A Response to: "Can you wear medieval armour to a longsword tournament?"

 Greetings,

The following article is a response to an article posted by Keith Farrell, Can you wear medieval armour to a longsword tournament? The reason being that I have found quite a few assumptions regarding the wearing of armour, and the SCA...

I have previously written about the difference between armour and PPE. So, I am not going to go over that old ground. I will summarise, the gear that people wear during HEMA is PPE it is not armour.  There is a distinct difference between the two sets of gear, and that is the point that Keith Farrell is making in his article, unfortunately he has also made some assumptions, and inadvertently pointed out some issues. My statements for this article...

1. It isn't about what a person wears, it is about how the person acts.

2. Take a better look at the SCA, at least it has standards; standards which do not exist in HEMA,  standards which HEMA groups are only just realising they need.

Beginning "Reasons"

"However, the vast majority of events would not. It could be for safety reasons (such as making sure there are no gaps through which a thrust could slip), for aesthetic reasons (at this tournament, we want everyone to look like modern sportspeople), for liability reasons (our insurers require that we mandate that every piece of equipment is CEN rated), or for whatever reason the organisers deem relevant."

The majority of HEMA events will not let a person wear armour to them, he states and then he gives reasons...

Safety, making sure there are no gaps; if the armour is fitted to the individual, and they are wearing the appropriate material underneath, there are no gaps. Considering there are no universal safety standards for HEMA, no established conventions, only rules established for each tournament, I disagree. Unlike the SCA which has such universal standards and conventions.

For aesthetic reasons "we want everyone to look like modern sportspeople"; where I say has the "Historical" gone from HEMA, let alone the "Martial Arts"? How HEMA has lots its way is another long subject which has certainly been highlighted by this statement, which I discussed in a previous article. This is a discussion which is controversial and ironically contrary. If people wanted to look so "modern" why is there such a popular line in medieval and Renaissance period looking equipment?

For liability reasons, equipment must be CEN rated; certainly a piece of steel has more resistance than any piece of cloth. Further, I refer forward and back to the SCA's standards, and it has insurance for each of its groups and its activities, which have a history going back to the 1960s. Again, this will be discussed in more detail below as it is a subject which requires further discussion.

The final one is the classic, "or for whatever reason the organisers deem relevant" autocratic rule at its best, a way for a person in charge simply to ignore the stated or printed rules and exclude by saying, "I don't like it." for whatever prejudices they might have. So much for being Inclusive (one of the reasons I went back to the SCA,), again discussed below.

Gear Inspection

"Without knowing the provenance of any given piece of equipment, it is probably easier just to mandate that people wear HEMA gear from recognised HEMA manufacturers, so that there is the best chance that everyone’s equipment is going to be fit for purpose with no nasty surprises."

What you need is experienced Safety Marshals, and to look at the equipment. If we want to play the like with like, let's look at Red Dragon gloves, or their old "gorgets", both by recognised HEMA manufacturers, both neither allowed in tournaments anymore. "Recognised HEMA manufacturers" do not guarantee against a) old gear, or b) gear in disrepair. A person still needs to inspect the gear to ensure there are "no nasty surprises." HEMA needs to train people to be Safety Marshals (Hey, like the SCA does, an idea which I tried to transfer locally, it lasted survived briefly until people realised a) they couldn't fight as much, b) it required them to do some extra work, and c) HEMA might have to look at standardising their rules. I keep saying that for some reason).

Armour and Assumption

"For example, the people who tend to wear steel helmets for sword sports tend to be reenactors, SCA people, and HMB people. The SCA and HMB people are certainly in the habit of hitting hard when they fight – the whole purpose of wearing the steel armour is so that they can do so."

Big assumptions made here, an assumption that SCA is like HMB, clearly Keith has not had a good look at the SCA. We don't all fight armoured combat. Yes, armoured combat, big difference. There is also period fencing, combat archery, and equestrian to play with. If you hit too hard in fencing, you get censured, and potentially removed from play, the same applies in armoured combat too. So you need to be specific. Apples and oranges, both fruit, but different. In period fencing, in cut-and-thrust we use longswords in much the same manner as HEMA (with many fewer injuries), so maybe armour works after all.

Wearing armour is not a sign of hard hitting, it is a sign of wishing to protect yourself. Nothing more to make assumptions about wearing armour and the calibration of the individual based on their kit, is the same as making an assumption about the skill of the opponent based on the value of their sword, or its condition. Such things are prejudices against the individual who is wearing or using the item, simply based on what they are wearing or using.

The SCA is a nice, easy, big target, that many people in HEMA will agree with. However the SCA at least has internationally-recognised and nationally-recognised safety standards. They don't change from group to group, or from tournament to tournament. I know that I can use the same kit anywhere around Australia, and with little modification, anywhere around the world. Further we have authorised safety officers, the system has checks and balances, that HEMA does not have. Issues that I have seen. Issues that I have witnessed  as a safety officer at more than one HEMA tournament. No, it may be a bigger target but it is also a safer target for those who play within its rules.

Pre-Judgement

How would it feel if a person decided that:

"You shouldn't fence with those people because they do German longsword and that's all about wrestling and multiple strikes to the head?" OR "You shouldn't fence with that person because they are wearing pants from Leon Paul, so they will just whip their sabre about and flick your forearms?" OR "You shouldn't fence with that person because they are using a feder, because they are so light it will whip around and hit you too fast?" OR "You shouldn't fence against that one because his weapon is too heavy and so it will hit too hard?"

All of these arguments are false. All of these arguments are prejudices. They all pre-judge an individual based on what they study, what they are wearing or what piece of equipment they are using, and not by how they actually fence, not by how the individual acts. The same as judging person by the fact they are wearing armour.

If a person wearing armour was to scare people off, then why would the SCA be the largest organisation which participates in three different form of combats in the world? Hard hitting does not come from a person wearing a particular type of gear or using a particular type of weapon, it comes from the way the individual is trained, the individual's mind-set, and the individual's actions. Anything else is blatant prejudice, which a person needs to examine within themselves.

Signs and Symbols

I will state quite clearly that I have no idea about any other recreational group in the world, however I will state that the SCA has policies regarding anti-discrimination and Inclusivity which are stated in their organisational documents. The swastika is banned from display in the SCA, it has quite strict rules about Heraldry, which would be the symbols that are being spoken about here. So, there would be none of the stated issues from members of the SCA, at least.

"It is all a bit of a sliding scale. Does all of that apply if someone turns up with steel gauntlets because they want to keep their hands safe? What about steel knee or elbow cops, or a gorget with steel plates? There is clearly a reasonable end of the scale, and with some items the most reasonable explanation is that people want to wear them because they believe these items to be more protective than the more modern alternative."

Properly made and fitted gauntlet of steel protect properly and work better, why else would they have persisted with them for hundreds of years? Examine most of the gorgets available today and you will find that they are made of steel, as they were hundreds of years ago when they were used for real, little surprise. There are new ones made of hardened plastic, but their designs are the same as the steel ones. Previously there were no elbow or knee protectors for HEMA so people used skateboard pads. Later ones covered the front of the knees and a little of the side. Compare the modern ones and you will find they are copies of armour. So why wouldn't a person wear the steel ones instead? It would seem that the only unreasonable part is that people have assumptions or have double standards about aesthetics. I know the history, I watched it change.

Conclusion

"And of course, it is always worth revisiting some of our base assumptions every so often, to consider if the way that we are doing things or if the decisions we have made are still sensible and working well for us. It is always good to let people ask “why” or “why not”, and it is also important that if we feel strongly about the issue, we have a good explanation to offer in our answer!"

Yes, assumptions, there have been quite a few made in this article. I would have expected a little more research done about the SCA before making such grand statements about it. I would have expected there to be more interest taken in investigating the subject of what the SCA actually does rather than assuming that the SCA's armoured combat is all that they do. This is a big assumption. 

Go have a look at some actual armour. Go have a look at what is actually being offered. Go have a look at what people are actually wearing for armour in the SCA and outside. Make your statements based on some actual research done by some investigation of the topic at hand.

The aesthetic question is a double-standard. Make a choice. Either wear modern sporting gear or wear period gear. Admit that you are doing a modern sport version or perform it as a martial art. Pick which one you are doing. Plunder-hose for all those German enthusiasts belong to the sixteenth-century, many of the wonderful jacket designs which are coming out, likewise belong to the same period. The aesthetic question is an excuse, it is a lie. It might as well come under the autocratic organiser's "I don't like it."

I wear steel armour because I know it is not affected by heat. I know that it is not going to crack or degrade unless I allow it to rust. I know the state of the material. I know where my armour comes from, I know what it is based upon, the reason it was used. I know its history. More to the point it was made for me, so it fits me. This is my "why." More to the point I am doing an Historical martial art, so it is appropriate that I wear historical equipment or a reasonable approximation thereof, at least within my means.

If you're wondering about whether our art was practiced in full armour historically, examine Maximilian I tournament book, Freydal of 1515. These two combat with different weapons in armour, for sport, in much the same way we do, the armour is for protection, nothing more. Well not quite "nothing" there was a certain element of fashion involved, but that's another question.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freydal#/media/File:Freydal_Repro1882_Tafel_031.jpg 

Cheers,

Henry

Advertising: "Un-Blogged: A Fencer's Ramblings"

Greetings,

Well, after some writing, collating, and quite a bit of editing I have created a book version of several of the posts which have been made here. Some people asked me to do this as they found that the articles were quite useful and they would be even more useful in a book format. Well, you got your wish. The book was published on 15 March 2019, you may have seen the advertisements at the bottom of some of the posts for my GoFundMe to raise money to get the book published. These will give you an idea of some of the articles which appear in this book. If you have enjoyed reading my posts you will enjoy reading my book. It includes a Foreword by Keith Farrell.

"“A Fencer’s Ramblings” is a blog which was started in May 2010 to spread knowledge about the subject of Historical European Martial Arts, and indeed fencing in general. While there is a definite bend toward particular areas, nationalities, and forms, this blog has covered many differing subjects. What is contained within this book is a selection of the articles which appear on this blog, along with some extra articles of interest by the author. These have been updated and slightly re-written to suit their normal format, but they still retain their original purpose, to inform and educate the reader about various elements of the subject of fencing, which in and of itself must be taken from a broad point of view. Some of them are conversational others are written from a more academic point of view, this selection contains something of relevance for anyone who is interested in swords or swordplay."

This book is available from Book Depository, Fishpond, Amazon, Waterstones among other retailers. At my last check, they can get the book delivered to you cheaper than I can.

An electronic version (pdf) is available also: https://buy.stripe.com/fZecP419c7CB9VKeUV

Book Review: Scottish Broadsword and British Singlestick

Greetings,

Time for another book review...

Farrell, Keith (2014) Scottish Broadsword and British Singlestick, Fallen Rook Publishing, Glasgow

First thing that you will notice is that it is by Keith Farrell, an author whom I have reviewed before. Yes. What does this mean? It means that the style of writing is easy to read and ensures that the point which is being made is made in very good fashion without having to resort to overtly complex words.

The book itself presents a great reproduction of Roworth's Arte of Defence on Foot of 1804, this has been transcribed by the author rather than simply presenting a facsimile of the original or referring to it. By doing this he gives a clear print version of the original noting the original page numbers and using the original illustrations. This allows the reader to read what was written by the original author without having to muddle through all of the issues of the original text.

So, many people will just go straight into the treatise and start describing techniques and stances and so forth, this is not the case with this book. There is actually only a relatively small amount of the book which actually deals with "how to", just over a third, that being said, it is the perfect foundation for what is presented. This book is not just a "how to guide" but an educational guide about the weapon systems and this is more important.

What this means is that the book provides the background of the era in which they were set. This background explains how the systems of swordsmanship formed as they did. You will find that systems of fencing, especially modern sport fencing, developed out of the conditions that developed around them. If you understand the background of a weapon system and its background you can understand where this came from.

Further to this, after the treatise is presented, the author presents how the treatise should be studied. This means he gives points about how the lessons presented in the treatise can be used and what the modern swordsman should be considering when taking on this sort of study. These elements are important as the modern physiology is not typically prepared for this.

Needless to say that overall I am very impressed with this book. It is an excellent book for the beginning broadswordsman, and also of great interest to anyone who is interested in the history of Scotland especially in the 17th to 19th centuries. So needless to say, it got me twice.

You can purchase this book at the link below:
http://www.fallenrookpublishing.co.uk/scottish-broadsword-and-british-singlestick.php

Cheers,

Henry

The Broadsword: A Curatorial Discussion

Greetings,

So again, this is one of my more formal discussions on a subject. This means that it is long-ish. The subject of the broadsword is one which has been of interest to me for a while now, and was prodded along more recently by studying the smallsword, and also the workshops at Swordplay 2016 given by Keith Farrell. There are various arguments that you will find going through this post, some of which will be of interest and some, I hope, will clear some of the myths away. Thanks goes to Keith Farrell for his editorial assistance with this piece and correcting me on a few things.

Cheers,

Henry.

Abstract

          Most curatorial examinations of weapons are dry and give little detail as to their origins or development. What follows examines the origins and development of the broadsword along with some of the issues which have accompanied this weapon through history to this era. This examination is a close look at the broadsword to demonstrate that previous methods of classification need to be corrected and that the history of a weapon is important as is its development. Only through the assembly of all the data about a weapon can a person have any idea about how the weapon would handle.

Introduction

          What follows is an examination of the broadsword. It is indicated by the title that this will be a curatorial examination, but this will be a little broader than most curatorial examinations as they are most often concerned with hilt construction. This has often led to this misclassification of weapons. Thus this investigation will concern itself with the entire weapon, but also more than that.

          To begin with there is the question of what is and is not a broadsword, to this point a definition will be examined and argued for and against, then another proposed. Following this will be a brief history of the development of the broadsword. The word “development” is used here and not “evolution” as it was a process which was affected by external and internal factors, and also had an effect upon other weapons of similar make. Next will be a discussion of the broadsword and the backsword, two weapons which are often confused, usually as a result of one or both not having a clear definition. Getting even more specific there is the question of the claymore and what is and is not one, a question which has been argued to and fro for many years.

After all these preliminary arguments have been established and some of the background has also been established. Then the weapon will be examined. The previous is necessary so that both writer and reader understand what is being discussed. The broadsword will be discussed in order of hilt, blade and then the weapon in general. This will give the differences in different nationalities of broadsword, specifically, English, German and Scottish and the differences between them.

There will be mentions of other weapons of similar classification. The backsword has already been mentioned above, and will feature in different placed in the investigation. The sabre will also be mentioned in the discussions, but more in passing rather than in any sort of detail. Finally, with regard to use considerations, this can only come from the knowledge of the weapon as a whole. This discussion will only barely scratch the surface of that and give some very vague indications. The focus of this investigation is more about the form, origins and development of the weapon. 

Definition

“a broad-bladed sword used for cutting rather than stabbing. Also called backsword” (Collins English Dictionary, 2016)

          The definition supplied by the Collins English Dictionary (2016) is rather broad and covers quite a few weapons, it could even cover some forms of medieval sword as well, especially as the definition above does not in any way take into account the form of the hilt. What this means is that the definition needs some refining. The broadsword is most easily defined as a straight-bladed, double-edged, relatively broad-bladed sword with a basket-hilt that protects the hand. What needs to be noted here is that the previous definition did not take into account the hilt of the weapon which is a mistake often made in the curatorship of swords in that often all the weapon is not taken into account.

          The change in hilt is significant where the cross-guard was changed to a basket-hilt and is similar to that which is found with regard to the development of the rapier, and for similar reasons. The civilian rapier’s hilt developed to protect the unarmoured hand of the civilian. The more military broadsword hilt developed as armour declined as a result of the introduction of effective firearms to the battlefield.

The Broadsword Story

“they [basket-hilted broadswords] are most closely associated with the 18^th-century Scottish Highlander.” (Holmes, 2010:106)

          When the broadsword is thought of, it is the Scottish Highlander which is first thought of wielding the weapon. The history of the weapon will reveal that they were not the only people to use the weapon, and indeed it could be claimed that they were not even the first. The discussion which follows will follow the development of the broadsword, for the most part, in chronological order. It will start with a more general introduction to the history and then examine the three important centuries of development, the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. While this is not really designed to be a curatorial discussion, there will be curatorial elements present.

          To begin there must be a brief examination of the weapon which came before, and to understand that this was primarily a military weapon, rather than a civilian one, even though it found its way into civilian hands. Its history starts with the knightly sword of war, as armour was lessened the hilt had to develop to protect the hand. These developments are primarily noted in England, the result being that the English hilt is the common ancestor of the basket-hilted claymore and English military pattern (Oakeshott, 2012:176). More of this much-argued weapon will be discussed later on.

          There is a lot of argument about the dating of weapons and where they came from. This is for a multitude of reasons firstly weapons are difficult to date due to similarity in design and references found for the pieces themselves (Oakeshott, 2012:177). To accurately date something a design needs to be in print in some form to compare to and when the designs are common across an expanse of time this makes the dating even more difficult. This situation can be complicated even further in the case of many swords not just the broadsword with regard to the idea of re-hilting. In the case of the broadsword re-hilting was common, an old blade would be placed in a new hilt, or rarer old hilt and new blade would be put together (Oakeshott, 2012:179). Needless to say, this results in a weapon, if it manages to date both parts with a date for one part and a date for the other.

Sixteenth Century

          Previously it was noted that the broadsword was primarily a military weapon. It was also noted that it was a modification of the knightly war sword, answering the need to protect the hand. After 1520 the knightly war sword acquires a more complex hilt, changes at end of the sixteenth century to the proto-typical forms of broadsword of 17^th and 18^th centuries (Oakeshott, 2012:126). These developments were in answer to a changing situation on the battlefield where armour was being reduced in answer to its lack of effect against firearms. The speed of which the development came is impressive.

One of the earliest basket-hilted swords was recovered from the wreck of the Mary Rose, an English warship lost in 1545. Before the find, the earliest positive dating had been two swords from around the time of the English Civil War. At first the wire guard was a simple design but as time passed it became increasingly sculpted and ornate. (Wikipedia, 2016)

          In a relatively short amount of time, the hilt of the weapon became more and more complex resulting, by middle of century hand protected and surrounded by plates, bars lined with leather or fabric (Coe, 1996:73). This is not a simple operation as can be told by anyone who has assembled a sword of such complex parts. What needs to be noted here is that the earliest hilt here is not Scottish, but English.

          Rather than being nationalistic about where it was invented at this point in time, the important thing to note here is that, the ancestry of broadsword hilts found in those that evolved by 1570s and survived (Oakeshott, 2012:156). It was this pattern of basket-hilt which was spread around and resulted in developments in other places. It should be noted that the beginnings of broadswords of 18^th and 19^th centuries in German experiments of c.1600 can be seen (Oakeshott, 2012:156).

          What is most interesting is that the weapons which were developed by the English would have to wait until toward the end of the century to cross over the borders of the closest neighbours, and thus would gain a new name, and not the one expected. As in the last years of the sixteenth century basket hilts associated with Highland Scots, known as ‘Irish hilts’ in early seventeenth (Oakeshott, 2012:176). More to the point many of these would be sourced from Continental swordsmiths.

Seventeenth Century

          In a typical Victorian fashion many have attempted to classify the broadsword hilts of the seventeenth century to try and see if there are any patterns of development, but not with much success, “Any attempt to specify prototypical patterns for the broadsword hilts of the seventeenth century would be doomed to failure,” (Oakeshott, 2012:173). This is for two clear reasons the first of which is that the broadsword hilt spread to different nations and was thus changed and developed as according to their own requirements. The second is that, “Basket hilts underwent various changes during the course of the [17^th] century.” (Coe, 1996:74), and when these two are combined, there are too many variables to be tracked.

          What is known is that, “Basket hilts continued to be used during the seventeenth century, especially in England and Scotland” (Coe, 1996:74), which is of little surprise due to the origins of the hilt itself in the sixteenth century as indicated above. More to the point it is also here where most of the fame for the broadsword is found. While the Scottish hilt seems to dominate in popularity and in form and construction, English hilts of same period are often of fine construction (Coe, 1996:74). The other thing that should be noted with regard to this is that with regard to the origins of this weapon, it has a distinctively English heritage.

“Scottish it was, even in the seventeenth century, and exclusively Scottish it became, but England has good a claim to it, for it originated in that country. However, since it is always called the ‘Scottish’ sword ... it is necessary to observe the distinctions.” (Oakeshott, 2012:170)

          One of the most useful things about the popularity of an item in the historical record is that sometimes it makes it easier to track through the historical record because it was more likely to be recorded, and also because it was more likely to be researched and thus the information brought to light. In the case of the Scottish broadsword both are the case.

“The 1881 Ancient Scottish Weapons had this to say: The broadsword first appears in formal record in Scotland in 1643, when, along with the Lochaber axe and the Jedburgh staff, it constitutes part of the equipment of the levies then called out by the Convention of Estates, From 1582 to 1649 a "ribbit gaird" often appears as the "essay" of the armourers of Edinburgh, but in 1649 it was changed to "ane mounted sword, with a new scabbard and an Highland guard."” (Scottish Tartans Authority, 2016)

          This clearly dates the first official record of the appearance of the “Highland guard”, clearly what was to be known as the Scottish hilt later on, and fills in another piece of the puzzle of the history of the broadsword which otherwise would have remained unfound. The seventeenth century served as a kind of formative years for the Scottish hilt in which it developed and took its shape. Needless to say that there were many variations of hilt through the period, as a curatorial discussion will find, but eventually will settle on a single one.

“The Scottish basket hilt, with its traditional heart-shaped piercings and large square plates, seems to have appeared in the second half of the century [17^th] and remained in use for over a hundred years.” (Coe, 1996:74)

Eighteenth Century

"During the 18th century, the fashion of dueling in Europe focused on the lighter smallsword, and fencing with the broadsword came to be seen as a speciality of Scotland. A number of fencing manuals teaching fencing with the Scottish broadsword were published throughout the 18th century." (Wikipedia, 2016)

          While the Wikipedia (2016) is not the most reliable source the information presented above is accurate. Most of the Continent was focused on the use of the smallsword and thus most of use of the broadsword was left to military matters. Being a more “native” weapon to the Scots, manuals for the use of the broadsword were also published alongside those for the smallsword.

In the case of the broadsword, the stage of full development had arrived, “The basket-hilted sword, in which the entire hand was protected by a leather-lined cage of bars was made in many variations throughout the eighteenth century.” (Coe, 1996:85). The complete hand was protected and the weapon was established. In the end, the broadsword would serve more as a military sword rather than a civilian sword and, “The variety of basket hilts found on eighteenth-century military swords is enormous,” (Coe, 1996:86). One thing that can be said is that the Scottish type was the more dominant form later due to its developmental stages.

“As for the ‘Scottish’ sword, in its earliest forms it as uncompromisingly English, and remained a standard English pattern far into the eighteenth century; only very late in the century did it become exclusively Scottish.” (Oakeshott, 2012:170)

          The Scottish form of broadsword was to dominate in form and function and became the more dominant form of hilt for the military. Even in the backsword form, the “basket-hilted backsword of about 1766. Swords of this pattern were fashionable for officers in the last quarter of the eighteenth century.” (Coe, 1996:86). The effect of the popularity of this form of hilt type can be seen in popular culture as for the most part when a basket-hilt is seen it is compared to the Scottish form. Instantly the broadsword is associated with the eighteenth-century Scottish Highlander, and also the Highland Regiments of the British Empire which followed.

Broadsword or Backsword?

          To delve into the question of the broadsword is also to come up against all sorts of different questions and be confronted by different weapons which may claim to be the same thing when in fact they are not, and sometimes they are. One of the first stops along this path is the backsword. This is the first question that must be answered, what is the difference between the broadsword and the backsword, where is the line drawn between the two, or is there one to be drawn? The answer to this is actually relatively simple, but some other things have to be taken into account.

“The Basket hilted sword was also called the Scottish Broad Sword. There was also a version called the claidheamh cuil which means back sword. The back was blunt with just one sharp edge.” (Watterott, 2016)

         

What can be seen here is that the concept of the backsword is actually quite found quite far afield. In this case there is Scottish Gaelic for the term backsword meaning a weapon which has only one sharp edge, so in essence the idea stands on firm ground. When it comes to the broadsword it is the Scots who would seem to be the experts, as for questions about the “claymore”, they will be answered later on. In our contemporary society ideas of curatorial differences in weapons based on form rather than function still hold true, “Where the blade has only one cutting edge it is known as a backsword.” (Akehurst, 1969:8). This does not take into account the use of the weapon merely the form of the weapon.

          One of the more interesting discoveries which came out of this research is that the weapons, both the broadsword and backsword were claimed as cavalry weapons (Wagner, 2004:20). This is most interesting as it is the Scots Highland Regiments which were primarily infantry units where the broadsword is most known from, not to mention all of the evidence from manuals which points to using the weapon on foot. Further in the same discussion he claims that the weapon, “had a straight blade, originally two-edged, later only one sharp edge. These weapons were uniform in character,” (Wagner, 2004:20). What should be noted is that it is the two-edged broadsword, of the infantry version which will be the primary focus of this study and that in the sources which describe the use of the weapons both terms were used to describe the same weapon meaning the difference is more a question for curators, rather than those interested in its use.

What is a Claymore?

When the word “claymore” is said two weapons are immediately thought of, a two-handed weapon of medieval origin and also the basket-hilted broadsword more associated with a later period. The question remains as to which is the “claymore”. Of course it would be simple just to use a modern definition.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a “claymore” as “a large 2-edged sword formerly used by Scottish Highlanders, also their basket-hilted broadsword” (Merriam-Webster, 2016). This is rather confusing as it actually indicates two weapons a large one and also the basket-hilted broadsword. What this means is that the common confusion as to what a claymore actually is continues. The aim of what follows is to bring some of this discussion out and find a solution to this question.

“Perhaps the most famous version of the broadsword is the Scottish claymore. Though claymores were originally two-handed swords usually with simple cruciform hilts, their most famous incarnations were fitted with basket hilts, these swords became iconic weapons of the Highland Regiments that fought for the British Empire.” (Soud, 2014:53)

          Soud (2014) would indicate that both were named “claymore”, both the two-handed version and also the basket-hilted version, and that the name was carried through from one weapon to another. Thus for this author it would seem that it is not a matter of naming convention which is the problem, merely that it is a problem with naming the correct era which is being spoken about. For him there would be a “medieval claymore” and a “basket-hilted claymore”. Unfortunately, this does not take into account the origins of the word or where the weapon came from.

“The long two hander was called a claidheamh dà làimh, translated it literally means two handed sword. … In the romanticised period after the Jacobites the term Claymore was then applied to the long medieval sword.” (Watterott, 2016)

          Watterott (2016) examines the native language from which the term “claymore” came from, Scottish Gaelic, presenting the name of the two-handed sword in the language and giving the reason that it was changed to the more familiar one in the later period. This would seem to give more evidence than the previous explanation of giving both weapons the same name. Further to this he explains why the basket-hilted weapon is correctly named “claymore” using similar evidence.

“The Scottish version [of the basket-hilted sword] was broader than similar swords of the time. This sword was called a claidheamh-mór. This is Gaelic and translates into Great Sword due to its larger size than its contemporaries. It is well accepted that Claymore is derived from the Gaelic claidheamh-mór.” (Watterott, 2016)

          Watterott (2016) uses the original language and demonstrates through history the naming conventions of why the basket-hilted weapon should be called “claymore” and the two-handed weapon ...

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.

Bibliography

Akehurst, R. (1969) Antique Weapons for Pleasure and Investment, Arco Publishing Company Inc., New York

Burton, R. (1987) The Book of the Sword, Dover Publications Inc, Mineola, New York (originally published 1884)

Coe, M. (et. al.) (1996) Swords and Hilt Weapons, Prion Books Ltd, London

Collins English Dictionary (2016) “Definition of Broadsword”, http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/broadsword, Harper Collins Publishers, Glasgow

Holmes, R. (2010) Weapon: A Visual History of Arms and Armour, Dorling Kindersley, London

Merriam-Webster (2016) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/claymore

Oakeshott, E. (2012) European Weapons and Armour: From the Renaissance to the Industrial Revolution, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge

Scottish Tartans Authority (2016) “Highland Weapons”, http://www.tartansauthority.com/highland-dress/highland-weapons/

Soud, D. (2014) The Illustrated History of Weapons: Swords, Spears & Maces, Kingsford Editions, Heatherton, Victoria

Wagner, E. (2004) Swords and Daggers: An Illustrated Handbook, Dover Publications Inc., Mineola, New York

Watterott, H. (2016) “Is it a Claymore or a Scottish Basket Hilted Broadsword - History Police 3”, http://slaintescotland.com/blog/history-police/item/41-is-it-a-claymore-or-a-scottish-basket-hilted-broadsword-history-police-3.html

Wikipedia (2016) “Basket-hilted sword”, Wikimedia Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket-hilted_sword

Fencing and Music

Greetings,

There is no doubt that music has an effect on us all. Indeed that one odd body fact that I read somewhere, and have been meaning to fact-check, is that the human heart will beat alongside with the base of the music which is being played, or something similar. Music can inspire us toward different feelings and also emotional states, this particular effect is used in movies all of the time. So, I did some reading and had some thoughts and decided that it was time to look at it in relation to fencing.

Conveniently, not long after this little gem popped into my head I came across an article entitled, "Western Composers and Western Martial Arts" in  Encased in Steel Anthology I. Interestingly enough there were aspects of what was said in here which lined up quite well with what I was going toward. While Keith Farrel's article deals more with the comparison of the dates of music with the dates of treatises to understand their social context and also for a better understanding of their footwork and movement (Farrel, 2015:87), mine was more toward asking questions of how peoples bouts compare to music and what influences it can have on training.

Toward the avenue of my own thoughts I stumbled across an article in Australasian Scientist called "Turn Down the Volume?" which studied the effect of music on study and the performance of students. Needless to say, this article was more along my own lines of thinking as I was also wondering if the playing of music would enhance my students' training or detract from it. Some of it was most helpful with regard to this, as it stated with regard to gene expression and "changes also inferred potential benefits relating to memory, learning and general brain health." music possibly aids in protecting and improving the brain (Flavel, 2015:15).

Clearly there is evidence that music being played is a good thing and can be an aid toward the student's learning. The question next was what music should be played during the practice? Going back to the two useful sources of information there is an examination of the relationship between the manuals and the music in Farrel (2015) as indicated above, Medieval Music is reflected in style of fighting, rhyming method presented in manuals and in music as well (Farrel, 2015:89). This would make medieval music perfect for this kind of fighting. Similarly, Renaissance Music was more complicated also found in music, repetition found in manuals also found in music (Farrel, 2015:90). This meant that the first ...

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.

Bibliography

Farrel, K. (2015) "Western Composers and Western Martial Arts" in Farrel, K. (ed) (2015) Encased in Steel Anthology I, Fallen Rook Publishing, Triquetra Services (Scotland), Glasgow


Flavel, M. (2015) "Turn Down the Volume?" in Australasian Scientist (Vol. 36, No. 7, Sept. 2015) Central Publications Pty Ltd, Wattletree Rd, Australia, pp 14-15

Book Review: Encased In Steel: Anthology I

Greetings,

This is a book review that I should have done not long after Swordplay 2015. What can I say? I took the book home, I had other stuff to research, I read it, I then almost instantly passed it on to a student, and now I have actually had time to sit down and do a book review of it. This in some way alludes to my attraction to the book once I finally managed to open the cover and actually start reading.

Farrel, K. (ed) (2015) Encased in Steel Anthology I, Fallen Rook Publishing, Triquetra Services (Scotland), Glasgow

First bibliographical details, above and, the book is a soft cover, just over 200 pages long. It is about the size of a large novel in area (15 x 23-cm). All in all the book is quite unremarkable by its outside. This is one of those cases where the book should not be judged by the cover.

The book is filled with great articles covering many different subjects. Many of these subjects would not even be considered by some members of the HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts) community to be relevant to their studies. I would suggest this is because that their focus is more on the physical aspects of what they are studying rather than an holistic examination of the arts.

The editor, states that this is a selection of articles from the "Encased in Steel" weblog, plus some extra articles which have been added in. As stated previously it covers a wide variety of subjects clearly divided into five general areas: Chivalry & Christian Values, HEMA History & Research, Weapon History & Research, The Practice of Cutting and Practical Concerns for HEMA Clubs. All of these areas are pertinent to HEMA and also the wider sword-wielding communities.

The articles themselves are very well written and easy to read. Jargon is in most cases explained so that the reader does not get confused. All of the articles are well documented and researched and each one has a bibliography supplied at the end of the article for further examination of the sources for further research. While the manner of writing is more scholarly in approach, bringing up relevant details in the appropriate manner and also forming arguments based on the evidence presented, the articles are also presented in a way which is engaging. The multiple authors are respected in their various fields in the HEMA community.

Rather than focusing on the purely martial art and physical aspects of HEMA, it also has some especially interesting articles on the ethics of swordsmanship and other social aspects which are integrally related with the wielding of a sword and indeed other weapons. Needless to say this collection of writings, while not wholly may in single appeal to a much wider community, as such this book is recommended for reading by all those interesting in swordsmanship, regardless of their interest or skill level.

Cheers,

Henry.