+Battam My favorite was the Catching Fire video where right in the beginning he said "I know I'm being a bit of a pedant, I know I'm being a bit of a geek..." but kept talking for several minutes.
+Decay I take it you're not a fan of the sca? And that you define functional as nigh perfect top of the line? That's not what the rest of us mean by functional.
I find it both interesting and infuriating how hard it is to emulate medieval warfare without actually killing anyone. Like, longsword is hard enough to practice without injuries, things like polearms or axes are nearly impossible to do safely with weapons that feel like the real thing.
It's hard to emulate... *warfare* without killing anyone. Even modern warfare which is less reliant on close quarters combat (though it's still a vital component) and uses technology and skill from range, is still very difficult to emulate well. Realistically emulating the practice of jamming sharpened steel into each other or bashing each other in the head with murderous force...without actually hurting anyone, is never going to be a fully realized quest. I think perhaps the closest thing would probably be HEMA unarmored sparring + training in armored combat according to historical techniques + entering something like Battle of the Nations. Each would help with a slice of the pie, then you'd still have to put them together in your mind. They all have massive gaps, but put together, they can help build a bigger picture. Training in historical armored combat gets the fundamental knowledge and skills, but lacks practical practice and experience because the kind of fighting you have to do in full armor is impossible to fake without seriously damaging somebody. HEMA unarmored combat teaches fighting at speed against an opponent and the application of martial techniques against a real apponent with speed and force, but it doesn't cover the realities of armored combat or of real combat at all so much as a civilian dueling situation. And BotN is heavy on the concussive, loud, violence of actual armored battle and the practical experience of fighting and moving in an evolving situation in armor that you aren't going to get in HEMA, but the actual technical skill level and range of techniques is low and not historically representative due to the nature of the beast demanding a focus on blunt force over things like grappling, sharp piercing weapons, and murderous head strikes. Maybe if you take the positive lessons of each to cover the gaps in the others, you might get as close as humanly possible to the experience of medieval combat. Just a guess on my part. But who's going to do all that? Each one is a discipline and time/resource hogging hobby on its own. Maybe someone rich enough to act like a real medieval knight who could focus on such things as his full-time occupation. Basically, you'd have to *be* the modern equivalent of medieval nobility to actually exlerience what it was like to fight like a medieval person.
I would say that the SCA is pretty close. The minimum armor standards are pretty much a helm, gorget, knee cops, elbow cops, kidney belt, and a cup, and you are good to go. Use rattan sticks with padded tips (if you want to thrust) agree that a certain level of force is required to kill (and then decide if you want to be nice enough not to hit any harder than that), agree not to punch, kick, or grapple, and you pretty much have it right there :)
@@NewYorkKnightsCombat1 , The "not grappling" is my biggest problem. That area is a hugely important and hugely under-represented aspect of armored fighting. As Matt alluded to, in armored combat, the sword basically becomes a sharp, pointy, grappling lever. Everything in the actual historical techniques of armored combat with swords came down to getting the armored oponent on the ground in an advantageous position for you to jam your blade between his protection. Take grappling out of the equation, and can you really consider it even remotely analgous to historical combat?
@@jameswoodard4304 Those organizations and competitions that do not allow grappling usually have three reasons for it (with varying degrees of the focus on each reason) 1. Safety 2. There are trying to simulate a tournament in which grappling was not allowed (such things existed in history). 3. They want to focus on weapon skills. It is sort of like how different combat sports focus on some things and don't allow others, like kicking, grappling, knees, elbows, etc. By taking all that stuff out of boxing, can you really consider it at all like a real unarmed fight?
Has anyone considered the possibilty that unless you were a nobleman, you didn't wear protection in fencing/swordsmanship practice? One way of a master ensuring that his students learned to defend themselves and used his teachings correctly and swiftly, is to let them know that if they don't, they are going to end up with at the very least, a lot of bruising. Even if blows are pulled so they don't hit with full force, it's going to hurt if you are on the receiving end and don't protect yourself properly.
+J Corbett I think that pulling blows was almost certainly done in most historical practice, though any contact at all with a bare head or face is dangerous - a medium blow to the head can permanently injure someone's brain and the face is very fragile - it doesn't take much at all to pop an eye ball.
+scholagladiatoria While I can sort of imagine training for spear and sword, and other similar weapons in medieval times... I always wondered, how did they practice with larger and heavier weapons, like maces, morning stars, warhammers, axes and such? Certainly pulling blows is still important, but the sheer mass would still be very dangerous. And if they used lighter, wooden placeholders, wouldn't that screw with the training, since the weight and feel would be all wrong?
kiba BG I seriously doubt that to be that easy... even if learning the handling of the weapon alone can be done against a dummy, the same can be done with any weapon. Yet people past and present still use live, "coop" training, because combat/competition/whatever isn't just the use of the pointy/sticky/bashy thing you hold in your hand(s).
+Sólyom Csaba I don't think warhammers, axes and maces where heavier weapons than swords, but their focus on percussive damage does indead make them more dangerous for training than blunt swords.
It would be interesting to get an overview of the history and development of protective fencing equipment for the periods that are well known, such as the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries
i'd add a 4. point thought thats not a main reason but: Money. Full plate armor cant be from the shelf it has to be crafted for you to fit you well. And that will cost quite a lot, for a complete plate armor that is actually able to withstand some blows (not the decorative 1mm thick stuff) you will have to pay about 2000 Euros or more - and of course another roughly 400 for a decent practise sword. And a lot of people simply cant afford that much - or dont want to bother with keeping the armor intact which also can be quite time consuming not to mention that youn really should work out and build up your budy BEFORE purchasing plate armor - if you grow muscles later on or loose a lot of weight the armor may not fit anymore and you may end up needing another one. Armored fighting isnt something for starters, as it includes a lot of grappling and wrestling and really feels and looks entirely different from what people usually have in mind when they think about sword fighting. Not to mention the risk of injury can be quite high - yes full plate armor protects you like hell and its difficult to damage someone in it BUT that is also the problem. You will likely hit harder because of it or dont bother much with defense and boom - get hit in a lightly or unarmored part of the armor and this can be quite a problem, a guard smashed into your armpits can hurt a lot and may even break something. Also when wrestling a armlock or something alike can also break something. And if you are crazy like some clubs and do full contact fights in plate armor with wepaons other than longsword injuries are bound to happen and its a miracle that so far no one got killed though i know a club in Hamburg, germany, where their full contact full plate armor fights with axes regularely end in the hospital with some broken bones and nasty cuts. Its jut not something a lot of people would like to do. And as much as i love poleaxe fighting, i wouldnt be so crazy to do full contact fights with them
I would suggest, they trained with less force and speed, and with padded hads. In german Academic Fencing they still occasionally use padded or hardend leather-caps called "Muckhaube" or "Mensurprobehaube". Under it you're mostly safe of injuries but will still feel the pain.
A thought for how sparring might have been done. I think that it was likely they practiced with much less protective gear in general and kept safe by the fact that neither practitioner wanted to be hurt. I come to this conclusion because my friend and I have stared sparring with nylon swords with no protective gear at all, yet we have yet to incur a serious injury (just some bruised fingers at first). Don't get me wrong, the weapons still hurt like a bitch when you're hit, but because the threat of injury is there we both are more careful to not get hit. This results in fewer double hits, few hits in general, and both parties pulling blows to the head right before they would have hit out of concern of injuring his partner. Now all bets are off when it comes to competition where your opponent doesn't care about you, but I think for general practice it was likely they just wore some gloves and were more careful.
You should get some protective gear, if you fail to pull a blow to the head which can happen even a fairly light blow can cause permanent brain damage its also likely that fingers can be broken in strikes to the hand or worse. Don't spar without the proper protective gear for the safety of both you and your friend its very dangerous.
Thanks, I do appreciate your concern and agree that it is too dangerous to suggest that others train without protective gear. However, I've been training for a decade in traditional Chinese unarmed martial arts where we do much the same, albeit without weapons (still dangerous though. I've had broken ribs and others training have dislocated fingers, suffered concussions, etc). While I am new to practicing with weapons, I feel that my prior experience, along with lots of solo practice, has given me enough awareness to avoid losing control of my body and weapon (You'd be right to point out that my training partner poses more of a risk, though, as he is almost entirely untrained). The reason I bother to explain my position is that the present danger of real injury changes the dynamics of sparring, and while it is too dangerous for beginners or competition, can be a useful tool to refine the technique of both participants. When a double hit means you will suffer a painful strike, you are more likely to utilize the more complex guards and disarms than to just swing faster. This results cleaner technique from both fighters. Again, you are correct that this is dangerous, and I don't think it is wise most people to train that way.
+Marquese Liddle The reason most HEMA practitioners are unwilling to spar without safety gear is simple: no matter how much control you have, with thousands of people doing this worldwide, it is inevitable someone will get hurt. With things that can poke out eyes, this is particularly important. It simply isn't worth losing an eye or the ability to use your hands for a hobby. Accidents happen, nobody is perfect or immune. There are plenty of precedents for this kind of thing happening too. Most re-enactment groups I've seen have fairly strict (if sometimes strange) safety rules, especially with lots of them wearing open faced helmets. Despite this, it's not hard to find accounts of experienced re-enactors getting their faces split open by stray blows. I've personally witnessed somebody running face-first onto a spear that had its butt embedded in the ground just due to simple bad luck. He was very lucky that the spear broke before his face did, but he still needed to be taken off the field by paramedics. Somebody in Germany died when a synthetic waster entered the eye-slit of his helmet. You are welcome to continue training however you wish, but consider what you're risking.
The answer can be given in 10 seconds: to heavy to carry around several times a week to different training locations to much work to keep it in a good condition: oiling, outdenting, change the leather straps, etc. to dangerous for my trainingsparter to expensive for most of the people answers given, took my less than a minute to type and would have taken me 10 seconds to say...
"There was a middle ground..." Are you planning on making a video on munition plate armour? There's not a lot of easily available information on it, aside from "It was cheap", and "It was mass produced plate".
I'd say they'd probably use what we equate to semi-contact as opposed to full-contact. That's what we do in jitsu and then to practice cutting something well, probably test cutting
this was a very good commentary that puts goo d insight on the subject. However, I must take exception with you on one point: A well-constructed set of pauldrons may not necessarily restrict your arm movement. This may depend, of course, on what style and period of armor you are using, but in my 28 years in the SCA and 4 years in the Armored Combat League/HMB/IMCF, I have always made sure that the structural and ergonomic relationship between my pauldrons, cuirass, gorget, and helm all allowed me to raise my arm exactly as you describe here. I have seen many new people walk on to the field with what I call "shoulder overkill." this often comes from familiarity with American football or Road Warrior movies. Then they realize they can't do certain shots that would make winning a fight a lot easier. Then we fix their armor.
Happy New Year Matt. Regarding all the comments that plate is expensive, there's also munitions plate which is a "one size fits as many builds as possible" solution. It's still obviously more expensive than modern gear but the point is that not all plate armor is tailor fit for the wearer.
What I've used for spear fighting is simply poly pipe with a bit of pool noodle stuck on the end. Cheap and reasonably padded and I really don't mind doing unarmoured fighting with them as long as they're not thrown or intentionally stabbed at the face. Doing the same thing for swords and daggers works for fun lighthearted fights too.
+Josiah Mann My worry is about the spear, specifically. Because is not really the hit, but the thrust (I don't know if I am expressing myself correctly, if doesn't, please forgive my bad english). If the tip find my chest, there is all this force pushing me back, even with a soft point. And a spear lunge can generate a lot of power...
+CopernicoTube Yes, that is a huge concern because a spear with no point is still a dangerous weapon. I think it is as Matt says, during training they were very very careful not to kill the other guy.
In hungary and in eastern Europe we sometimes tend to do "half-armored" fencing, so rules are the same as in Hema except no face thrusts, and we wear helmet, gambeson, gauntlets, maybe jack chains or elbow/knee protection things of that nature and go on with feders or blunt longswords. it's good fun :)
The romans used wooden swords filled with lead, so I would guess they used wooden swords or blunted/padded metal swords, and probably practiced against dummies until they were competent enough to practice against other people without hitting them where they would be injured.
I bet they just wrapped cloth around their wasters/feders to make them like boffers during contact sparring. Like you said, they did it to the tips of flexible rapiers, so I think it follows they'd do it to the whole of a weapon meant to strike. Well that's just what I think they did. It would be neat if someone tested it by fencing with cloth-wrapped feders.
really good point, I often asked myself why hema is about unarmoured fencing. but I think you make the disadvanteges sound bigger than they are. for example you still have a relatively good view through a helmet
+Das Moep You really don't. I own both bascinets and sallets and the vision is terrible compared to a fencing mask or no head protection. You lose both vertical and horizontal fields of vision.
+scholagladiatoria yes, I understood that you meant "compared to fencing masks" - that's out of discussion. All I wanted to say is that it sounds like one's nearly blind when he's wearung a helmet. I know that you didn't mean it that way ;-)
+Das Moep In battle they would lift the visor when about to engage in melee. That's for vision, because that faceplate is mostly about arrows, and not meant to be really fought in. Earlier helmets which don't have visors have better visibility are often more open around the eyes. We can't remove visors for safety reasons, and our eyes are probably the most vulnerable and precious things, so just leaving that open isn't really an option. Vision through a pig face bascinet is terrible. Not terrible compared to fencing masks, terrible compared to anything.
+Ashes42g I have looked up some pigface bascinet helmets and they seem to have as much space around the eyes as some crusader helmets without visor. I made some experiences with crusader helmets, you need to get used to it but you can stand your ground. I don't know if it's enough for having an overview of your situation in battle, but on the other side I wouldn't lift my visor while I'm standing in the first row. And I guess the faceplate is for general face protection, not "mostly for arrows". It's really common that somebody is stabbing towards your face.
When I did ninjutsu, we trained a lot with wooden sticks, with no protection apart from a kimono, and none of us have ever been seriously injuried. We couldn't afford protection anyways, so we had to set for what we had; even if it meant occasional headaches, bruises e a little blood. I think medieval people did the same. We also trained with steel swords a couple of times, but never with full force.
Every now and then, me and a friend will practice some taijutsu/kenjutsu as part of our ninjutsu training. We don't use padding, but we also don't use wooden bokken. It doesn't injure when controlled, but polypropylene can be very heavy.
+Thiago Monteiro When I first went to Japan I had the idea that Ninja's were some kind of elite fighting force. Having been there and read things about them....I came to realize diffrently. Samurai ruling class were very big on weapon control (still very big in Japan. Civilian owned weapons are scare). Ninja's didn't run around with swords strapped all over them, in fact not many even had a sword unless it was stolen from a dead samurai. Most of their weapons like the Kusarigama were converted farm tools...and ninja's were...peasant farmers....they used the same tools they farmed with and conducted night attacks against oppressive masters. Nothing like hiding your weapons in plain sight. The real "ninjutsu" training dealt mostly with their stalking, patience and physical endurance to carry out assassinations. The best word to describe a sword battle between a ninja and a samurai would be "dead ninja". Their modern equivalent is probably a sniper. Patient, willing to starve, freeze, burn and suck it up for one shot to take a target down. If caught by conventional forces he's toast.
+Decay Well, Kenjutsu was very much a thing, that is just the Japanese word for swordsmanship. Whether or not ninjutsu was a thing or not is another matter, but Kenjutsu is obviously real, they had swords so of course they had swordsmanship. He never mentioned ninjatos, he could have been training with uchigatanas or wakizatshis. Also, this whole "ninjas are super mega shadow warriors" thing was started by the Japanese, not mall ninjas, and ninjatos were invented by movies, because curved sword props are more expensive than straight sword props. He is still probably a huge weeb, though, why would you train in a kimono? The idea of training in a kimono is because that was the every day wear during feudal Japan, and ninjas were spies so they had to blend in, but kimonos are not the every day wear today, so if you really wanted to follow the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law you would train in jeans and a t-shirt.
yeah, the thing is that in a military force you had to take the trainings more seriously, what I mean is that the medieval soldiers probably were training with steel swords all the time, and with light armor. I don't think they trained with a cape and a wooden stick (the equivalent of Ninjutsu's training with katana). After all, shinobis did not wear katanas, as some of above said, they had some farming tools to take care of assasinations. Overall we can say shinobis weren't real soldiers. So we can guess medieval european soldiers practiced a similar training to that of samurais, exercicing the body, practicing cuts, and then sparring with partners. Anyway who know if they really weared steel in the sparring sessions... I guess not.
Arnau De Castro Sistach I imagine soldiers trained in whatever armor they intend to go to battle in, in order get the most accurate simulation, also for conditioning.
It might be useful to look at training techniques used more recently in other parts of the world. There are records of stick training in Iran. The techniques used in Gatka and Sanatan Shastar Vidiya might also be useful as these are extant schools which have continuous traditions. Wrestling and stick fighting tend to be used (with minimal safety rules), alternating with half speed sparring with actual weapons (Sanatan Shastar Vidiya guys I've met don't wear safety equipment - although clothing provides some padding). It'd be interesting to talk to them more and find out what stages are used.
Then I have two questions. 1. Why do most choose the unarmored style? Isn't it a lot more fun to fight like a warrior in armour? 2. I have seen a lot of HEMA practicioners fight in teams against each other with swords and spears and shield etc, like small battles, but still unarmoured. Why do they do that then? That seems like a very unlikely scenario for civilians running around with spears and shields and fighting each other in groups on the streets, doesn't it?
+James Sarvan There is armoured fighting, but it's quite difficult to do it since armour is expensive and you can't really do it with any other weapon than the longsword because you can't fight full contact with a warhammer. (although i did see some spear fencing but they held back in force) Groupfighting isn't striclty speaking HEMA because the sources usually don't describe them, they are more done just for fun. Also spear and shield is typically early period were armour was limited to gambeson and mail. Fighting against gambeson and mail isn't all that different to fighting unarmoured.
+James Sarvan also i find it more fun to be able to strike at opponents with a sword instead of half-swording (what you would do with a sword against armour)
+James Sarvan Beside the high costs for plate armour, which was already mentioned, there is also the savety-aspect to consider. It might sound paradox, but armored combat would be much more dangerous, due to completely different techniques. Techniques like halfswording, murder-strokes or similar, which are strictly forbidden in HEMA-contests, by the way, because they are specifically designed to kill opponents in armour. Imagine e.g. two guys, made heavier and clumsier by 30 kilogram of steel, both moving and one of them manages to get the tip of his sword into the visor of his partner. Would you be sure to stop early enough, so that your partner keeps both his eyes? As to the question of more fun... why should it be more fun? With armour you might be able to hit your sparring-partner full force, but why? That would be bashing without purpose. But what makes HEMA so interesting is that it combines elegance of movements (at least it should ;-)) with quick wits and strategy. There are so many varieties to attack, to feint, to parry, to counterattack... It's like dancing and playing chess at the same time.
Very true, I should have emphasised on that. On the subject of bashing in full force, it's not like fencing but if you want to replicate "fighting" i believe you need to attack with full force. Seeing how gambeson protects you so well from cuts... So in that case a system like in the SCA is quite good, where you fight as if unarmoured but in armour and where grappling is forbidden (And I believe thrusts too but I'm not sure) thus minimising the danger of armour. Although these restrictions reduce the realism.
Gloin79 I have to admit, I actually had to look up the term SCA ;-) Now I watched a few videos and it looks like fun. But I think you are right. You have restrictions that reduce the risk, but also reduce the realism. In terms of realism I think HEMA might be closer. Since it simulated unarmored combat, striking full force would be unnecessarry and even a disadvantage in a fight. Which would be more fun... I don't know. It's probably a question of personal preference and - as you pointed out before - financial commitment.
As a German, I like your German ;D (you haven't nailed the "ch" yet but I know that that's sometimes hard for non-native speakers)... not to say that my English is great
Poleaxes and halberds seem terrifying going by some accounts of combat. Guys knocking out or stunning someone in full armor with a single blow to the head, helms bending inward so far they cause head injury or even death and that top spike going through visors or taking off shoulder protection.
Maybe they were bit more careful but my guess is that they were also willing and used to take occasional hit in a head - you know, let the lesson sink in better : )
And also, as someone who practices armored fighting, steel armor requires quite a bit of work in order to keep it clean and not rusty, so having modern protection saves them quite a lot of chores
There is art of people in armour practising fencing. I believe if you were rich, you used armour. The people who did Liechtentenaur wore some specific protective armour, like mittens and helmets. A medieval example is a painting of two knights fighting each other while dual weilding Messers.
Well, in FMA, we don't usually wear any protective gear in training most of the time. We just watch what we're doing. Competitive settings are somewhat different, and sensible people will wear at least a padded jacket, padded gloves and a fencing mask. Plus, rattan sticks are a bit lighter than wood, and we avoid doing full-contact with long staffs (against a good stab with a staff, a padded jacket won't help you - there is waaay too much momentum behind that point). But not everyone is in fact sensible, and there are quite a few tournaments where nobody wears any armor at all (resulting in the expected number of injuries at the end, but obviously not enough to keep people from doing it). So that's probably how it also was in ye olden days.
Matt, all your points make perfect sense to me, but I still wonder if there might be two minor points of partial exception, namely that of throat protection, and in the area of head protection, certain helmets like the perforated masks no longer made by That Guy's Products? It's true that these are still heavier than the sport equivalent products, and do restrict movement and sight more, but couldn't one argue that these products might by advisable, at least for very high intensity sparring, say at a tournament?
I get that the intent is to practice unarmored fencing, what is missing here is why there isn't a separate class of armored fencing in addition to the predominant unarmored style. It would be cool to see.
+CottonPanzer Yeah. HMB (Historical Medieval Battle) and IMCF (international Medieval Combat Federation). Pretty similar formats, but bit of political differences and HMB tends to bit bit more brutal.
+Martin Murd Not a good comparison to HEMA at all I'm afraid - they specifically only use attacks that are safe for the armour they are using. They do not use armoured fighting techniques as shown in the historical treatises.
+SubjectHazard It's pretty damn hard to recreate battlefield fighting without injuring anyone, because the whole point was to kill your opponent at almost any cost. Eye gouging, hits to the nuts, cheap shots, ganging up on people, just pushing a fucker down and kicking them in the head until they die. All those are things you would do on a battlefield, because it's a matter of life or death, but you can't have those in a recreation.
Sort of like my dad used to say "You know the easiest way to dodge a punch? Don't be there when it comes". So I guess medieval fencing protection was just "Get better so you don't get hit"
This guy looks exactly like my brother and it freaks me out. Uncanny valley. I keep thinking my brother lives a double secretive life I don't know about.
Let's see now, my sparring gear was over $1000, not including my fender, the full plate is twice that price, maybe more. I can put on my complete set of sparring gear in about 5 min, full plate with help takes about 30 min. Full plate rusts, so it must be cared for, with the expected of a trip to the dry cleaners every four months; my sparing gear doesn't need upkeep. Visibility with is much greater with my sparing gear than full-plate.
I was trying to figure out what you were saying at 0:23... And then it occurred to me, that that was "Bloßfechten", am I right? I love hearing German loanwords in English. Sounds awesome.
I know it is a bit later than medieval, but do you know anything about John Parkes, the Coventry gladiator, who was apparantly a professional swordsman of the 18th century? I remember seeing a performance once, in the ruins of Coventry's first cathedral where some guy was pretending to be Parkes and fighting with a rapier.
I kind of wonder, based I guess on some saber manuals I've been reading, if maybe people used to just do a lot of drills. It'd build muscle memory and you could go full-speed, but since you knew what was coming it would be much easier to defend safely. And then maybe when actually sparring, they'd just slow it down, like people do today when they want to fight with minimal gear.
1:17 Please talk about the middle ground. I was re-watching season 1 game of thrones yesterday and thought about Sir Jorah Mormont's Armour.. head exposed because its TV obviously head protection is No.1 But It actually kind of makes sense in a civillian context where you might expect armed conflict.. like When the Witch is Killing Drogo and going ceremony and the DothRaki start to lose their shit with the Khaeelisi
I can imagine hitting a person in mail on a bony area, like the collarbone, hip, or what have you, with a decent blow would break the links and at the very least hurt like hell. Against a more naturally cushioned area though, that'd probably prevent the blade from busting through the armor.
my friend and I use pieced together armor to spar, we don't do HEMA since there's no school anywhere close to us (but would if there were) We have articulated steel guantlets, helmets with facial protection and good vision, and I have Lorcia Segmentata, while he uses a leather version. We practice both half-swording and regular sparring. We justify doing regular sparring because 1) it's only minimal armor - necks, upper arms, groin and legs are exposed and 2) so that way we can hit HARD with follow-throughs, and use sharp weapons, staffs etc with minimal chance of injury. It's not perfect, and not the ideal set-up, but we're both cash-strapped college students, so we don't exactly have a lot of options lol.
Have you tried looking up the SCA? It's not exactly HEMA, but if you like this kind of thing you could find a lot to like there, and a lot of HEMA does translate. And the SCA is much, much bigger than the HEMA community.
You can train reasonably with sticks striking, but stabbing will still be too dangerous to do it at realistic speed and commitment. I've seen it with shinai, but also as a kid when we were fencing with self-made plastic swords (similar to lego). I managed to cut through a silver necklace and cause nasty scratch on the neck with a thrust.
Probably they would practice much more the forms (like in Marozzo) in pre-arranged sequences that could be performed in solo or with a partner. Other way could be to use more often "slower-motion" controlled sparring instead of the common full-contact of today. Using sticks (aka soft wooden swords) also seems a reassuring way to keep your physical integrity!
We don't regularly use armour even in bohurt training, even if it tries to simulate armoured combat. The reason being that armour is heavy to lug around and people are lazy, and also because steel weapons brake gear and people more easily. Instead we practise with soft weapons and MMA protective gear for techniques training. We only use armour like once a month.
unarmored is also one of the most common "one on one" fighting. although you ware that black gambeson like jacket, I would say thats an element of medieval armor (or the like)
A lot of the sparring I used to do with my friends was unarmored, no helmet, sometimes gloves or steel gauntlet, with bokutou or wooden swords, or wooden/rattan padded and taped. I've taken a few decent blows to the head and luckily my friends aren't complete idiots, or we'd all have probably had concussions or something worse. A blow on the knuckles is probably the most frequent of injuries.
I suppose it's mostly about weight. Because fencing and HEMA protecting gear can be quite cumbersome sometimes, as it is actually derived from historical designs, but with less metal.
The critique of restrictiveness of medieval armor is overstressed, I think. Folks in the SCA, HMB, etc, select historical designs that do not restrict movement that much, or at all. I have found a few combinations of cuirass, gorget, arm harness, and pauldrons that do not restrict my movement at all (except for the weight, which is another issue). If "most" of it as restrictive, then simply select what is not restrictive.
I thought it was pretty humorous that in a scene in game of thrones during some longsword sparring they wore a thin sheet of leather formed into a vest that only covered the chest and stomach to protect themselves.
I guess my friends and I are insane, we practice longsword without protective gear (we generally pull the punch, so to speak once we've passed the other's guard).
We use mitten gauntlets made of plastic and they are very restrictive so I would say you’re fairly incorrect. We are still making the same safety/mobility sacrifices to be able to spar we just don’t have a need for much steel though I see steel gauntlets used often
My follow-up question to this is which style practices armoured fencing? Also, are - say - Fiore's sword positions based off unarmoured and, therefore, potentially useless against armour?
I think there is a abuse of language to call unarmored fencing akin to "duelling context". Many duels of the XVth and early XVIth centuries were done in full armor, or with specific bits of protection (for the face for instance). Even in the late XVIth, early XVIIth century, some rapier duels could be done with a piece of torso armor. Anyway, ranting about expressions and language... It's funny to see that the japanese weapon arts of the XV-XVIth centuries were also full of questions and partial solutions in order to practice safely. Some schools changed their drills and kata instead of the equipment, wearing no protection and using bokken at pretty much fighting speed (Katori), some used padding for the bokken to be able to spar with it with padded helmet (Maniwa Nen-ryu), some invented shinai-like training tools (Shinkage-ryu), but it seems no methods really proved itself entirely successful and decisive. And of course, everybody was arguing about how there methods were the best... When you simulate armed fighting, protection is of course a key question, but just as in many other subject, it's always a matter of which compromise you are ready to make.
I guess that when I do round up enough money to pick up the sport, I will gimp my self with armor because of a genuine as possible experience (with out dyeing of course)
i think they would've used pells and training dummies a bit, especially with maces and axes were you cant actually hit anyone safely even with armor or padding
Your explanation here reminded me of that Unified Weapons Master body armour project. I'm curious to know what you think of it. Do you think it could be an informative project and worthwhile form of combat entertainment? Or do you think it'll become, similar to how you view modern fencing, another form of glorified electronic tag?
I wonder if that means most hardcore modern HEMA fencers are generally better than people back then. Or at least have the means to be better. I would assume most people of warrior classes took their skills very seriously seeing as it was life or death for them.
Matt, tell us sometime your opinion of Metrome's statement about half swording being foolish if you are unarmoured. He said that if your opponent is armoured you just give up reach, and if he is unarmoured its not really needed. He sounded like he was making some good points. Thank-you, Dante.
I heard that medieval armor was really made for the wearer in many cases. With this in mind any armor that might be worn by a reenactor would need to conform to whoever is wearing it. With this in mind real armor might be too expensive for most reenactors to own. At least that's my opinion.
I would hypothesize that perhaps some practice was done in full harness against an opponent in full harness however the blows were counted as if you and your opponent were not wearing armor. This would be a very safe way to practice facing unarmored opponents or lightly armored ones and when your ready to practice facing a fellow knight in combat you simply change the rule set. On the field of battle your far more likely to face lightly armored opponents as they usually outnumbered those in full plate. So this form of training (fully armored however treating your opponent as if they weren't) could have some martial credence.
+bluetea1400 Everything you say makes sense, but there's just no evidence of that as a practice for unarmed fencing. In contrary, we know that they practiced and competed in clothes, without armour.
+scholagladiatoria Do we have any examples of tournament rules were fully armored combatants were striking at each other as opposed to using grappling and other anti armor techniques? I know it's a step away from sparing but often you practice how you intend to compete.
+bluetea1400 granted, I rarely practice in full harness. Most of the time we use practice weapons, no armor other then a padded jacket and a fencing mask and save the armor for tournament.
Hey Matt. I'm curious to know what sword it is you've got hanging third from the bottom (or top) on the wall behind you. The one right under the sword with the brown scabbard. Best regards
Also, modern reproduction armour is expensive. Cheap alternatives exist, but that doesn't teach you anything about fighting in a plate harness. And then there's the problem of feeling too safe because you don't really feel much when you get hit, you do stupid things like lead with your face, expose your hands in guard, or just plain fail to control your opponent's weapon.
Haven't watched the video yet, but my answer: Because it's fairly heavy (I don't know how much a full set of sparring padding weighs, but I'm guessing less than 70lbs), very loud when hit, and really expensive to repair if damaged?
HEMA heavy sparring kit: 2-300 dollars for a decent starter set, 4-500 for a really quality set Cheap suit of medieval armor: 1000 bucks just for the cheap costume grade set... Ok maybe you could spend less like 500ish but at that point you're getting less quality of protection than you do from a cheap starter set of HEMA gear XD
"We don't wear armor because we're simulating unarmored combat." Isn't this just begging the question? Given that it's covered in the treatises, why don't many people engaged in HEMA simulate armored combat? As for safety in practice, I'd imagine medieval (or any time before the 20th century) notions of safety weren't quite as strict as ours - within limits, of course, since you wouldn't have a modern trauma center to patch you up. But looking at other areas of life, you don't see ancient or medieval construction workers or horseback riders (outside a martial context) depicted as wearing helmets or hardhats, they probably just figured the risk of the occasional cracked skull was the price you paid for pursuing that occupation. And we know that tournaments were more dangerous than is generally permitted in modern sports.
+Jack Risio That's a double edged thing. Advanced medicine helps save people who would have died at that time. Those are usually people with not properly working bodies or otherwise weaklings. Also a lot of the heavy work has been diminished with the advancement of technology so many people are not as naturally fit as they would have been back then. I would say that the average human alive today has worse physical conditioning and strength than the average human from a couple hundred years ago. On the other hand the fittest people today are probably fitter than the top ones were at that time, as you pointed out, due to technology and science.
I assume that in the dark ages they used dummies before they were allowed to spar with others and for the rest I assume the average folk didn't really have head protection, they would just be more careful. Afterall, when you think about it most low grade helmets simply minimized the chances of head injury while not fully protecting against it. So in the same way that you won't do some dangerous moves in HEMA, they probably didn't practice head strikes when sparring.
Do you think people now, with full contact practicing, would be better skilled with the swords than those with limitations, no full speed / full contact, if that’s indeed how they practiced back in the day?
+berker4321 That bit about swords is actually a myth, especially during the late middle ages. In most nations, a man was required to be armed, and most men had swords. If you're going to fight with it, it'll be at least of decent quality.
An agincourt Era longbow man could actually afford to buy three old swords a day from his 'salary'. That is if he wanted to and didn't have anything else to spend the money on, like food for example. Matt actually has a video on it. Just use the channel search. It's something like the price of swords in the middleages or something.
+berker4321 Depends when and where. In the late middle ages old swords were in abundance and in some places the city provided all the equipment. I guess as an archer you can go to battle with a dagger or a club and pick up a sword any time from a fallen enemy. Proper bows and even more so fitted armor is a different story.
I recently had a HEMA friend explain to me that he focuses on Control with his students and this has reduced the number of injuries in training. So maybe Medieval swordsmen were simply more skilled then we are now and so didn't harm one another as much?
Why in the medieval days would they not just wear gambeson instead of their cloaks to make the practice safer; sticks can break bones. Could they not afford it?
Hello Matt, one thing I have always been curious about but have not managed to find too much information on is the thickness/gauge of steel that would be required to stop a piercing attack from a longsword. Would you happen to know an answer to this? Or maybe just a source that talks about this sort of topic.
Here's a thought: if HEMA sparring is supposed to simulate unarmored fighting, should people do their sparring while wearing something that simulates having a scabbard on the belt? In an unarmored context, you are most likely going to have your sword worn on the belt in a scabbard. I haven't seen many HEMA schools practice while wearing a sword on the belt, but if we want to get the "full experience" of an unarmored context should it be standard practice to wear a scabbard simulator during sparring?
+JZBai I think in a duel they'd remove the scabbards before fighting. And a lot of scabbards that I saw from the reinassance are hold to the belt with just a hook, so i guess they threw them away in a defence situation; also the scabbrds, being made of leather, were not much getting in the way. Anyway it would be an interesting experiment to do ...
"...and there's a very very simple answer.." 7 and a half minutes to go.
+Prosecna Srbenda well it is a simple answer......he is merely ponting out that it could have been said just as well in 2 minutes as in 8
+Battam My favorite was the Catching Fire video where right in the beginning he said "I know I'm being a bit of a pedant, I know I'm being a bit of a geek..." but kept talking for several minutes.
CarnalKid Yeah, I like it when he loses himself in the topic, its more interesting to watch than when he has it planned.
Not to mention that plate armor is ridiculously expensive.
Not as expensive as you think. Cheaper than golf or auto racing. Starts at about 1000 US.
Mage Yeah That's a lot of money to drop on something that won't make you money.
...but not out of the realm of other sports. The real problem is that the most serious sport hema groups don't use it.
Mage Yeah Mmmm. I guess it's partly who's talking about it. While 1000 dollars is a lot of money to me, it might not be that much to someone else.
+Decay I take it you're not a fan of the sca?
And that you define functional as nigh perfect top of the line?
That's not what the rest of us mean by functional.
TIL: Bashing someone in the head with a poleaxe is a good thing to do. ~ Matt
"How did they compete safely? I found some hints in coroner reports"
heh :)
+Jim Riven
Well, at least we know how they competed "unsafely"... it's something.
"How not to do this thing" is in fact very valuable info.
I find it both interesting and infuriating how hard it is to emulate medieval warfare without actually killing anyone. Like, longsword is hard enough to practice without injuries, things like polearms or axes are nearly impossible to do safely with weapons that feel like the real thing.
It's hard to emulate... *warfare* without killing anyone. Even modern warfare which is less reliant on close quarters combat (though it's still a vital component) and uses technology and skill from range, is still very difficult to emulate well. Realistically emulating the practice of jamming sharpened steel into each other or bashing each other in the head with murderous force...without actually hurting anyone, is never going to be a fully realized quest.
I think perhaps the closest thing would probably be HEMA unarmored sparring + training in armored combat according to historical techniques + entering something like Battle of the Nations. Each would help with a slice of the pie, then you'd still have to put them together in your mind. They all have massive gaps, but put together, they can help build a bigger picture. Training in historical armored combat gets the fundamental knowledge and skills, but lacks practical practice and experience because the kind of fighting you have to do in full armor is impossible to fake without seriously damaging somebody. HEMA unarmored combat teaches fighting at speed against an opponent and the application of martial techniques against a real apponent with speed and force, but it doesn't cover the realities of armored combat or of real combat at all so much as a civilian dueling situation. And BotN is heavy on the concussive, loud, violence of actual armored battle and the practical experience of fighting and moving in an evolving situation in armor that you aren't going to get in HEMA, but the actual technical skill level and range of techniques is low and not historically representative due to the nature of the beast demanding a focus on blunt force over things like grappling, sharp piercing weapons, and murderous head strikes. Maybe if you take the positive lessons of each to cover the gaps in the others, you might get as close as humanly possible to the experience of medieval combat. Just a guess on my part.
But who's going to do all that? Each one is a discipline and time/resource hogging hobby on its own. Maybe someone rich enough to act like a real medieval knight who could focus on such things as his full-time occupation. Basically, you'd have to *be* the modern equivalent of medieval nobility to actually exlerience what it was like to fight like a medieval person.
I love to hear more about that middle ground between unarmored fighting and full plate harness fighting.
I would say that the SCA is pretty close. The minimum armor standards are pretty much a helm, gorget, knee cops, elbow cops, kidney belt, and a cup, and you are good to go. Use rattan sticks with padded tips (if you want to thrust) agree that a certain level of force is required to kill (and then decide if you want to be nice enough not to hit any harder than that), agree not to punch, kick, or grapple, and you pretty much have it right there :)
New York Knights Combat I meant more about actual historical fighting in armor less than full harness.
@@NewYorkKnightsCombat1 ,
The "not grappling" is my biggest problem. That area is a hugely important and hugely under-represented aspect of armored fighting. As Matt alluded to, in armored combat, the sword basically becomes a sharp, pointy, grappling lever. Everything in the actual historical techniques of armored combat with swords came down to getting the armored oponent on the ground in an advantageous position for you to jam your blade between his protection. Take grappling out of the equation, and can you really consider it even remotely analgous to historical combat?
@@jameswoodard4304 Those organizations and competitions that do not allow grappling usually have three reasons for it (with varying degrees of the focus on each reason) 1. Safety 2. There are trying to simulate a tournament in which grappling was not allowed (such things existed in history). 3. They want to focus on weapon skills.
It is sort of like how different combat sports focus on some things and don't allow others, like kicking, grappling, knees, elbows, etc. By taking all that stuff out of boxing, can you really consider it at all like a real unarmed fight?
Has anyone considered the possibilty that unless you were a nobleman, you didn't wear protection in fencing/swordsmanship practice? One way of a master ensuring that his students learned to defend themselves and used his teachings correctly and swiftly, is to let them know that if they don't, they are going to end up with at the very least, a lot of bruising. Even if blows are pulled so they don't hit with full force, it's going to hurt if you are on the receiving end and don't protect yourself properly.
+J Corbett I think that pulling blows was almost certainly done in most historical practice, though any contact at all with a bare head or face is dangerous - a medium blow to the head can permanently injure someone's brain and the face is very fragile - it doesn't take much at all to pop an eye ball.
+scholagladiatoria
While I can sort of imagine training for spear and sword, and other similar weapons in medieval times... I always wondered, how did they practice with larger and heavier weapons, like maces, morning stars, warhammers, axes and such?
Certainly pulling blows is still important, but the sheer mass would still be very dangerous. And if they used lighter, wooden placeholders, wouldn't that screw with the training, since the weight and feel would be all wrong?
+Sólyom Csaba You don`t have to have opponent to train with a mace or axe. Its not fancing just swinging.
kiba BG
I seriously doubt that to be that easy... even if learning the handling of the weapon alone can be done against a dummy, the same can be done with any weapon. Yet people past and present still use live, "coop" training, because combat/competition/whatever isn't just the use of the pointy/sticky/bashy thing you hold in your hand(s).
+Sólyom Csaba I don't think warhammers, axes and maces where heavier weapons than swords, but their focus on percussive damage does indead make them more dangerous for training than blunt swords.
It would be interesting to get an overview of the history and development of protective fencing equipment for the periods that are well known, such as the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries
i'd add a 4. point thought thats not a main reason but: Money. Full plate armor cant be from the shelf it has to be crafted for you to fit you well.
And that will cost quite a lot, for a complete plate armor that is actually able to withstand some blows (not the decorative 1mm thick stuff) you will have to pay about 2000 Euros or more - and of course another roughly 400 for a decent practise sword. And a lot of people simply cant afford that much - or dont want to bother with keeping the armor intact which also can be quite time consuming not to mention that youn really should work out and build up your budy BEFORE purchasing plate armor - if you grow muscles later on or loose a lot of weight the armor may not fit anymore and you may end up needing another one.
Armored fighting isnt something for starters, as it includes a lot of grappling and wrestling and really feels and looks entirely different from what people usually have in mind when they think about sword fighting.
Not to mention the risk of injury can be quite high - yes full plate armor protects you like hell and its difficult to damage someone in it BUT that is also the problem. You will likely hit harder because of it or dont bother much with defense and boom - get hit in a lightly or unarmored part of the armor and this can be quite a problem, a guard smashed into your armpits can hurt a lot and may even break something.
Also when wrestling a armlock or something alike can also break something.
And if you are crazy like some clubs and do full contact fights in plate armor with wepaons other than longsword injuries are bound to happen and its a miracle that so far no one got killed though i know a club in Hamburg, germany, where their full contact full plate armor fights with axes regularely end in the hospital with some broken bones and nasty cuts. Its jut not something a lot of people would like to do. And as much as i love poleaxe fighting, i wouldnt be so crazy to do full contact fights with them
which club in harmbug why not state the name?
I would suggest, they trained with less force and speed, and with padded hads. In german Academic Fencing they still occasionally use padded or hardend leather-caps called "Muckhaube" or "Mensurprobehaube". Under it you're mostly safe of injuries but will still feel the pain.
A thought for how sparring might have been done. I think that it was likely they practiced with much less protective gear in general and kept safe by the fact that neither practitioner wanted to be hurt. I come to this conclusion because my friend and I have stared sparring with nylon swords with no protective gear at all, yet we have yet to incur a serious injury (just some bruised fingers at first). Don't get me wrong, the weapons still hurt like a bitch when you're hit, but because the threat of injury is there we both are more careful to not get hit. This results in fewer double hits, few hits in general, and both parties pulling blows to the head right before they would have hit out of concern of injuring his partner.
Now all bets are off when it comes to competition where your opponent doesn't care about you, but I think for general practice it was likely they just wore some gloves and were more careful.
You should get some protective gear, if you fail to pull a blow to the head which can happen even a fairly light blow can cause permanent brain damage its also likely that fingers can be broken in strikes to the hand or worse. Don't spar without the proper protective gear for the safety of both you and your friend its very dangerous.
Thanks, I do appreciate your concern and agree that it is too dangerous to suggest that others train without protective gear. However, I've been training for a decade in traditional Chinese unarmed martial arts where we do much the same, albeit without weapons (still dangerous though. I've had broken ribs and others training have dislocated fingers, suffered concussions, etc). While I am new to practicing with weapons, I feel that my prior experience, along with lots of solo practice, has given me enough awareness to avoid losing control of my body and weapon (You'd be right to point out that my training partner poses more of a risk, though, as he is almost entirely untrained).
The reason I bother to explain my position is that the present danger of real injury changes the dynamics of sparring, and while it is too dangerous for beginners or competition, can be a useful tool to refine the technique of both participants. When a double hit means you will suffer a painful strike, you are more likely to utilize the more complex guards and disarms than to just swing faster. This results cleaner technique from both fighters.
Again, you are correct that this is dangerous, and I don't think it is wise most people to train that way.
+Marquese Liddle
The reason most HEMA practitioners are unwilling to spar without safety gear is simple: no matter how much control you have, with thousands of people doing this worldwide, it is inevitable someone will get hurt. With things that can poke out eyes, this is particularly important. It simply isn't worth losing an eye or the ability to use your hands for a hobby. Accidents happen, nobody is perfect or immune.
There are plenty of precedents for this kind of thing happening too. Most re-enactment groups I've seen have fairly strict (if sometimes strange) safety rules, especially with lots of them wearing open faced helmets. Despite this, it's not hard to find accounts of experienced re-enactors getting their faces split open by stray blows. I've personally witnessed somebody running face-first onto a spear that had its butt embedded in the ground just due to simple bad luck. He was very lucky that the spear broke before his face did, but he still needed to be taken off the field by paramedics. Somebody in Germany died when a synthetic waster entered the eye-slit of his helmet.
You are welcome to continue training however you wish, but consider what you're risking.
The answer can be given in 10 seconds:
to heavy to carry around several times a week to different training locations
to much work to keep it in a good condition: oiling, outdenting, change the leather straps, etc.
to dangerous for my trainingsparter
to expensive for most of the people
answers given, took my less than a minute to type and would have taken me 10 seconds to say...
"There was a middle ground..." Are you planning on making a video on munition plate armour? There's not a lot of easily available information on it, aside from "It was cheap", and "It was mass produced plate".
Were historical wasters hardwood like many are today, or were they more flexible, like a kendo shinai?
+Noah Weisbrod We don't know.
+scholagladiatoria Probably light ash and willow sticks.
*****
Typically. Either a full mail shirt with padding underneath or a padded garment with patches of mail where the gaps in the plates would be.
***** linen is frustratingly hard to cut or stab through.
ZarlanTheGreen flexible is the wrong word. I mean that certain spring to them that greatly softens any impact.
I'd say they'd probably use what we equate to semi-contact as opposed to full-contact. That's what we do in jitsu and then to practice cutting something well, probably test cutting
this was a very good commentary that puts goo d insight on the subject. However, I must take exception with you on one point: A well-constructed set of pauldrons may not necessarily restrict your arm movement.
This may depend, of course, on what style and period of armor you are using, but in my 28 years in the SCA and 4 years in the Armored Combat League/HMB/IMCF, I have always made sure that the structural and ergonomic relationship between my pauldrons, cuirass, gorget, and helm all allowed me to raise my arm exactly as you describe here.
I have seen many new people walk on to the field with what I call "shoulder overkill." this often comes from familiarity with American football or Road Warrior movies. Then they realize they can't do certain shots that would make winning a fight a lot easier. Then we fix their armor.
Please talk about the movie "Alatriste". I would like to hear your opinion about it in general and obviously the fighting.
They didn't wear protective gear during practice because PAIN was part of the lesson!
Atleast that's what I'd like to believe.
With a name like your's I am not surprised at all about that!
MegaRaven, your name is spelt wrong!
(Revan is your profile pic)
Happy New Year Matt.
Regarding all the comments that plate is expensive, there's also munitions plate which is a "one size fits as many builds as possible" solution. It's still obviously more expensive than modern gear but the point is that not all plate armor is tailor fit for the wearer.
Why not wear armour? Because even the best armour cannot defend against a well thrown pommel!
Just dodge.
Nick Dzink I got that reference
Is a little worring when you wear just a gambeson and your sparring partner have a... wooden spear?
+CopernicoTube
Padded ends perhaps?
+Josiah Mann Still worring... If the tip of spear solid hit my mask or even my chest, I am probably out, even if is padded.
What I've used for spear fighting is simply poly pipe with a bit of pool noodle stuck on the end. Cheap and reasonably padded and I really don't mind doing unarmoured fighting with them as long as they're not thrown or intentionally stabbed at the face. Doing the same thing for swords and daggers works for fun lighthearted fights too.
+Josiah Mann My worry is about the spear, specifically. Because is not really the hit, but the thrust (I don't know if I am expressing myself correctly, if doesn't, please forgive my bad english).
If the tip find my chest, there is all this force pushing me back, even with a soft point. And a spear lunge can generate a lot of power...
+CopernicoTube Yes, that is a huge concern because a spear with no point is still a dangerous weapon. I think it is as Matt says, during training they were very very careful not to kill the other guy.
In hungary and in eastern Europe we sometimes tend to do "half-armored" fencing, so rules are the same as in Hema except no face thrusts, and we wear helmet, gambeson, gauntlets, maybe jack chains or elbow/knee protection things of that nature and go on with feders or blunt longswords. it's good fun :)
The romans used wooden swords filled with lead, so I would guess they used wooden swords or blunted/padded metal swords, and probably practiced against dummies until they were competent enough to practice against other people without hitting them where they would be injured.
I can answer rather quickly. It's expensive, and by far the most commonly practiced HEMA schools use manuscripts based on unarmored combat
I think armoured sword fighting would actually get quiet boring rather quickly. I'm happy with the unarmoured HEMA sparring we do.
I bet they just wrapped cloth around their wasters/feders to make them like boffers during contact sparring. Like you said, they did it to the tips of flexible rapiers, so I think it follows they'd do it to the whole of a weapon meant to strike. Well that's just what I think they did. It would be neat if someone tested it by fencing with cloth-wrapped feders.
really good point, I often asked myself why hema is about unarmoured fencing.
but I think you make the disadvanteges sound bigger than they are. for example you still have a relatively good view through a helmet
+Das Moep You really don't. I own both bascinets and sallets and the vision is terrible compared to a fencing mask or no head protection. You lose both vertical and horizontal fields of vision.
+scholagladiatoria yes, I understood that you meant "compared to fencing masks" - that's out of discussion.
All I wanted to say is that it sounds like one's nearly blind when he's wearung a helmet. I know that you didn't mean it that way ;-)
+Das Moep In battle they would lift the visor when about to engage in melee. That's for vision, because that faceplate is mostly about arrows, and not meant to be really fought in. Earlier helmets which don't have visors have better visibility are often more open around the eyes. We can't remove visors for safety reasons, and our eyes are probably the most vulnerable and precious things, so just leaving that open isn't really an option.
Vision through a pig face bascinet is terrible. Not terrible compared to fencing masks, terrible compared to anything.
+Ashes42g I have looked up some pigface bascinet helmets and they seem to have as much space around the eyes as some crusader helmets without visor. I made some experiences with crusader helmets, you need to get used to it but you can stand your ground. I don't know if it's enough for having an overview of your situation in battle, but on the other side I wouldn't lift my visor while I'm standing in the first row.
And I guess the faceplate is for general face protection, not "mostly for arrows". It's really common that somebody is stabbing towards your face.
When I did ninjutsu, we trained a lot with wooden sticks, with no protection apart from a kimono, and none of us have ever been seriously injuried. We couldn't afford protection anyways, so we had to set for what we had; even if it meant occasional headaches, bruises e a little blood. I think medieval people did the same.
We also trained with steel swords a couple of times, but never with full force.
Every now and then, me and a friend will practice some taijutsu/kenjutsu as part of our ninjutsu training. We don't use padding, but we also don't use wooden bokken. It doesn't injure when controlled, but polypropylene can be very heavy.
+Thiago Monteiro When I first went to Japan I had the idea that Ninja's were some kind of elite fighting force. Having been there and read things about them....I came to realize diffrently. Samurai ruling class were very big on weapon control (still very big in Japan. Civilian owned weapons are scare). Ninja's didn't run around with swords strapped all over them, in fact not many even had a sword unless it was stolen from a dead samurai. Most of their weapons like the Kusarigama were converted farm tools...and ninja's were...peasant farmers....they used the same tools they farmed with and conducted night attacks against oppressive masters. Nothing like hiding your weapons in plain sight. The real "ninjutsu" training dealt mostly with their stalking, patience and physical endurance to carry out assassinations. The best word to describe a sword battle between a ninja and a samurai would be "dead ninja". Their modern equivalent is probably a sniper. Patient, willing to starve, freeze, burn and suck it up for one shot to take a target down. If caught by conventional forces he's toast.
+Decay Well, Kenjutsu was very much a thing, that is just the Japanese word for swordsmanship. Whether or not ninjutsu was a thing or not is another matter, but Kenjutsu is obviously real, they had swords so of course they had swordsmanship. He never mentioned ninjatos, he could have been training with uchigatanas or wakizatshis. Also, this whole "ninjas are super mega shadow warriors" thing was started by the Japanese, not mall ninjas, and ninjatos were invented by movies, because curved sword props are more expensive than straight sword props. He is still probably a huge weeb, though, why would you train in a kimono? The idea of training in a kimono is because that was the every day wear during feudal Japan, and ninjas were spies so they had to blend in, but kimonos are not the every day wear today, so if you really wanted to follow the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law you would train in jeans and a t-shirt.
yeah, the thing is that in a military force you had to take the trainings more seriously, what I mean is that the medieval soldiers probably were training with steel swords all the time, and with light armor.
I don't think they trained with a cape and a wooden stick (the equivalent of Ninjutsu's training with katana).
After all, shinobis did not wear katanas, as some of above said, they had some farming tools to take care of assasinations.
Overall we can say shinobis weren't real soldiers. So we can guess medieval european soldiers practiced a similar training to that of samurais, exercicing the body, practicing cuts, and then sparring with partners.
Anyway who know if they really weared steel in the sparring sessions... I guess not.
Arnau De Castro Sistach I imagine soldiers trained in whatever armor they intend to go to battle in, in order get the most accurate simulation, also for conditioning.
It might be useful to look at training techniques used more recently in other parts of the world. There are records of stick training in Iran. The techniques used in Gatka and Sanatan Shastar Vidiya might also be useful as these are extant schools which have continuous traditions. Wrestling and stick fighting tend to be used (with minimal safety rules), alternating with half speed sparring with actual weapons (Sanatan Shastar Vidiya guys I've met don't wear safety equipment - although clothing provides some padding). It'd be interesting to talk to them more and find out what stages are used.
Then I have two questions.
1. Why do most choose the unarmored style? Isn't it a lot more fun to fight like a warrior in armour?
2. I have seen a lot of HEMA practicioners fight in teams against each other with swords and spears and shield etc, like small battles, but still unarmoured. Why do they do that then? That seems like a very unlikely scenario for civilians running around with spears and shields and fighting each other in groups on the streets, doesn't it?
+James Sarvan There is armoured fighting, but it's quite difficult to do it since armour is expensive and you can't really do it with any other weapon than the longsword because you can't fight full contact with a warhammer. (although i did see some spear fencing but they held back in force)
Groupfighting isn't striclty speaking HEMA because the sources usually don't describe them, they are more done just for fun. Also spear and shield is typically early period were armour was limited to gambeson and mail. Fighting against gambeson and mail isn't all that different to fighting unarmoured.
+James Sarvan also i find it more fun to be able to strike at opponents with a sword instead of half-swording (what you would do with a sword against armour)
+James Sarvan
Beside the high costs for plate armour, which was already mentioned, there is also the savety-aspect to consider.
It might sound paradox, but armored combat would be much more dangerous, due to completely different techniques. Techniques like halfswording, murder-strokes or similar, which are strictly forbidden in HEMA-contests, by the way, because they are specifically designed to kill opponents in armour.
Imagine e.g. two guys, made heavier and clumsier by 30 kilogram of steel, both moving and one of them manages to get the tip of his sword into the visor of his partner. Would you be sure to stop early enough, so that your partner keeps both his eyes?
As to the question of more fun... why should it be more fun? With armour you might be able to hit your sparring-partner full force, but why? That would be bashing without purpose. But what makes HEMA so interesting is that it combines elegance of movements (at least it should ;-)) with quick wits and strategy. There are so many varieties to attack, to feint, to parry, to counterattack... It's like dancing and playing chess at the same time.
Very true, I should have emphasised on that. On the subject of bashing in full force, it's not like fencing but if you want to replicate "fighting" i believe you need to attack with full force. Seeing how gambeson protects you so well from cuts... So in that case a system like in the SCA is quite good, where you fight as if unarmoured but in armour and where grappling is forbidden (And I believe thrusts too but I'm not sure) thus minimising the danger of armour. Although these restrictions reduce the realism.
Gloin79
I have to admit, I actually had to look up the term SCA ;-) Now I watched a few videos and it looks like fun. But I think you are right. You have restrictions that reduce the risk, but also reduce the realism.
In terms of realism I think HEMA might be closer. Since it simulated unarmored combat, striking full force would be unnecessarry and even a disadvantage in a fight.
Which would be more fun... I don't know. It's probably a question of personal preference and - as you pointed out before - financial commitment.
As a German, I like your German ;D (you haven't nailed the "ch" yet but I know that that's sometimes hard for non-native speakers)... not to say that my English is great
Poleaxes and halberds seem terrifying going by some accounts of combat. Guys knocking out or stunning someone in full armor with a single blow to the head, helms bending inward so far they cause head injury or even death and that top spike going through visors or taking off shoulder protection.
Matt, could you do a video on Swiss sabres at some point in the future please?
Maybe they were bit more careful but my guess is that they were also willing and used to take occasional hit in a head - you know, let the lesson sink in better : )
And also, as someone who practices armored fighting, steel armor requires quite a bit of work in order to keep it clean and not rusty, so having modern protection saves them quite a lot of chores
There is art of people in armour practising fencing. I believe if you were rich, you used armour. The people who did Liechtentenaur wore some specific protective armour, like mittens and helmets.
A medieval example is a painting of two knights fighting each other while dual weilding Messers.
Not to mention they are crazily expensive and even those who have them don't wanto to risk damaging them.
Well, in FMA, we don't usually wear any protective gear in training most of the time. We just watch what we're doing.
Competitive settings are somewhat different, and sensible people will wear at least a padded jacket, padded gloves and a fencing mask. Plus, rattan sticks are a bit lighter than wood, and we avoid doing full-contact with long staffs (against a good stab with a staff, a padded jacket won't help you - there is waaay too much momentum behind that point).
But not everyone is in fact sensible, and there are quite a few tournaments where nobody wears any armor at all (resulting in the expected number of injuries at the end, but obviously not enough to keep people from doing it). So that's probably how it also was in ye olden days.
There are armor battle events and what not that I’d still classify as HEMA..
Matt, all your points make perfect sense to me, but I still wonder if there might be two minor points of partial exception, namely that of throat protection, and in the area of head protection, certain helmets like the perforated masks no longer made by That Guy's Products? It's true that these are still heavier than the sport equivalent products, and do restrict movement and sight more, but couldn't one argue that these products might by advisable, at least for very high intensity sparring, say at a tournament?
thanks for the video
I get that the intent is to practice unarmored fencing, what is missing here is why there isn't a separate class of armored fencing in addition to the predominant unarmored style. It would be cool to see.
So, anyone out there doing armoured practice?
seems like a lot of recreation groups do that. I've seen spear and chain mail fencing.
+CottonPanzer Yes, but not many, due to the expense of armour and the difficulty practicing armoured techniques without injuring each other.
+CottonPanzer
Yeah. HMB (Historical Medieval Battle) and IMCF (international Medieval Combat Federation). Pretty similar formats, but bit of political differences and HMB tends to bit bit more brutal.
+Martin Murd Not a good comparison to HEMA at all I'm afraid - they specifically only use attacks that are safe for the armour they are using. They do not use armoured fighting techniques as shown in the historical treatises.
+SubjectHazard It's pretty damn hard to recreate battlefield fighting without injuring anyone, because the whole point was to kill your opponent at almost any cost. Eye gouging, hits to the nuts, cheap shots, ganging up on people, just pushing a fucker down and kicking them in the head until they die. All those are things you would do on a battlefield, because it's a matter of life or death, but you can't have those in a recreation.
Sort of like my dad used to say "You know the easiest way to dodge a punch? Don't be there when it comes". So I guess medieval fencing protection was just "Get better so you don't get hit"
I find that "I won't get hit" is not an acceptable substitute for good armor.
New York Knights Combat neither do I. It was a joke
Git gud.
This guy looks exactly like my brother and it freaks me out. Uncanny valley. I keep thinking my brother lives a double secretive life I don't know about.
Also it's goddamn expensive for a single person yet hard to share amongst several people due to different body proportions
Let's see now, my sparring gear was over $1000, not including my fender, the full plate is twice that price, maybe more. I can put on my complete set of sparring gear in about 5 min, full plate with help takes about 30 min. Full plate rusts, so it must be cared for, with the expected of a trip to the dry cleaners every four months; my sparing gear doesn't need upkeep. Visibility with is much greater with my sparing gear than full-plate.
I was trying to figure out what you were saying at 0:23... And then it occurred to me, that that was "Bloßfechten", am I right? I love hearing German loanwords in English. Sounds awesome.
I know it is a bit later than medieval, but do you know anything about John Parkes, the Coventry gladiator, who was apparantly a professional swordsman of the 18th century? I remember seeing a performance once, in the ruins of Coventry's first cathedral where some guy was pretending to be Parkes and fighting with a rapier.
I kind of wonder, based I guess on some saber manuals I've been reading, if maybe people used to just do a lot of drills. It'd build muscle memory and you could go full-speed, but since you knew what was coming it would be much easier to defend safely. And then maybe when actually sparring, they'd just slow it down, like people do today when they want to fight with minimal gear.
1:17 Please talk about the middle ground. I was re-watching season 1 game of thrones yesterday and thought about Sir Jorah Mormont's Armour.. head exposed because its TV obviously head protection is No.1 But It actually kind of makes sense in a civillian context where you might expect armed conflict.. like When the Witch is Killing Drogo and going ceremony and the DothRaki start to lose their shit with the Khaeelisi
I can imagine hitting a person in mail on a bony area, like the collarbone, hip, or what have you, with a decent blow would break the links and at the very least hurt like hell. Against a more naturally cushioned area though, that'd probably prevent the blade from busting through the armor.
my friend and I use pieced together armor to spar, we don't do HEMA since there's no school anywhere close to us (but would if there were) We have articulated steel guantlets, helmets with facial protection and good vision, and I have Lorcia Segmentata, while he uses a leather version. We practice both half-swording and regular sparring. We justify doing regular sparring because 1) it's only minimal armor - necks, upper arms, groin and legs are exposed and 2) so that way we can hit HARD with follow-throughs, and use sharp weapons, staffs etc with minimal chance of injury.
It's not perfect, and not the ideal set-up, but we're both cash-strapped college students, so we don't exactly have a lot of options lol.
Have you tried looking up the SCA? It's not exactly HEMA, but if you like this kind of thing you could find a lot to like there, and a lot of HEMA does translate. And the SCA is much, much bigger than the HEMA community.
You can train reasonably with sticks striking, but stabbing will still be too dangerous to do it at realistic speed and commitment. I've seen it with shinai, but also as a kid when we were fencing with self-made plastic swords (similar to lego). I managed to cut through a silver necklace and cause nasty scratch on the neck with a thrust.
***** Sometimes things happen so fast that you wouldn't realise that you are mortally injured.
Probably they would practice much more the forms (like in Marozzo) in pre-arranged sequences that could be performed in solo or with a partner. Other way could be to use more often "slower-motion" controlled sparring instead of the common full-contact of today. Using sticks (aka soft wooden swords) also seems a reassuring way to keep your physical integrity!
We don't regularly use armour even in bohurt training, even if it tries to simulate armoured combat. The reason being that armour is heavy to lug around and people are lazy, and also because steel weapons brake gear and people more easily. Instead we practise with soft weapons and MMA protective gear for techniques training. We only use armour like once a month.
unarmored is also one of the most common "one on one" fighting.
although you ware that black gambeson like jacket, I would say thats an element of medieval armor (or the like)
A lot of the sparring I used to do with my friends was unarmored, no helmet, sometimes gloves or steel gauntlet, with bokutou or wooden swords, or wooden/rattan padded and taped. I've taken a few decent blows to the head and luckily my friends aren't complete idiots, or we'd all have probably had concussions or something worse. A blow on the knuckles is probably the most frequent of injuries.
They probably practiced methods. A lot. Movements, strikes, guards. By the book.
That's bloody expensive too if every HEMA decided to have enough sets of armor for everyone joining.
+WeretigerX high-end HEMA gear isnt much cheaper to be fair.
The *real* reason recreational suits aren't used is because properly safe period suits for fighting would run you up at 2.5 grand at least, if not 3k.
I suppose it's mostly about weight. Because fencing and HEMA protecting gear can be quite cumbersome sometimes, as it is actually derived from historical designs, but with less metal.
The critique of restrictiveness of medieval armor is overstressed, I think. Folks in the SCA, HMB, etc, select historical designs that do not restrict movement that much, or at all. I have found a few combinations of cuirass, gorget, arm harness, and pauldrons that do not restrict my movement at all (except for the weight, which is another issue). If "most" of it as restrictive, then simply select what is not restrictive.
I know the truth - they practice mostly in armor because they train for war, no for bandits on merchant situation.
I thought it was pretty humorous that in a scene in game of thrones during some longsword sparring they wore a thin sheet of leather formed into a vest that only covered the chest and stomach to protect themselves.
I guess my friends and I are insane, we practice longsword without protective gear (we generally pull the punch, so to speak once we've passed the other's guard).
We use mitten gauntlets made of plastic and they are very restrictive so I would say you’re fairly incorrect. We are still making the same safety/mobility sacrifices to be able to spar we just don’t have a need for much steel though I see steel gauntlets used often
How a minute, how much is remarkably?!
Edit : How often is remarkably?!
The simple answer is that medieval plate armor is too bloody expensive for everyone to use.
My follow-up question to this is which style practices armoured fencing?
Also, are - say - Fiore's sword positions based off unarmoured and, therefore, potentially useless against armour?
I think there is a abuse of language to call unarmored fencing akin to "duelling context". Many duels of the XVth and early XVIth centuries were done in full armor, or with specific bits of protection (for the face for instance). Even in the late XVIth, early XVIIth century, some rapier duels could be done with a piece of torso armor. Anyway, ranting about expressions and language...
It's funny to see that the japanese weapon arts of the XV-XVIth centuries were also full of questions and partial solutions in order to practice safely. Some schools changed their drills and kata instead of the equipment, wearing no protection and using bokken at pretty much fighting speed (Katori), some used padding for the bokken to be able to spar with it with padded helmet (Maniwa Nen-ryu), some invented shinai-like training tools (Shinkage-ryu), but it seems no methods really proved itself entirely successful and decisive. And of course, everybody was arguing about how there methods were the best...
When you simulate armed fighting, protection is of course a key question, but just as in many other subject, it's always a matter of which compromise you are ready to make.
I guess that when I do round up enough money to pick up the sport, I will gimp my self with armor because of a genuine as possible experience (with out dyeing of course)
i think they would've used pells and training dummies a bit, especially with maces and axes were you cant actually hit anyone safely even with armor or padding
Not to mention a proper historical full plate armor may cost more than some new cars do.
Your explanation here reminded me of that Unified Weapons Master body armour project. I'm curious to know what you think of it. Do you think it could be an informative project and worthwhile form of combat entertainment? Or do you think it'll become, similar to how you view modern fencing, another form of glorified electronic tag?
What do you think about wearing riot gear for hema tournament?
I wonder if that means most hardcore modern HEMA fencers are generally better than people back then. Or at least have the means to be better. I would assume most people of warrior classes took their skills very seriously seeing as it was life or death for them.
I think they would at least use blunt swords for fencing practice. I think wooden wasters were a thing.
Possibly used padded coilf with mail coilf?
Matt, tell us sometime your opinion of Metrome's statement about half swording being foolish if you are unarmoured. He said that if your opponent is armoured you just give up reach, and if he is unarmoured its not really needed. He sounded like he was making some good points. Thank-you, Dante.
+100dfrost Correction that was Metatron, sorry.
I heard that medieval armor was really made for the wearer in many cases. With this in mind any armor that might be worn by a reenactor would need to conform to whoever is wearing it. With this in mind real armor might be too expensive for most reenactors to own. At least that's my opinion.
What about the gauntlets? I'm asking as it seems like there aren't any good gloves for longsword, at least not from people I've been asking.
How would you feel if people used one piece of head gear for as many groups as they could out of concerns for saving money and lowering head trauma?
I would hypothesize that perhaps some practice was done in full harness against an opponent in full harness however the blows were counted as if you and your opponent were not wearing armor. This would be a very safe way to practice facing unarmored opponents or lightly armored ones and when your ready to practice facing a fellow knight in combat you simply change the rule set. On the field of battle your far more likely to face lightly armored opponents as they usually outnumbered those in full plate. So this form of training (fully armored however treating your opponent as if they weren't) could have some martial credence.
+bluetea1400 Everything you say makes sense, but there's just no evidence of that as a practice for unarmed fencing. In contrary, we know that they practiced and competed in clothes, without armour.
+scholagladiatoria Do we have any examples of tournament rules were fully armored combatants were striking at each other as opposed to using grappling and other anti armor techniques? I know it's a step away from sparing but often you practice how you intend to compete.
+bluetea1400 granted, I rarely practice in full harness. Most of the time we use practice weapons, no armor other then a padded jacket and a fencing mask and save the armor for tournament.
Hey Matt. I'm curious to know what sword it is you've got hanging third from the bottom (or top) on the wall behind you. The one right under the sword with the brown scabbard. Best regards
Also, modern reproduction armour is expensive. Cheap alternatives exist, but that doesn't teach you anything about fighting in a plate harness. And then there's the problem of feeling too safe because you don't really feel much when you get hit, you do stupid things like lead with your face, expose your hands in guard, or just plain fail to control your opponent's weapon.
Haven't watched the video yet, but my answer: Because it's fairly heavy (I don't know how much a full set of sparring padding weighs, but I'm guessing less than 70lbs), very loud when hit, and really expensive to repair if damaged?
HEMA heavy sparring kit: 2-300 dollars for a decent starter set, 4-500 for a really quality set
Cheap suit of medieval armor: 1000 bucks just for the cheap costume grade set... Ok maybe you could spend less like 500ish but at that point you're getting less quality of protection than you do from a cheap starter set of HEMA gear XD
Here is the reverse question. How effective would modern HEMA equipment be against a sharpened sword in a real duel?
"We don't wear armor because we're simulating unarmored combat." Isn't this just begging the question? Given that it's covered in the treatises, why don't many people engaged in HEMA simulate armored combat?
As for safety in practice, I'd imagine medieval (or any time before the 20th century) notions of safety weren't quite as strict as ours - within limits, of course, since you wouldn't have a modern trauma center to patch you up. But looking at other areas of life, you don't see ancient or medieval construction workers or horseback riders (outside a martial context) depicted as wearing helmets or hardhats, they probably just figured the risk of the occasional cracked skull was the price you paid for pursuing that occupation. And we know that tournaments were more dangerous than is generally permitted in modern sports.
people in the medieval era were more resilient and tough, you know ;-) ;-) ;-)
***** it was irony ;-) ;-) ;-)
+Jack Risio That's a double edged thing. Advanced medicine helps save people who would have died at that time. Those are usually people with not properly working bodies or otherwise weaklings. Also a lot of the heavy work has been diminished with the advancement of technology so many people are not as naturally fit as they would have been back then. I would say that the average human alive today has worse physical conditioning and strength than the average human from a couple hundred years ago. On the other hand the fittest people today are probably fitter than the top ones were at that time, as you pointed out, due to technology and science.
+Jack Risio even though their life expectacy was short..they are taller and build more bigger than modern people
I assume that in the dark ages they used dummies before they were allowed to spar with others and for the rest I assume the average folk didn't really have head protection, they would just be more careful. Afterall, when you think about it most low grade helmets simply minimized the chances of head injury while not fully protecting against it.
So in the same way that you won't do some dangerous moves in HEMA, they probably didn't practice head strikes when sparring.
Matt, where do you find the treatises? I've been wanting to study Meyer and Lichtenhaur but I haven't found the treatises anywhere.
Do you think people now, with full contact practicing, would be better skilled with the swords than those with limitations, no full speed / full contact, if that’s indeed how they practiced back in the day?
Not everyone could afford plate armor in medieval age. Some couldn't even afford a decent sword
+berker4321 That bit about swords is actually a myth, especially during the late middle ages. In most nations, a man was required to be armed, and most men had swords. If you're going to fight with it, it'll be at least of decent quality.
An agincourt Era longbow man could actually afford to buy three old swords a day from his 'salary'. That is if he wanted to and didn't have anything else to spend the money on, like food for example.
Matt actually has a video on it. Just use the channel search. It's something like the price of swords in the middleages or something.
+berker4321 Depends when and where. In the late middle ages old swords were in abundance and in some places the city provided all the equipment.
I guess as an archer you can go to battle with a dagger or a club and pick up a sword any time from a fallen enemy.
Proper bows and even more so fitted armor is a different story.
I recently had a HEMA friend explain to me that he focuses on Control with his students and this has reduced the number of injuries in training. So maybe Medieval swordsmen were simply more skilled then we are now and so didn't harm one another as much?
Why in the medieval days would they not just wear gambeson instead of their cloaks to make the practice safer; sticks can break bones. Could they not afford it?
Hello Matt, one thing I have always been curious about but have not managed to find too much information on is the thickness/gauge of steel that would be required to stop a piercing attack from a longsword. Would you happen to know an answer to this? Or maybe just a source that talks about this sort of topic.
Just a quick question, how would I get into hema? But also be able to do things like fight camp??? Thank you!!
Here's a thought: if HEMA sparring is supposed to simulate unarmored fighting, should people do their sparring while wearing something that simulates having a scabbard on the belt? In an unarmored context, you are most likely going to have your sword worn on the belt in a scabbard. I haven't seen many HEMA schools practice while wearing a sword on the belt, but if we want to get the "full experience" of an unarmored context should it be standard practice to wear a scabbard simulator during sparring?
+JZBai I think in a duel they'd remove the scabbards before fighting. And a lot of scabbards that I saw from the reinassance are hold to the belt with just a hook, so i guess they threw them away in a defence situation; also the scabbrds, being made of leather, were not much getting in the way. Anyway it would be an interesting experiment to do ...