On Respect for the Point

Greetings,

The following article discusses the respect given to the weapon which is being used in a martial context, something which seems to be being lost in some HEMA (Historical European Martial Art) situations. The original weapons, and the idea of the original weapons, is being lost the result is this art is beginning to turn into another sport which happens to involve swords. Of note, originally this article was going to discuss the "fear" of the point, but fear is not what is required. It is a healthy respect of the weapon that is being used.

The fencer needs to respect the weapon that they are using not fear it.

If the fencer has fear of the weapon they are not likely to engage with the opponent with their full being and thus actions will be performed sloppily and without intention. This will result in inaccurate actions, bad form and bad practice on the part of the fencer. Further, the same actions engaged with fear are actually more likely to get the fencer hurt than if they engaged with them properly and fully and not holding back.

There needs to be respect for the weapon that is being used. This means that the original use and capabilities of the weapon need to be acknowledged and kept in mind when performing actions with the weapon. Having a sharp point of a sword pointed at a person will change what they will and will not do as compared to having even merely a blunted one, let alone one which is blunted and has a tip on it, regardless of whether protective gear is worn or not. The fencer must acknowledge that the weapon and techniques that they are using were once used to decide life and death struggles.

The lack of respect for the weapon is demonstrated in actions of "exchanged thrusts" or "double-kills" or "trading targets" in each of these instances the fencer is not respecting the weapon of the opponent. A person facing an opponent's sharp weapon would not willingly allow them to strike them just so that they could strike their opponent, especially with the state of medicine when these weapons were originally used. A fencer should be aiming to avoid being struck at all, thus "striking without being struck" as is the aim of all fencing.

The "double-hit" and "double-loss" in a bout today resulted in injury and death in the past. "Double-hits" should not be accepted as good fencing in any way shape or form. In all instances the safety of the fencer, thus the defence of the opponent's action should be most important, followed by the striking of the opponent; this demonstrates respect for the weapon being used. Having tournaments run in a single-kill, single-elimination format, begins to make people realise the importance of this, having people carry their wounds through the tournament also emphasizes this as well.

"For there are few nay there is no man at all, who (perceiuing himselfe readie to be stroken) giues not back, and forsaketh to performe euerie other motion which he hath begun." - Giacomo di Grassi (1594) His True Arte of Defence

Here di Grassi states quite clearly that a person who is about to be struck will give up the idea of striking to defend himself, rather than being attacked. So one of his defences against a slower action of the cut is to present the point to the opponent, who seeing it will not complete the cut. This does not work in many current HEMA bouting because there is no respect of the point which is being directed at the fencer. So, the cut will be completed and so will the thrust, resulting in a "double-hit".

If fencers are supposed to recreate these texts as they were performed. Is it not also required that the individuals who use them also have the same sort of respect for the weapons which they are using? Is it not also required that they have a healthy respect for the point and edge of the weapon, regardless of whether they can actually do damage, but what they are simulating? If this is not the case what is the difference between what is being performed with these weapons and those of sport fencing aside from some electronics, history and formalisation?

In any form of weapons use, be it swordsmanship, archery, or shooting, there must be respect for the weapon. This is necessary because the capabilities of the weapon must be recognised by the person using the weapon, regardless if the person ever actually wanted to use these capabilities. This respect is necessary for safety to ensure that the weapon is treated properly and that those around them are kept safe. In the case of fencing it is also necessary so that the art of fencing can be performed properly with the intent of the treatises that the art is based upon kept intact through its practice.

Cheers,

Henry.

Studying the Sources

Greetings,

The following article is the result of a discussion that I had with Lois Spangler about studying the sources. There are various questions that we all have to ask ourselves when we are studying the sources so that we can understand what we are actually doing. Many of them are just a really good read, and this is great, but there is often a further motive behind the study and this what will be discussed here.

Single or Multiple?

In some cases a source will be found which appeals to us on a very basic level. Maybe it is one which is different from what everyone else is studying, maybe it just suits the way that we move, or maybe due to a talent for a particular language we have an advantage because no one else can read it completely. This results in the focused study of a single source. In my case, I picked up Saviolo's (1595) His Practice in Two Books some 20-odd years ago and have been studying it on and off ever since, because it appeals to me. Why on and off? Is a focused study not the best way to do things? Yes, and no.

There are also new manuals which are being scanned, translated and being made available all of the time. This is a great boon to the swordsmanship community at large. A person may be studying a single manual but another may come out which draws their attention, what should they do? This would depend on the individual. I have read various manuals in various forms, in many instances it is to keep up with what students are studying, and also to keep up with what others are also studying. This does not detract from the primary manual that a person studies, in fact it enhances it. A greater appreciation of swordsmanship can be gained from examining multiple manuals than from just focusing on a single one.

Reasons and Justice

What this all comes down to is the reason for studying a treatise. There are many different reasons for studying a treatise. The prime reason is to recreate what is written in the treatise, but this is not the only reason. Another reason is to find the foundation elements so that they can be examined to compare to another treatise for similarities and differences, this way elements can be traced through lineages and also across continents. In some instances a manual may be picked up just for "tips and tricks" i.e. just to add an extra couple of techniques to a person's repertoire. A teacher may also examine a manual to understand what their student is studying. Each one is a different reason.

How do we do a source justice? What doe this even mean? For some, the only way to do a source justice is to go through the entire manual and use every element. For others, this is not even a concern. This all goes back to the reason for studying the manual in the first place. If a person is studying a treatise to examine social elements within it, the technical elements to not even play a part in the examination, therefore there is no need to consider recreating these technical elements. If the study is for comparison of a single technical element, then the other elements are not really required. For example, a cross-manual examination of rapier and dagger, then only the rapier and dagger parts are really pertinent. The reason for examining the manual must be taken into account in all instances.

De-focusing and Re-focusing

There are reasons why in the study of a single treatise a person should be looking elsewhere to get a better perspective of what they are studying, sometimes it is even a necessity. This allows a better perspective of the work which is being studied and often a greater understanding of what is being studied. I will take as an example Saviolo's (1595) His Practice in Two Books because it is the one which I have been studying.

To begin with this is not simply a fencing treatise, it also includes a discussion of duelling, which the author actually spends more pages on. From this part of the treatise alone it can lead to the reading of other treatises in discussions of duelling, honour and other similar concepts to gain a greater understanding of what the author was discussing. Focusing more on his more practical elements, Saviolo's treatise is not of a "pure" school. It is a combination of Italian and Spanish for sure, with suggestions of German as well.

To understand this treatise in all of its detail the reader really should have a grasp of the foundation elements of the Italian and Spanish schools for sure, with some of the German as well. This grasp can only be gained by looking elsewhere, not at the treatise itself. This means following a tangent to examine something which is not the primary source which is being examined. This investigation will further enhance the reading of the primary source as a greater understanding will be had. In the case of Saviolo, I can assure you that following the tangent to gain an understanding of the foundations of these schools will grant a better understanding of his treatise.

The same "de-focusing" or following a tangent can be useful to the study of other treatises. A study of Renaissance mathematics of philosophy, for example can give the individual a greater understanding of the mind of the writer. An examination of treatises of a similar period, or tradition can establish trends and elements which are common, or changes, all of which lead to a greater understanding of the original text that was being studied. In this case the broader understanding does have great advantages, when this understanding is re-applied to the original text.

Re-focusing is the other side of the same coin. This is focusing on a single treatise to the exclusion of all others. There are times that this is what is required to get a clear and consistent reading of a treatise without the words being muddied by external sources. In this particular case it is where external sources can be an issue because they do influence how we interpret what is being read. Our history influences how we interpret what we read, what we have learnt influences it also, as does our cultural background and many other different factors.

If the treatise is read in accompaniment with another's interpretation of it, then our own interpretation can be swayed by that interpretation. Likewise if the treatise is read in accompaniment with other secondary sources about a similar subject, this will also colour the interpretation. This can be an issue as these influences are not always positive. Often it is best to focus on what the author of the treatise is talking about and what they are saying, without any interpretation. This is difficult when the treatise is translated from a different language as there is inherently an element of interpretation present.

How can this fit with "de-focusing" then? In this other process, resources are selected which are designed to enhance the understanding of the treatise. An enhanced overall understanding is what the aim is. Thus, in reading another treatise it is the foundation elements which are important rather than particular techniques. In reading philosophy it is to understand the mind-set of the author, rather than the philosophy in detail. The broader topics are read so re-focusing is easier later on, so greater understanding is possible.

What Now?

When a primary source is taken to study there are certain elements which must be in play for the person studying it to achieve their end. There must be some sort of connection between the person studying the treatise and the treatise, this has to be something which is going to keep them going through the hard parts of its examination. Studying treatises is not an easy task if it is going to be done properly. There also has to be a real reason for the individual to want to take the time to read and study the treatise. It will take a lot of time, and often a lot of re-reading. This form of reading and interpretation is not a direct nor simple process.

The elements which have been raised here are for information but also for discussion. My position is only one, others may have a different point of view, and they should share it. The more people we have talking about period sources the better. The more people we can encourage to study period sources and come up with their own interpretations the better. Some will be the same, and some will be different. Just because they are different, doesn't mean it is wrong. They might have a different point of view which is worth investigating.

Let your investigations take you different places. Follow the tangents in your investigations, it can only lead to a greater understanding of what you are studying. Found something which you do not understand? Go research it. Found something different or interesting? Go research it. Examine the different pathways and backgrounds to the people who wrote the treatises, figure out some of what they would have read, and go and read some of it, you will gain a greater understanding of them and their treatises. Sticking assiduously to the treatise without looking side to side is not necessarily the best approach, you have to occasionally lift your head up and look around as well.

Cheers,

Henry.

Drills are Not Combat

Greetings,

Have you ever been in a class performing a drill and a person states that they could counter the action that you are doing with another? How about, that the drill that they are doing is artificial and does not relate to combat? What has happened here is that the person who has made these statements is probably true on the first, and is definitely true on the second, and it is because drills are not combat.

Drills are related to combat in that they will teach you the skills that you will use in combat. They will teach you the individual skills not how they should be used in combat. If you approach your combats the same way as you approach your drill expecting that your opponent is going to give you the cues and exact attacks given in a drill, you are going to be sadly mistaken.

A thrust and parry drill teaches one partner how to thrust properly, and one partner how to parry properly. It teaches the each partner the bare mechanics of one action and the timing of the action of the parry. Nothing more. Then they swap and they get to drill the other action and learn it. This is not combat.

Even when the drills become more complex, it is still not combat. In the drill: one thrusts; the other parries, binds, steps in and cuts and then moves off to a safe position on guard. There are several actions in this drill. It is not combat because the opponent does not respond to the bind, nor the stepping in, nor the cut. Even when the counter is added to the drill, it is still not combat. It is a drill with a responsive element. It teaches the student how to close and cut, and also how to respond to an opponent who does the same.

Drills are artificial and they often do not relate to combat because they take skills in isolation and focus on them so the students can learn them. Drills are designed to take a skill or a set of skills and work on these particular skills without the involvement of others in particular, or at all in some cases. There are drills which do not use footwork, something which is mostly essential in combat for the fencer to survive. There are drills in which one partner only defends, something that is not likely to happen in combat. Drills are artificial and they are supposed to be, they are skill-focussed.

The next time that you are drilling remember to focus on what's being worked on at that point in time. There is no point in worrying about how it relates to other things, your trainer will get around to showing you how it all fits together. Drills are designed to put a particular skill or skills in a situation where they can be focussed on and used over and over. This is so that the skill can be learnt. This is the purpose of drills, for learning. Combat is a different thing altogether.

Cheers,

Henry.

Re-Inventing the Wheel

Greetings,

There are questions which are going to be asked about this particular post, like what is he on about? That is simple. There is the propensity for the Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA) community for re-inventing the wheel rather than taking perfectly good examples of things and either just using them or modifying them slightly to suit their purposes. This post will give three examples which seem to keep coming up as issues for the community which have been dealt with elsewhere before.

Why?

Why is it that in HEMA people seem to need to keep re-inventing the wheel? It is almost like that what has come before is just not good enough, or because it comes from another sport, or similar area and they do not want to be like them that they cannot use anything which is anything like them. There are three topics which have histories which are established which could be used as they are, or modified to purpose, yet they are not. This is, of course, causing people issues and in some cases injuries as a result because people are doing the hard work that has been done before all over again.

Armour

Armour has been around for literally thousands of years, yet when it comes to HEMA rather than looking at existing examples of armour and simply copying it or modifying the armour to suit, new armour has to be invented. The great saga of the gauntlet is the greatest example of this one that can be put up as a prime example. There were fully-articulate gauntlets manufactured and used in the medieval and Renaissance period. Why are they not just copied? Or at least the principles of their designs not copied? Its not like they did not work.

What I find really amusing about this one is that people in HEMA have been cobbling together protective gear from other sports or designing it based on other sports, and then realising that it has holes in it, which are not covered. Then these holes are being covered by examples which are found on medieval and Renaissance armours. Knee protection first just covered the front of the knee for HEMA, now it seems that fans are being added to protect the sides and give some protection to the back of the knee, which are, of course, found on medieval and Renaissance knee cops. Why go through the effort of having to find out what does not work when we already know what does?

Armour Standards

When it comes to the question of protective gear, each club or organisation will have their own ideas about what will be required for their own people. Obviously it will be dependent on the weapon that is being used, i.e. more will be required for doing longsword than smallsword. What is a little silly is that for the most part these standards are created on the spot from what the individuals think is reasonable. There is in existence an armour standard, for rapier at least, which has been around since at least the late 1990s which is an international standard, that being used by the Society for Creative Anachronisms (SCA).

Why not start with this and then add on to it? Obviously it is effective, and all of the hard work has already been done. Seems that some would rather not want to be in anyway associated with the group than use a standard which is known and works, which is ridiculous. Instead these people would rather go through the trials and issues of finding out what works and what doesn't, which puts their members at risk.

Refereeing

There has been a lot of discussion about how tournaments should be judged, whether one referee should be used and four linesmen, or one senior referee and one junior and two linesmen, or some other combination. My particular preference is to teach the combatants to call their own blows, I mean they are the ones receiving them so they would know the best if they have been hit or not. Some of this has started to filter into competitions and gradually it is beginning to hold some sway.

Again what we see is the HEMA community trying to re-invent the wheel when there is a system already available for them to use. This system is found in non-electric sport fencing. There is a presiding judge and one for each fencer. The presiding watches both competitors the others only watch their one fencer for a hit and indicate when theirs has been hit. Again, it is a recognised method with a recognised standard. It also results in using only three people and not four or five people to staff it, which has advantages when the staff are primarily volunteers.

Conclusion

Three different areas have been examined where standards or examples are have already been established, and yet in all three cases the HEMA community is trying to invent their own. The question has to be at this point in time, why? Is it an ego thing? Not willing to accept that maybe it has been done before? Or not willing to borrow from another group and thus admit that they may have some good ideas? Both of these are ridiculous reasons not to use ideas or standards used by another group and modify them to suit what is required. In most instances in the HEMA community, there is probably already an answer out there to the question which has been posed, it is a matter of finding the answer, and accepting that it is the answer. For some, it is the last bit that is the most difficult.

SCA Combat as a Living Tradition

Greetings,

For the most part when many people think of the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronisms) they think of "those people who dress up in funny clothes and do medieval stuff" rather than looking at it from any sort of idea of a martial arts tradition. For the most part SCA heavy combat is seen as two guys beating at one another with sticks until one or the other lays a blow on the other at which point in time he falls down "dead". More or less like some bad job of acting out one of the scenes of some medieval movie. It is not approached from the point of view of a combat art. This post will ask you to challenge those preconceptions of SCA heavy combat and have a look at it as a "living tradition".

So a tradition is something which is passed from one generation to another usually orally, sometimes physically. A living tradition means that it is something which has been going on for quite some time. There are claims by many oriental martial arts of living traditions which extend back hundreds of years, and even some occidental ones too. What should be noted is that SCA heavy combat has been passed down from one fighter to another for about the past fifty years or so. So in that respect it does qualify as a "living tradition".

To be more accurate, there are even some "schools" within the tradition of SCA heavy combat fighting. These are groups of heavy combatants who have been trained by the same senior fighter or fighters, usually one/s of renown and experience, who have developed a particular style and this style is reflected in the individuals who have trained under these senior combatants. Of course each will have added his own individual flavour due to differences in body-shape and movement, but the "school" of movement will definitely be there.

While some would argue against SCA heavy combat as being a martial art, it is most definitely a combat art. The practitioners are actively trying to strike one another and often there is a price that is sometimes paid for in pain when a blow strikes flesh, or simply a part of the fighter which is not armoured sufficiently. As this form of combat progresses through time it gathers more complexity and its training also develops more complexity as it is understood better, it also progresses towards the elements of a martial art that some would claim are missing. Could it be used in a self-defense situation? In the right situation, it most definitely could. Could it be used to disable an opponent to prevent them from doing harm? Again, in the right situation it could.

The next time you look at SCA heavy combatants fighting, or training, examine what they are doing. Go up and ask what they are doing and you will find a lot more complexity that you did not know existed. Ask about the history of their art and you will also find that there is a lot more there than you would have expected. While this living tradition could be seen as quite young, it is nevertheless a living tradition which is not just alive but thriving. Maybe it could do with a little less ridicule and a little more recognition for the common path which they travel.

Cheers,

Henry.

Italian Blow Translation

Greetings,

The following is a subject which I have been considering whether writing it would be of any use or not and I have decided that even if I get one person interested, it is worth the effort. For all of my usual Historical European Martial Arts readers I apologise, this one is for the Society for Creative Anachronisms crowd. Well, actually it is so you can both talk to one another in a similar language so it is actually for understanding, so in that way it is for both of you.

Communication is the Aim

The subject which is raised here is one which I proposed quite a while ago and simply just never got around to dealing with. The purpose of this post is to take the standard SCA "heavy" (armoured combatant) blows and translate them into Italian language, or at least that used in many of the period manuals. Why? So then these manuals may be more accessible to these members of this group, also so that there is more understanding between the two sets of martial artists. I have chosen Italian terms because they are more familiar to me.

"Snap" and "Off-Hand"

Ok, so we are going to start simply. Anything which is thrown as a fore-hand blow is known as a mandritta. Anything which is thrown as a back-hand blow is known as a riversa. So a "snap" is a mandritta, and an "off-hand snap" is a riversa. This delineation works for all blows which are thrown in this direction from the combatant (Please note I am using a particular spelling and nomenclature for these words some manuals may use others).

Next, a blow which comes horizontal is called a tondo, so your average "snap" is a tondo, and so is the "off-hand snap". To delineate between the two the former is a mandritta tondo and the latter is a riversa tondo. Remember, this is because one travels in from the combatant from the right and the other from the left, as previously explained. Where the angle changes so will the descriptive word.

A diagonally downward blow is called a squalembrato. So a "snap" to the leg would be a squalembrato, as would be an "off-hand snap". Again, we have the mandritta squalembrato for the "snap" to the leg, and a riversa squalembrato for an "off-hand snap" to the leg. The pattern of side then direction is a format which will give a general idea of the blow followed by more specifics about the blow.

"Wrap"

Even the "wrap" a blow which supposedly has no place in period manuals actually does have a description in Italian. The first word that is used is the word falso, which describes an action using the false, or back, edge of the weapon. The next is to simply describe the blow as it is delivered. A standard "wrap" is simply a falso mandritta tondo as it is a false edge blow which comes from the right at a horizontal angle. The "rising wrap" is a little different it is a diagonally upward blow from the right hand side which is called a falso dritto.

"Slot"

The last blow that will be discussed here is the "Slot" shot. It is a vertical blow designed to pass down between the sword and shield of the opponent to strike them. A vertical blow in Italian is called a fendente. So, in essence, this would be the simplest naming of this particular shot.

Left-Handers

So the question that often gets asked is "What happens to the terms if I am a left-hander?" Nothing. Except that, as per usual, you will drive your average right-handed opponent up the wall, and probably left-handers as well. The terms do not change as the directions originate with the person throwing the blow rather than the person recieving them. In fencing the Lines simply swap over, and it is much the same here, because the weapon is in the opposite hand all of the same names apply to all of the same blows as before.

Blow Effectiveness

One of the questions which always arises with regard to a blow is how effective it is. One of the issues with regard to this is that the average rattan sword is round so it is difficult to see what is edge and what is flat. With an edged sword some of the blows which are called flat would have actually struck with the edge were the weapon shaped in the correct fashion. An example of such a blow is the "rising wrap" to the hip, or a falso dritto as it has been described above.

With the round rattan sword there is the chance due to the nature of the weapon it could be called "flat" whereas in reality the edge would be cutting into the target. To gain the best appreciation of what would actually be flat and what would be edge, a weapon with an edge is the best for simulation, however the rattan sword could be shaped in such a fashion that a clearer edge is present on the weapon (BTW: The best source for a weapon with an edge would be one of your fencing compatriots).

More Blows, More Actions

Really, this has been an introduction to this particular subject in which I have focussed on some of the most basic shots which are delivered by the SCA heavy combatant. There are more shots which can be described using Italian terminology no doubt and definitely actions which can be described using such terminology which have not been included to prevent this from getting too technical. One of the easiest ways to access this information would be to ask a fencer, or me of course.

The Italian terms which have been used above are common in many period manuals and this is one of the reasons why this language has been used to "translate" these blows. It could have just as easily have been German, or Spanish, except I am not so familiar with either of them. Accessing such period manuals will supply infomation about fighting techniques which were used in period combats in the period which are being studied, so what is a good reason that such information should not be accessed?

Added to this, familiarising yourself with the terminology of period manuals will mean it will be much easier to communicate with other Western Martial Artists about what you do and also what they do also. Such communication can only be a benefit to both groups as it will increase the knowledge of both groups. More to the point you will find it easier to communicate with SCA fencers who often access period manuals and can pass on information which they have learnt, which can only be an asset to your group and the SCA as a whole.

Cheers,

Henry.

Dalai Lama's Rules for the New Millennium

Greetings,

The title is going to be a bit of a bother for some people, but you are just going to have to read on and see the relevance for fencing (talking to HEMA people too) in general. I have these rules posted on my kitchen wall and I decided that it would be useful to do a post about how they can be related to fencing. Being that there are 17 of them here, so this is going to be a long one.

1. Take into account that great love and great achievements involve great risk.

When you become a lover of fencing and you want to do well with it you are going to have to throw yourself wholy into it. This means that you will be putting yourself at risk. Physically obviously there is a risk, but for some there will also be an emotional one as well.

2. When you lose, don't lose the lesson.

I have made posts about the learning process before, and losing is not a bad thing when looked at from the right direction. This rule points out why. If you lost there is a reason why, and it is not because the referee was bad, or the rules were bad, it was because you got hit. Figure out the reason why and work on that.

3. Follow the three Rs: Respect for self, respect for others and responsibility for all your actions.

Where to start with this one? Respect for yourself does not mean having a big ego, it means not doing stuff which would reduce the level of respect you have for yourself. Respect for others means examining what they are doing and seeing where they are at before making comment. It also means treating people as you would want to be treated. Responsibility for all your actions is simple, if you did it you own up to it. It also means not blaming others for stuff which put you in the place where you are.

4. Remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a wonderful stroke of luck.

Sometimes we wish for short-cuts, it is better to work our way to our goals. Sometimes we want a particular piece of gear and we get another, and it turns out it works better, the list goes on.

5. Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.

Knowing how to use the rules to your advantage is one of the keys to survival. In most cases it is not "breaking" them that is the best, but "bending" them. Just remember to look at the rules properly before you do this to know exactly what rules you are bending and what the result will be.

6. Don't let a little dispute injure a great friendship.

So you like a different master, is this a big enough difference to break a friendship? So you prefer different weapons, is this a big enough difference to break a friendship? Most of the time we can negotiate and find common ground between people. Do this and you will find more friends.

7. When you realize you've made a mistake, take immediate steps to correct it.

This one goes back to rule 3 about responsibility for actions. Don't wait around to be discovered, admit you have made a mistake and fix it before it gets blown out of proportion. It is better to be up-front about a mistake than be hiding and discovered.

8. Spend some time alone every day.

Solo training is important, and so is training every day. Both of these apply here.

9. Open your arms to change, but don't let go of your values.

So you have found something new that you like, don't let it change your values. A change of pace with another school should not mean that you change the reason why you fence. A change of method should not change the foundation principles of fencing upon which you fence either.

10. Remember that silence is sometimes the best answer.

Sometimes it is better to be silent than to make a comment. These are often the cases where someone is looking for an argument and making a response gives them what they want. Walking away is often the best response in some situations. 

11. Live a good, honourable life. Then when you get older and think back, you'll be able to enjoy it a second time.

When you sit back and remember tournaments which you have fought in, you know whether you were struck or not. If you fought honourably and gave your opponent blows when you were struck and acted with honourable methods you can sit back and enjoy those tournaments again. The same goes for all encounters. Make good memories that you want to keep.

12. A loving atmosphere in your home is the foundation for your life.

In this case we talk about your school. "Loving" may not be the most appropriate word, "welcoming" would suit, so would "supportive". Students need to be supported by all members of the school not just trainers but also fellow members, this will keep them coming back.

13. In disagreements ..., deal only with the current situation. Don't bring up the past.

In this case use only the information which is current. Reputations of individuals can stick for a long time, even when they have far out-grown them. Deal only with the current issue at hand with the information present, there is no need to dredge up old situations.

14. Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality.

Ah, the reason why I write. Sharing knowledge is important for us all. The more we share the better we all get in our fencing, it is a knock-on effect. Put it on paper even and spread it far and wide so more people can see it.

15. Be gentle with the earth.

The SCA prides itself on leaving a site cleaner than it was when it arrived. All fencing communities should do the same.

16. Once a year, go some place you've never been before.

Travel. It widens your experience. Go some place and fence with people that you haven't fenced before and you will find that you will learn from the interaction with them.

Yes, I can count, 17 and 19 are missing. 17 was more related to personal relationships so I left it out. 19 was not really useful to the current discussion.

18. Judge your success by what you had to give up in order to get it.

It is better when you judge your success to look back at what you have sacrificed to get where you are than to look at your achievements along the way. Tournament prizes are nice but they do not really last in memory, they are pretty and shiny and they sit nicely on the wall as reminders of a good day. They do not remind you of the hard work and training that you put in to get to the tournament, or the training that you did with your students, or the research that you did on a particular manual to get your technique correct. They also do not remind you of the nights out that you didn't go on because you were training, or the extra things that you could have bought that you didn't because you had to pay for training or new gear. These are the things that you should be looking at.

There are points all the way through which will resonate with some and others which will not resonate at all. That is fine. Find a copy of the original, which you can find all over the internet, and post it up on a wall and look at it occasionally. Have a think and see if there is something that you could be doing, or not doing to improve your fencing, or even out-of-fencing, life.

Cheers,

Henry

Heavy and Fence: Two Gauntlets of the SCA - More Adventures in Cross-Training

Greetings,

The following is primarily aimed at my SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) readership, but the tenets upon which it is based apply just as much to all forms of martial arts. Sometimes we are a little closed-minded about what some other method can offer us and thus it is dismissed as irrelevant or simply unrelated to what we are doing. It is simply not the case. There are elements in all sword movement arts which can be used to your benefit to improve what you do.

Nomenclature

First I will deal with a little bit of nomenclature for those who are not members of the SCA. "Heavy Combat" or "heavy" refers to the fully armoured combatants who engage in combat with rattan weapons. "Fencing" or "Rapier" refers to those who engage in unarmoured combat, thus using rapiers, primarily, and wearing attire more attuned to civilian wear. I have given the most common terms here for reference just to make sure that people know what I am referring to as this discussion proceeds.

Perspective

From my own particular perspective I have trained in both and would have continued in both except that my body just was not going to continue playing the game in heavy. This gave me a unique perspective from the point of view that I could understand what was going on from each point of view and thus learn from each perspective. It is perspective which makes a hell of a lot of difference.

For many people in the SCA they see heavy and they see fencing and they think that there can be no connection between the two. Indeed there are even practitioners of both who think that there is no connection between the two. The important thing to note is that there are connections between the two and that these connections can be an asset to any person who can grasp these connections and use them to their advantage. There are a lot of skills which can cross over from one to the other and thus gain the user a great advantage, not only doing one, but both.

When an "outsider", SCA or not, sees heavy they often see two people in armour attempting to simply beat the snot out of one another. From this perspective it is difficult to see what is actually happening. It looks like a lot of swinging and thumping with little skill.

When an "outsider", SCA or not, sees fencing they often see two people with long thing swords attempting to skewer one another. Often the actions are so quick that it is difficult to see what's happening. It looks like they just are stabbing at one another randomly until one hits.

Needless to say, sometimes it is, but in most cases it is not the case in either case.

Trained Actions

In both cases the offensive blows are not just thrown wildly or randomly. They are targeted to locations. They are practiced so that the actions are performed with skill so that the blow will land at the target at the appropriate time. The body is also taught how to move properly so it is efficient in motion. All of these things take training, and both styles of combat have them within them, it is just a matter of finding them and using the training to your advantage.

For the Fencer: 

1. Cutting

Heavy will teach cutting actions and their most efficient method. Most fencers are point-orientated, thus cutting actions from heavy are a great asset to them as it will teach them alternate ways to move the sword around and to their targets.

2. Body Movement

Heavy will teach body movement which is essential for movement in armour. While this is not necessary for fencers as they wear clothing rather than armour, it teaches the fencer to be grounded in their movements, thus teaching them where their centre of mass is and how to move their body around to stay balanced while executing actions.

3. Power Generation

Heavy will teach power generation as related to body movement. This is not necessary at the point of a rapier, or for the purposes of throwing a cut, but it is useful for the movement of the body in an efficient manner. Such power generation can be translated to the movement of the feet and the movement of other parts of the body for the purposes of speed rather than power.

For the Heavy:

1. Footwork

Fencing will teach footwork and efficient control of distance. This is one of the primary elements of all forms of combat. The footwork taught in fencing is efficient and controlled, thus will teach how to move from one position to another in the most efficient manner possible. Even the principles of fencing footwork applied to heavy will improve movement.

2. Point Control

Fencing will teach point control. Fencers are well-known to be artists with the point and this can be translated not only to the use of the sword in heavy but also pike, glaive and other arms. Additionally, extensions of the thrust such as the lunge can be effective with the use of the point, especially with the use of low-profile thrusting tips.

3. Technical Use of Weapons

Fencing will teach the technical use of weapons. Fencing has a long, documented history with period documentation to back up the actions which are performed. These techniques in many situations can be transferred, along with their technical reasoning, to weapons used in heavy combat. Experienced fencers especially will have already had access to the treatises and would be more than willing to discuss them and how they may be applied.

Just the Beginning...

You will find that the more that you open your eyes to different perspectives the more that you will find. Do not be closed to different opportunities which may be so close that you cannot see them. Just because someone is doing something which is different to you, because they are doing things with a sword and you are as well, you should pay attention. You might find something useful in what they are saying.

Three different skills have been presented for each heavy and fencing, but there are more which I have not presented here. These are the primary three which will strike you as soon as your learning process begins. There is no need to even complete the training and engage in the form of combat, merely to attend training and see what is said and investigate to see what you can use. Talk to those who do the other form of combat and see what they are up to. Give your point of view and see what they think. Hopefully you will get some useful feedback that you can use. The worst thing that can happen is that by taking up another method of sword-use is that you learn another method of using a sword, and that can never be a bad thing.

"Armour" in HEMA

Greetings,

The following discussion will be about armour and "armour" as it stands within the HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts) community. The thing is that there seems to be some funny ideas floating around about what armour is and what it does and how it relates to what we do. Hopefully this discussion will clear up some of these issues and clear up some of the confusing terms which have been used.

The image to the left is the full Titan range which is made by Leon Paul in London (Yes, I have noted the lack of shoes on this model). It is designed for the protection of various parts of the body for people who participate in HEMA. This is not armour.


The image to the right is an armour of 1585 for Lord Clifford. This suit is ostensibly for the sport of tilting due to the helm which is fitted to it, and the decoration which is on it, but it could have also seen battle and protected its owner very well. This is armour.

There are differences which need to be pointed out between the two. Firstly, the one on the left is made for a sport in which blunt weapons are used and the opponent has no desire to actually do the wearer of the armour harm, whereas the one on the right is made for battle in which the opponent wanted to either kill or at least maim the individual wearing it. Secondly, the style of combat used when fighting in the one on the left is different to that which would be used to that which would be used to that when fighting in the one on the right. Finally, while the one on the left has some rigid plates in its construction, the one on the right is primarily made of rigid plates. This results in a different style of combat, but not necessarily movement (a question for a different author).

Most of the combat which is being reconstructed by the HEMA community is based upon combat which is focused on unarmoured combat, thus not dealing with armour. When a person discusses "armour" on a forum when discussing their protective equipment, implications in the word can be made. Implications that they are taking their equipment to being like the picture on the right, which it is not. Does this mean that they are also assuming the same of others? This brings up the question of what level of strikes should be accepted.

The idea of unarmoured combat means that a much lower level should be accepted while "armour" gives the automatic idea of a much higher level of strike. The question of calibration or what level of striking has already been brought up in a previous post. This idea of the use of the word "armour" puts an idea in people's heads about what they are using and what they are using it against, even if it is not true. Somewhere in the back-brain "armour" gives automatic idea a harder hit is required. Simply put armour is not being worn.

If armour is not being worn then the name should change when discussing the subject. Some expression to cause less confusion and to prevent the idea that the harder strike is required so that the opponent can feel it through the "armour". A suggestion is that the name be changed from "armour" to "protective equipment" as this is a description of what it is.

The extra padding and certain rigid materials are designed to protect the individual from damage, not to prevent them from feeling the blow. Examine where the heaviest armour is placed in HEMA protective equipment and you will find that it is designed to prevent the wearer from getting permanently injured. Sundry areas are protected by padding.

A change from the use of the word "armour" to the more accurate "protective equipment" will be better in the long-run as it more accurately reflects the state of play, and will be a reminder as to what the equipment is for.

Cheers,

Henry.

Brutal Fencing III: A Question of Calibration

Greetings,

I wrote a previous entry on the subject of brutal fencing and its relation to aggression. This can be accessed here: http://afencersramblings.blogspot.com.au/2009/09/brutal-fencing-discussion-of-aggression.html. This post is aimed at one particular aspect of fencing and indeed brutal fencing and that is how hard one fencer strikes one another, this is sometimes referred to as calibration. Part of this entry goes to the reason why we actually engage in Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA).

What is meant by calibration?

Calibration for the purposes of this post, and indeed in my opinion, is the amount of force sufficient required by one combatant for them to acknowledge a blow as good. This means that the blow would have done them some physical harm if the weapon was sharp, in the case of a sword. Of course this means both combatants have to agree on what one another is assumed to be wearing. The level of calibration will be different if the combatants are assumed to be wearing some sort of armour as compared to if they are assumed to be not.

For the most part, a lot of HEMA, the assumed armour is nil, the combatants are assumed to be wearing no armour at all. This means that they are wearing normal street clothes, no padding, maybe a pair of gloves. This means there is no armour to cut through, or padded jacket to pound through. A couple of layers of fabric and then flesh. The armour, or should it be said, protective gear that is worn is worn for protection against injury not for the simulation of any armour.

Why hit hard?

This is an important question which has not really been answered properly at all, and some of the answers which have come back are quite disturbing. Do you want to injure people? If the answer to this question is "Yes", then I hope that I do not meet you and I hope that you do not turn up to my practice because you re not the sort of student I am looking for. There is no reason to injure people at all. It does not show "martial effectiveness" or anything of this kind, in fact you are borderline from having someone call the police about assault and battery.

Armour and Calibration

Combatants wear extra protective gear to protect themselves where they require it, this should not be a surprise. For some out there, they see this as a challenge, "You wear more armour, I'll just hit harder." The first thing to note here is that the attitude is just wrong. If you find one of these people, report him to your instructor immediately, if he does nothing, leave the school or group.

The problem we face is that as people increase their calibration, so protective gear increases, so calibration increases, so protective gear increases, and so on. One has got to give, mostly it is the bodies under the protective gear, resulting in injuries and people out for months at a time, and people leaving in droves because they can't afford the protective gear and don't like being hit that hard. This is a problem which can be stopped at the beginning by controlling calibration.

"Martial Effectiveness"

Discussing  the question of "martial effectiveness". It does not take as much force to damage flesh as you think. With a thrust it is ridiculously easy. With a cut, it is not much farther off that. We have all ...

The rest of this article can be found in Un-Blogged: A Fencer's Ramblings by Henry Walker, which is available in paperback from:

Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Blogged-Ramblings-Henry-Leigh-Walker/dp/098764470X
Booktopia: https://www.booktopia.com.au/un-blogged-henry-leigh-walker/book/9780987644701.html
Among other places...

It is also available in electronic format (pdf) from: https://buy.stripe.com/fZecP419c7CB9VKeUV

... or direct from the author.

A "Safe" Sword

Greetings,

The concept of a "safe" sword is one which is presented again and again to us when considering which weapons we should buy and which weapons should be allowed in tournaments and so forth. This is a concept which badly needs to be addressed and some of the basic notions which are attached to this also addressed. These are weapons which are being discussed, regardless if they have dull edges and blunt points, and they are being used as simulated weapons as well.

When a weapon is lying on the ground away from anyone touching it is safe. This is when a weapon is safe, as soon as a person is involved there is an element where safety is reduced. The safety is reduced both for the person who is picking up the weapon and also for anyone who is around the person wielding the weapon. This is regardless of whether it is a sword, an axe, a mace, an assault rifle, a handgun or even a missile launcher, the same applies.

The weapon may be dropped on the wielder's toe, or even on a by-stander's toe. The relative safety of a weapon has more to do with the person holding the weapon than the weapon itself. A person who is trained in the safe use of a weapon is generally safer than one who is not. A person who has had more experience with a weapon is generally safer than one who is not. It is the person who determines how safe a weapon is or is not.

The image which I have posted with this post, is one that I really like a lot, and it is very pertinent with regard to this discussion. A sword is a weapon therefore it is not designed to be safe. Its purpose is to strike another person with the intent to do damage (simulated or not) against them. The aspects of selection which are made for particular weapons due to temper, type of hilt arrangement, edge thickness, and point characteristics cannot change the fact that it is still a weapon, and therefore is still not safe. These points are merely risk mitigating factors.

The same can be said for any rules or regulations imposed by organisations and tournaments with ...

The rest of this article can be found in Un-Blogged: A Fencer's Ramblings by Henry Walker, which is available in paperback from:

Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Blogged-Ramblings-Henry-Leigh-Walker/dp/098764470X
Booktopia: https://www.booktopia.com.au/un-blogged-henry-leigh-walker/book/9780987644701.html
Among other places...

It is also available in electronic format (pdf) from: https://buy.stripe.com/fZecP419c7CB9VKeUV

... or direct from the author.