blades and protective gear. To say that you're doing the techniques "wrong" if you don't hurt the opponent is really silly. By that logic, doing it "right" would result in lethal cuts. Applying your own reasoning to Buhurt: it's all wrong because you should be using heavy pole weapons and caving in the opponents skulls, or thrusting into armor gaps.
HEMA has two facets in medieval combat. One is unarmored and the other is armored. HEMA armored tends to be fought "Armor as Worn" I'm a multi discipline fighter who does both armored and unarmored and am branching into duels in your game.
I think your HEMA experience must be very limited. IDK where this Donut of Death idea came from but it doesn’t match the sources. Plenty of techniques in the sources for use up close. Standing grapples, throws, pommel strikes, halfswording, slicing the neck with the forte, pulling a dagger. No offense but you are jumping to some misinformed conclusions from that one demo you saw.
Do you guys even thrust? I'm serious, I've never seen bohurt thrust. EDIT: Just got to the part where you said you can't thrust...that limits so much. No spears and a lot of techniques gone.
Just some stuff I think you got wrong when it comes to HEMA, though it probably in some points it's dependent on the specific club or tournament.
1. You don´t have to only use techniques from the manuscripts. When it comes to tournaments or sparring, you can do whatever works for you.
2. You are allowed to use force to break an attack or a defense, also pushing and wrestling is allowed.
3. I think you assume that as soon as you touch your opponent with your weapon you get a point. That's wrong. Only real hits count. For example the tip of the blade has to travel a certain amount of space or with thrusts the blade has to bend. You will get bruises quite often and to be honest if you do a hobby you don´t want to get anything more than bruises.
The big difference is that HEMA for the most part simulates unarmored combat. Because of that there have to be compromises between safety gear and freedom of movement and weight. With what equipment is available now it isn't possible to go at each other with full force without getting seriously injured every other day. The weapons are still made out of steel and the flex doesn't apply if you hit with the blade. Going full force would result in broken bones and concussions on a daily basis. Still a lot of the hits you receive in HEMA, if you imagine the blades where sharp and stiffer and you wouldn't be wearing the safety equipment, would be devastating or lethal. HEMA weapons and gear work nice for most swords.
One fun side fact I found during some research for a university paper is, that there where some kind of Buhurt style events in medieval times. These where basically sport events as side shows of jousting tournaments also fought with blunts.
I get that Buhurt has the force, the weight of the armor, the feel of a battlefield and so on which HEMA might miss but at the same time without thrusting and aiming at weak spots I find it at times kinda weird as the combat system is far more restricted than HEMAs. Buhurt can probably make you feel that you are in real danger, while in HEMA you are 90% sure that if you mess up you won't be insured badly, so that's probably what you meant by fighting vs. fencing from a psychological point of view. However to know that one received blow could decide over winning or losing comes with it's own stress.
But hey...in the end I guess we enjoy pretty similar things and both sides would profit if we would get together more often, try out, work on gear, share techniques and so on.
In my opinion HEMA and Buhurt are such different sports that I don´t understand all the discussions about what is the real deal.
like it!
I kinda agree, they are 2 different sports using weapons... not a big deal
This video is pretty ill-informed, and that's partly why it is so off-base.
1. HEMA is called "Fencing" because the term "fencing" itself is derived from the Latin "Defensa," or defense, shortened from the French "Defens" into "Fens." George Silver's 1599 treatise on the use of weapons was called "Paradoxes of Defense." The activity, as defined by contemporaries was "Fencing." The term doesn't describe a game of sword tag or "touching without -being touched"- it means to learn martial applications in the interest of staying alive- typically in a dueling setting, rather than a melee setting. The modern term as it is applied to Olympic sport is irrelevant to HEMA, as HEMA practitioners are seeking to understand and utilize the techniques recorded by Fencing Masters (In a non-lethal setting, yes).
2. HEMA practitioners don't only use what is in the source materials, as the Source Materials are so scant that it would be impossible to reconstruct a complete martial art with them. Matt Easton actually made a recent video about Liechtenauer's Longsword that makes an important point. He discusses how the traditions of Johannes Liechtenauer as well as I.33 make it very clear that these systems were designed to beat the "common fencer." They assume that the reader at the time it was written had awareness of, if not knowledge of a style of fencing that was somewhat "common" knowledge. In addition, these books (except, per se, Giganti's La Salle) were not designed as curriculum. They only show elements of a system, and so HEMA practitioners have had to fill in the gaps- drawing across traditions and using some common sense to fill in the blanks. For example, Silver's aforementioned work is often viewed with some skepticism- but it is also one of the few resources that discusses footwork, or positioning along the line. If HEMA practitioners only did what was on the page, they wouldn't really be able to execute it, especially as what is on the page is often poorly illustrated- if at all. Terms are confusing or confused, techniques spelled or worded differently page to page, or left entirely unexplained. That HEMA practitioners can fence at all- and many of them quite well- is a testament to the work that has been done to establish the so-called "Common Fencing" that the plays and master cuts are designed to work around.
3. Furthermore, in regards to the technique you describe with the false edge, you have to remember that within HEMA there is a huge difference between Blossfecthen, (bare fighting) and Harnessfechten (armored fighting), and this is my primary "issue" with Bohurt fighters criticising HEMA.
Harness and Blossfechten use vastly different techniques as illustrated in the resources. The overwhelming majority of HEMA tournaments are Blossfechten and performed with swords (usually Longswords), in which it is assumed that one isn't wearing armor- that's why the cuts are scored, rather than fighting until someone is concussed (though I myself have been concussed). True - armor negates most damage done by swords - but the majority of HEMA practitioners aren't trying to simulate armored combat, so criticizing the realism on that basis is seriously missing the point. There are actually HEMA-ists who study Harnessfechten as well, and it looks nothing like Bohurt- because it takes reality into consideration. Unarmored fighting that relies on cutting tools can be practiced "safely-" avoiding death while still suffering ample injuries from blunted swords. Armored fighting can too- but it's primarily a game of stabbing someone in the right place, not beating someone until they give up. Once you use a Poleaxe, if the person isn't dead you aren't doing it right, to use your logic.
4. On the note of distinguishing armored techniques from unarmored techniques; one of my common issues with Bohurt is that from what I've seen Bohurt fighters, while armored, don't actually use techniques designed for dealing with an armored opponent. The techniques illustrated in the works of Fiore, for example, are primarily seeking out and thrusting against the weak spots in armor in hopes of severing tendons and arteries. This wouldn't result in concussion so much as maiming, or death. Bohurt actively works to disallow this: making attacks to the back of the knee and neck, groin and skull base is illegal. These are, however, exactly some of the targets illustrated in the manuscripts because they are lethal against an armored opponent. I seldom, if ever, see Bohurt practitioners using Half-Swording or leverage to force their point into the armpit, under the Gorget, or forcing the visor up to deliver a coup de grace because thy might actually kill each other. At the end of the day the majority of Bohurt attacks are blunt force oriented- using techniques that are illustrated not in the armored, but the *unarmored* sections- cuts that would only work against an unarmored opponent and so are largely out of place in an armored melee setting. For example, you mention the cut with the false edge from the bind. You wouldn't have thought of that in part because it doesn't belong on a battlefield. A dropped false edge will do nothing against a helmet. It's not the right technique. It is structurally too weak to have any effect. On a bare scalp, however, is another story entirely. That's where the technique belongs.
5. Using force is absolutely encouraged in HEMA fencing, so I don't know where you're getting the idea that it is discouraged. One of the most important elements of German fencing is siezing the Vor- using ceaseless unrelenting attacks. One of the common attacks is the Zornort or "Thrust of Wrath-" where you simply shove your sword through the opponent's defenses and stab them. Others include the Zornhau- a cut which is specifically designed to break an opponent's guard with force- followed by stabbing them directly in the face. It's not that force isn't advised or allowed that motivates fencers to utilize more delicate maneuvers- it's the fact that doing so means one fully-commits to their maneuver and force, in an unarmored setting, can be easily beaten by speed. The fact that again, HEMA is mostly Blossfechten, means that you don't have plate to protect you should your opponent simply be faster, and the Zornort can be pretty easily deflected and countered by numerous attacks. Unrelenting, strong and heavy attacks are simply unsafe for the person using them if they are unarmored. It's choosing the right moment to use force that matters.
6. "If you don't hurt someone you are doing it wrong." Bohurt is fun, and cool- it's got lots of aggression and it is a combat sport- but it is by no means historical, nor are the methodologies necessarily "correct" when you take into consideration that if they were correct, they would be lethal against the armor worn. You say that "if you don't hurt someone you are doing it wrong"- but then what does that mean of the Bohurt setting where the rules explicitly disallow the very techniques which we know, from the resources and contemporary accounts of armored fights, are the ones necessary to kill a man in plate armor?
HEMA practitioners are largely recreating unarmored combat, practicing with lighter blades, so they need to be judged according to that. Even so, they use plenty of composite armor to protect themselves because the techniques actually work very well, and they strike in ways that would cut and kill in a real duel with no armor and a sharp weapon. That is why HEMA tournaments are scored according to the force and effect- not just the touch. Weak strikes are usually discounted, and injuries are very common in the Longsword combats because of this. I was actually warned not to use steel armor because it would make the blows "sound harder than they actually were, and the judges would score it against me." In addition, there are Facebook pages dedicated to the injuries sustained in HEMA tournaments-usually to the hands. EMT's have to be present, because the trauma is often focused on the head and collarbone areas.
Bohurt on the other hand is actually seeking to emulate armored melee combat, and they use armor that is very similar to the kind used, (though modified enough to be anachronistic.) That said, they score on whether or not someone has to quit the fight due to head trauma, or injury- things that while certainly effective aren't actually the purpose of the techniques we know men at arms used. Medieval people weren't trying to give someone a headache- they were trying to kill them. Their techniques would certainly work against an unarmored opponent- but that's not what they're trying to emulate. The techniques used in Bohurt simply don't kill in th,eir context and the rules make the historical targets off-limits.
If you are limiting the parameters in this way, then you simply cannot seriously think you are experimenting with historical fighting techniques- certainly not more so than those who focus on Blossfechten. Bohurt is a cool combat sport- but it isn't historical, so criticizing HEMA (which you clearly don't understand) which does allow for these factors to exist within their context, is not only off-base, it also highlights your lack of understanding.
Most HEMA practices UNARMORED techniques. That is, the context in which the techniques are designed to be effective is with sharpened weapons against unarmored opponents.
Because it's a sport, and we're not actually fighting to injury or kill the opponent, we use blunted blades and protective gear. To say that you're doing the techniques "wrong" if you don't hurt the opponent is really silly. By that logic, doing it "right" would result in lethal cuts.
Applying your own reasoning to Buhurt: it's all wrong because you should be using heavy pole weapons and caving in the opponents skulls, or thrusting into armor gaps.
HEMA has two facets in medieval combat. One is unarmored and the other is armored. HEMA armored tends to be fought "Armor as Worn" I'm a multi discipline fighter who does both armored and unarmored and am branching into duels in your game.
I will just say this. If bohurt fighters fought like HEMA fighters, there would be way fewer bohurt fighters.
I think your HEMA experience must be very limited. IDK where this Donut of Death idea came from but it doesn’t match the sources. Plenty of techniques in the sources for use up close. Standing grapples, throws, pommel strikes, halfswording, slicing the neck with the forte, pulling a dagger. No offense but you are jumping to some misinformed conclusions from that one demo you saw.
Do you guys even thrust? I'm serious, I've never seen bohurt thrust.
EDIT: Just got to the part where you said you can't thrust...that limits so much. No spears and a lot of techniques gone.
I personally like HEMA and Buhurt
That's my thing, why not do both?
You need a bigger and mixed thumbnail for that video to grow up :D