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

On Tournaments

 Greetings,

The following is a discussion of tournament formats and their relation to the art that is being created. A person should ask themselves how the tournament format encourages or discourages behaviours in the combatants in the tournaments, and ask themselves whether or not the style of play encourages or discourages good fencing. These tournament formats will be discussed in general terms, rather than getting down to the nitty-gritty because overall the style of tournament may be the same, it is the rules which govern that tournament which is the deciding factor in this case. An idea to push this envelope will be suggested in the final part of this discussion.

There are lots of different formats for tournaments, the choice of actual format usually depends on numbers. While certain tournaments allow for the greatest number of bouts for combatants, they become quite long and unwieldy when the numbers become large. This is a consideration that needs to be made when the tournament is put together, or sometimes, even on the day once the number of combatants is known.  

The following discussion is more about the internal rules of the combats rather than the formats themselves, thought this can affect the format. There are some standard formats which are quite common to tournaments, which should be explained, just as a matter of course.

• Round robin: all combatants fight each other. 
• Elimination tournament: the combatants have a certain amount of "lives" when these are expended they are removed. A double-elimination, for example, means that the competitors have two lives.
• Direct Elimination: the combatants fight one another, and the victor advances to the next round.
• Pools: combatants fight in pools, the top competitors are selected to fight in semi-finals, and finals.

Within the tournament formats there are several different ways to determine a victor for each bout, and this is where things begin to show their differences between the different types of fencing. The bout may be scored, with the competitor with the highest score winning. It may be a best-of-three, with the competitor who scores two wins winning. It may be a single-kill with the competitor with the first win being the winner. It is in this part of the discussion where the differences between the types of fencing are shown.

Sport fencing bouts are scored, most often to 15 points, with the individual who reaches 15 points winning the bout. A point is scored for striking the opponent within the scoring area, according to the rules. All worth one point, regardless of the target struck. In foil, only the torso scores; in sabre only above the waist; in épée the whole body is a target. Every target is one point regardless of weapon.

In Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA) have a system which is different to sport fencing, above, but in some ways is the same. The bouts are scored, like the sport fencing bouts. In the case of these bouts they often have a time limit, or a score limit. Sometimes the score will be negative, as in points against the fencer, but the fencer re-sets after each point is scored. There is delineation between targets struck sometimes between "shallow" and "deep", sometimes further between limb (or type of limb, or part of limb), body and head. Points are tallied and there is a result.

In the common Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA) tournament, the part that is struck, the combatant loses, in the case of a body or head shot, the combatant "dies" and is deemed defeated. The combatants, most often, do not re-set and are made whole again after being struck. If they are struck in their primary weapon arm, they are expected to either swap arms or accept a loss of the bout. If they are struck multiple times, all of the blows count, not just the first one.

The SCA does have tournament scenarios where points are scored, these are primarily against the person who was struck, rather than to the person doing the striking. This encourages people to watch themselves and to cover themselves in their attacks, but the tournaments where there are immediate consequences to an attack felt on a combatant who is struck, is usually the rules-set which is used.

In regard to this, the SCA has the advantage, because it reminds the combatants that the weapons that they are learning about, and practising to use in these combats were sharp and they did have consequences of a dire kind should a combatant not be certain in their defence. It was not a point that was lost when one of these weapons struck, it was the chance for permanent maiming and death. People often forget, because weapons that are used are blunt, and because sharp weapons are not fought with in real encounters, that there is a lethal nature to the martial art that is being learned. The SCA method of tournament reminds people of this aspect, that a touch to the sword arm has consequences, and that maybe leaving it out is not such a good idea.

A further way to remind people about the sharp and lethal nature of the weapons is the "single kill, single elimination" tournament, or "reality tournament"; in a nut-shell, when you die you're out. It means that if you're struck in the body or the head, or any lethal incapacitating zone, you are out. The other rules follow the same as the usual SCA tournament, hit in the limb, lose the use of that limb. In the "reality plus" version of this tournament wounds are carried through the tournament; this is a way to remind people that sacrificing a limb for a blow is not such a great idea. This "reality tournament" is designed to make people think, and to remind them that "double-kills" or "after-blows" are a bad idea, in any tournament that I run, they count as a double-loss. It is better to hit cleanly. The goal of swordsmanship is, after all, to strike and not be struck.

Cheers,

Henry.

P.S. A bit of shameless advertising:
I have written another book His Practice in Modern and Elizabethan English, which is my treatise on fencing. It has an Indiegogo campaign running to raise funds for the purposes of publishing and marketing the book. If you are interested in just having a look, or assisting: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/his-practice-a-treatise-on-the-civilian-sword#/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation every year to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.

Special Edition: Of Gorgets

 Greetings,

This is one more for all of my SCA readers (and more for my Australian readers), however the principles apply regardless of your rules-set...

The gorget is a piece of armour, rigid in construction which is worn about the neck. It is often taken for granted, often not thought about until either a person's doesn't fit properly, or that first time an opponent strikes it and the fencer realises it just might have saved your life. The gorget needs to be discussed like any other piece of armour, investigated and addressed so it can be understood more deeply and appreciated.

The gorget in fencing is primarily designed to protect your throat and neck, from the crushing damage of the point of the opponent's weapon. A strike from an unprotected larynx could result in a person being suffocated. Should the weapon break then the gorget protects the neck from a piece of steel coming at their neck. It is important that the gorget covers the entire neck because there are nerves, veins and arteries which are all around the neck, and damage to any one of these can cause catastrophic consequences. This is the reason that, like the head, the neck is protected by rigid material. Damage to the neck can result in death, or other permanent consequences.

2.8.3 Neck

1. You must wear a gorget (collar) made from rigid material to protect your entire neck and throat. This should be backed by resilient padding or penetration-resistant material.

2. You must also protect your cervical vertebrae with rigid material. This might be a combination of a gorget, helm or hood insert.

The above is what the current Lochac Rapier Rules say about protecting the neck. The first point is the one which is most important for our discussion here, though the second one is also a factor. The gorget must protect "your entire neck and throat", this means that all of it should be covered, any part of your body which is considered part of the neck or the throat should be covered by the gorget. It is as simple as that, and should remain covered. This includes the obvious throat at the front down to the collar bones, but also includes around the sides as well and includes the back of the neck, and notice the mention of the cervical vertebrae, all must be covered.

Here are some things to look for when you are making or buying a gorget. When you put it on, if you can easily slip your finger up and under the front of your gorget and touch the gap between your collar bones, the gorget is too short in the front. The gorget will tilt back with your head and this part of your neck may be exposed.

When you tilt your head forward, if the underneath of your chin does not touch the top of your gorget, you should be concerned. Put your mask on. If you can put your fingers between the gorget and the bib of your mask, your gorget does not cover your throat, it does not sit high enough.

When you do your gorget up, if the rigid plates of the gorget do not meet, on both sides, then the gorget does not cover your entire neck. The plates of the gorget must meet to give full protection to the neck, and to cover your entire neck.

One of the greatest complaints about gorgets is that they are uncomfortable, they don't fit nicely or other such things. They are no different to any other piece of armour, or clothing. If you buy it "off the shelf", you have to put up with what you are given. If you pay for customisation, then you will get a better fit. The best gorget fit will always be the one which is made with the person actually present so fittings to the individual can be made as it progresses, the same as clothing.

Cheers,

Henry.

The Story of Fencing from a Chair

 Greetings,

Some of my readers know me in person, quite a few do not. This means that you do not know where my information comes from, whether or not I have done any experimentation or research, or if I actually hold any sort of even pseudo-qualifications to be telling you about fencing. To shed a little light on at least one part of this, I present my story of fencing from a chair. This is intended to give a little history, to show where it all came from, and that I did not develop the techniques and ideas that I propose for using this technique overnight.

The two primary articles for fencing from a chair, if you are interested in the concept, are:
No Footwork Fencing Or Fencing From a Chair and Etiquette for Facing a Seated Opponent. I will refer to these articles throughout this article, and if you want an idea of what I am talking about, these are your go-to articles. I have written a couple of other articles on the subject, one which proposed the use of the techniques of Fabris from a chair, and others. This subject is really one of my specialties, and you will see why shortly. 

The Beginning

D.A. Girard Actors On Guard, 1996

The first time I had seen fencers with rapiers sitting down was this picture from Actors On Guard by D.A. Girard, about 1997, a theatrical fencing manual which I had used for research purposes, because it had some quite relevant information about the use of the rapier and dagger. This drill concerns ensures that the two fencers remain out of range but can practise their blade engagement and other blade skills. I did not pay it particularly much attention until something happened.

Life has its little twists and turns, as it would have it, I stepped in a hole and injured my ankle. The doctor's prognosis a badly twisted and sprained ankle. Treatment: strapping and as little pressure on the foot as possible, for six weeks. At the time I was in a small group as the primary trainer and this would mean six weeks of no training, because I could not stand... well, only if I had to stand. My thoughts went back to the image above. 

The next week at training, I turned up hobbled out to the middle of the field with a chair. I parked my butt, in much the same way as in the picture and invited my students to have a go. The learning curve was very sharp...

There was no quick retreat step to get you out of trouble; there was a lot more reliance on your hands and accuracy in your parries. On the other hand, your opponent could easily take a step back or even simply lean back; your timing and Distance with your attacks had to be on point. These were two simple things that I learnt from the first training session. My handwork improved over the period, as did my sense of Distance, at least in regard to my sword- and arm-length, with a little body lean. My parries were also a lot more accurate, but there had to be more. This adventure sparked more interest in the subject...

Research Begins

After I recovered from my injury, I noticed that my hand-work i.e. parries, thrusts and other elements focused on the use of the hand had improved, as had my stationary sense of Distance. I had a very rudimentary idea about how seated fencing could work. I figured there had to be more available about fencing from a chair.

I first turned to sport fencing to see if there were any clues there, any answers to be found. While standard sport fencing held no answers, the Paralympics did. Here I found wheelchair fencing, which is essentially fencing from wheelchairs. If you've never seen this, I recommend that you do; it's a real eye-opener. There are some impressive videos on YouTube.

I examined the rules for wheelchair fencing as possible future alternative for myself. Something that I could use later on should one of my chronic illnesses cause me to be confined to a wheelchair, or similar situation in the future. One of the big things that I noticed was that the wheelchairs were angled. In my initial foray into fencing from a chair my body was placed in the chair in its usual manner, much like the picture above. The angulation of the body on the chair at least would change things, and I would get the opportunity to try it out.

Rowany 2006 (AS XL)

Rowany Festival is the biggest get together for the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) in Australia. In 2006 it was held at the Cross-Roads Campsite which is near Yass, New South Wales. The event is held on the Easter weekend, and is a camping event. I went along to the event and camped, like most of the attendees.

Sleeping in a tent, in the cold (it got down to - 6 degrees Celsius overnight one night), resulted in my fibromyalgia playing up quite severely. The result being that my leg froze up; hip, knee and ankle. I had promised that I would play some Prizes (examinations) the same day, so I suggested I could do them from a chair. This allowed me to put some of my new-found research into practice.

Duncan Bailey and Myself

You will note, while the chair is still mostly facing square to the opponent, my body is somewhat angled to him. The chair is slightly angled but not significantly. There were quite a few revelations made during these Prizes. First, that rapier and dagger is the superior form when fighting from a chair as it gives you both offensive and defensive options at distance and close, while defensive forms are useful, but are hampered a little in close. Second, that fighting with an extended guard while intimidating leaves you exposed should the opponent clear the blade. Third, the Low Line is mostly insignificant and needs little effort to defend. The experience confirmed some previous ideas and gave me more.

The Four Foot Model

Much later on, I went to a seminar about Fiore dei Liberi with Bob Charron. How does this concern fighting from a chair? Just wait and you will find out. In this discussion he discussed "open" feet and "closed" feet, along with "lines of power" in a person's stance. In wrestling, a person was strong where they had two "closed" feet lined up, this made a "line of power"; they were weak where their two "open" feet lined up along the other "line of power". This described a person having four feet. A person was manipulated so the fencer would put their opponent over their "open" foot to destabilise them.

Some years later I was thinking about fencing from a chair and its use, when I realised the blindingly obvious... a chair has four feet. Therefore the chair has four "closed" feet. If the chair can be angled correctly to the opponent, and the fencer sits in the chair correctly, the fencer can also have four "closed" feet and will remain stable in their movement.

The angling of the chair came from the position of the chairs placed for wheelchair fencing. They are bolted in place so they do not move about. I had previously just been angling my body. If the chair was angled too, then there would be more stability, and the possibility of movement of the body. 

So, I sat down on the chair, lined my legs up with the chair legs, then turned my body until I was in profile, relatively to my opponent. More to the point I sat on the chair so I would sit in my guard position with my front toe pointed toward my opponent. If I stood up and the chair was taken away there would be no difference. This is where the true essence of my system of fencing from a chair evolved. 

Angle the chair to the opponent so the front leg lines up with your natural front leg of your stance. Make sure the chair that you are using doesn't have arms, so they won't get in the way. Make sure the chair is stable so you can bend at your middle, should you desire, and remain balanced. Get a chair suitable for your height, so your feet can be flat on the floor. All of these things came with this model.

Revelations

My most recent explorations into fencing from a chair which have appeared in articles on this blog have been the result of experiences, both good and bad of fencing from a chair. There will be time, in the future, where I will, no doubt, write another article about the subject of fencing from a chair explaining my method and how it works, by then I will hope to have some more revelations about fencing from a chair.

I looked at doing Fabris from a chair, because I cannot perform his method standing up. I even wrote a good long article about the subject which appears in my book Un-Blogged: A Fencer's Ramblings. This was more a theoretical exploration rather than a practical one. I have played with it a bit while fencing from a chair, and the on guard position looks intimidating as hell, but I really need to play with it a lot more to get it working properly.

One thing I must put in here, fighting case of rapier from a chair is a little crazy, because once your opponent gets past your points you have a lot of trouble. Fighting case of rapier against another person who is also in a chair with case of rapier, is a little insane, but a hell of a lot of fun. Rotella give you a lot of coverage, but once again, once the opponent gets close you are in trouble, they are also a nuisance to fight around.

The biggest revelations when it comes to fencing from a chair were: the angling of the body and the chair; the use of the body as "footwork" and for voiding; the use of various off-hands, rapier and dagger being the superior form; and finally, the Low Line is minimal, be careful not to hit yourself when you cover it.

What's Next?

Quite frankly, I don't like fencing from a chair. I only do it when I have to, or when I teach it, or when my opponent invites me, because they are fencing from a chair because they have to, or because I have been legged and I don't want to sit on the ground (I don't kneel, it hurts too much). This is a method that I devised so I could continue fencing when my legs decided to pack it in and not work.

The most important thing about fencing from a chair is that it is not a gimmick. It is a real option for those with mobility issues of a permanent or temporary kind. Indeed, when I originally wrote this, one of my students was fencing from a chair; he was a couple of weeks out of hip replacement surgery.

 

Fencing from a chair is also good for training. Concerned that the actions of your hands are not what they used to be? Want to check them out? Fence from a chair and find out. It is also a good way of utilising limited space to a premium. Think of how many fencers you could have fencing from chairs in the same space you have standing. Push that idea further, an indoor tournament, all the fencers fence from chairs in the middle of the hall while people sit around watching. That's a small list field.

I have fenced from a chair in some form or another for about 15 maybe 20 years now, and I have experienced some good and bad from fencing from a chair. I have also seen good and bad as a result of others fencing from chairs, and it is not always a person who is standing who is in the wrong. Everyone can have their effect om the situation for good or for ill.

I have seen standing fencers snipe at their maximum range while the seated fencer cannot reach them; and close to where the seated fencer has no chance of withdrawal. I have also seen seated fencers move from their chairs to gain a little extra Distance, close to launching themselves from their seated position. I have seen standing fencers turn a seated fencer around in their chair to gain advantage over them. I have seen shots land that were claimed to hit the chair, where it actually hit the seated fencer. Both standing and seated fencers can do ill for the game that is played, but they can also do a lot of good as well.

Always consider your opponent, and consider the fencers who will come after you. The trick that you pull today may look cool, but it might ruin things for people after you. Consider whether the act that you perform will earn you renown or notoriety in its performance.

I will keep researching and finding new ways to improve the techniques for fencing from a chair, and hopefully more people will begin to understand this method of fighting. It has taken quite a while to figure things out, and is still a work in progress. I will continue to share my findings as well.

Cheers,

Henry.

A Fencer's Responsibility

 Greetings,

There is lots of discussion about individuals' rights and what a person is or is not allowed to do, say, wear, or practice. People forget that along with rights come responsibilities. Responsibilities begin with the simple responsibilities we have to our fellow human beings which allow the rights to exist in the first place, but this post is not to discuss such subjects. If you want my discussion of this subject you can read it HERE. The subject at hand is the responsibilities that each fencer has to each other fencer. These responsibilities are intrinsic with the picking up of a weapon, of any kind, simulated or not.

Every time that you fence, or even pick up your weapon you are representing every other fencer as a member of an unofficial, but present worldwide membership, that goes back into history, and crosses national and cultural boundaries. It does not matter if you are a member of the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronisms), a kendoka, a sport fencer or a member of one of the many Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA) groups around the world, you have a connection ALL of them, simply because you participate in the art of the sword. You have a responsibility to all of them to represent the art in its best light. This is the first responsibility that you have. Every time a person takes up a sword and strikes another human being in anger or with the intent to injure or kill, it sheds a negative light on everyone else. 

Safety: It's All in Your Hands

Safety in regard to any weapon, it primarily concerns control over that weapon. For a firearm it involves ensuring that the weapon is unloaded whenever it is away from the range; ensuring that it only points toward the target when it is loaded; your finger only goes anywhere near the trigger when you are ready to fire; and ensuring the weapon is again unloaded before leaving the firing area. All of these points are about controlling the mechanical processes which are involved in the operation of the weapon.

It's Still a Weapon

The firearm is obviously a weapon capable of doing damage, but in all cases the swords which are used in fencing should always be treated as weapons. They may be simulated weapons in most cases, except those used for test-cutting, but they are weapons nonetheless, and should be treated with the respect due a weapon as they still have the potential to do damage. This is something that you must appreciate, and thus observe all of the rules in regard to safety.

Rules and Conventions

Some groups, and most of the officially established groups have formalised rules and conventions for the way they perform their combats. If the situation is a more informal situation then some of the rules and conventions may be unwritten and there may be some negotiation required before the combat starts. In either case, ensure that you always stay within the rules and conventions which have been established for the combat. They are there for your safety and the safety of your opponents. If you are unsure about any of these, ask before you start.

There are many reasons to fight within the established rules and conventions. In many instances if you do not  there will be consequences for not doing so. These can be up to and including removing and banning you from participation. There is a better reason to fight within these standards, it will result in a more pleasant fight, and people will more likely want to fight you again. This will give you a better reputation, and this spreads to other groups with which they will have contact. I have already discussed the subject of notoriety and renown in another article previously.

The Excessive Blow

There will be instances where a combatant will be struck too hard. This is inevitable as fencing is, after all, a contact sport. The purpose is to strike the opponent after all. There is an acceptable standard set in groups as to what blow is hard enough and what is too much, the latter being an "excessive blow." This may waver between groups and even within a group.

You should always attempt to strike with sufficient force to transmit your intent, but never to injure your opponent, if there is no standard set. Discuss the standard in a group where you are visiting to ensure that you do not strike too hard. It is your responsibility to ensure that you do not strike too hard.

Now incidents will happen where such blows are unavoidable, colloquially it could be called the, "sh*t happens" situation, but this is the exception more than the rule. Such an incident could occur where both fencers attack simultaneously, mutually striking one another, or even simply one striking the other. One miscalculates what the other is about to do, expecting them to go back instead of forward, and they are struck, the result is an "excessive blow." 

In each instance the responsibility falls to the person holding the weapon which struck the person who received the "excessive blow" not the person who was struck. The blame should not fall on the person who is struck as the individual should have control of their weapon. Again, there will be instances where the individual has thrown themselves on to the weapon, but it is up to them to accept the blame rather than receive it. This is a fine line, but it must be noted.

Know the Rules

Some will state part of safety and what has been said previously is knowing the rules, and in part they are correct. It is important to know the rules, but the following discussion focuses on the rules of the game that is being played, rather than the game and how it is played. There are often long sets of rules which are presented and many participants read part of them, leaving much of them to marshals or referees, depending on what the appointed safety personnel are called. For convenience, I will be calling them "marshals" and the combatants as "fencers".

Fencer's Rules

Many feel it is sufficient for a fencer only to know those rules which particularly pertain to the fencer. In this they feel it is only necessary that the fencer know: the conventions of combat, armour and weapon standards, and how to fight safely. The result is they focus on only those rules which pertain to them as a fencer which either get them on the field or involve them actually fencing. This, unfortunately, leaves a rather large hole in their knowledge, and can cause issues for them, should certain incidents arise.

Know All the Rules

In actual fact, even for fencers it is better to know all of the rules. This is because they give explanation to things in the fencer's rules which are often described in detail in the later parts. A fencer may be involved in an incident on the field of combat. If they have only read the bare minimum, they do not know how to handle the incident, aside from talking with their opponent, and maybe the marshal on the field.

Knowing all the rules allows the fencer to know procedures for following up on incidents which occur on the field, should they occur. On the more positive side, should a fencer find a weapon combination that is not yet covered in the rules, they will, however give direction how they might be able to experiment with permission, rather than simply turning up and simply being not allowed to use it. Other procedures which are presented in the rules include what to do about another fencer if they break a rule, or if the fencer has concerns about the rules.

If the fencer only knows their part of the rules. How do they know when a marshal is acting within the bounds of the rules? How do they know how to do anything about this? All such information is, no doubt, found somewhere within the rules and procedures, beyond the simple rules for fencers. Likewise the reporting procedures, so any of the incidents mentioned above, can be reported correctly is likely present. This way something can be done about the incidents, the first time, rather than a lot of backward and forward as the fencer talks trying to find the right person to talk to.

Rules and Safety

It would be nice to think that every combatant had the safety of every other combatant in mind every time they took the field. It is simply not the case. Once the adrenaline begins to flow, and the desire for victory is present, often concerns for safety tend to blend into the background and things get missed. It is at these times the individual needs to stand firm and be the representative of safety, even if it is only doing their part to keep them and their opponent safe.

One way of keeping people safe is to know the rules under which you are fighting, and knowing all the procedures so you can follow them, should it be required. If you are involved in an incident, it is your responsibility to report it as you were involved. If you expect something to be done about it, then it is likely that you will have to follow it up using the correct procedures. This is your responsibility.

You have a responsibility as a fencer, one that is linked to every other fencer around the world. The safer you can make what you do the more likely that what you do will last for years to come. The greatest threat that fencing of all kinds faces is not from a lack of participants, but from safety issues and thus legal and insurance issues. It is your responsibility to do your part to keep it safe.

Cheers,

Henry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation every year to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.

Etiquette for Facing A Seated Opponent

 Greetings,

A long while ago I wrote an article entitled No Footwork Fencing Or Fencing From a Chair, intended to teach people some of the ideas that I had gained from my practice of fencing from a chair. This is no gimmick, no trick. This a legitimate way for those who are not able to stand, to participate in rapier combat, from a period foundation, and from a comfortable position. This article has been quite popular and people have taken these principles on board, and this is great. I would like to thank all of those who have promoted these ideas. I will not name names, to prevent embarrassing myself by missing someone, you know who you are.

Now, we have the problem in reverse, people who do not understand how to fence a person who is seated in a chair. They do not know what to expect from a seated fencer. They do not know what they should and should not do so they can treat their opponent with courtesy, so both can have an enjoyable encounter. I have seen some really good things, I have also seen, and experienced, some not so nice things. Here, I will explain how to face an opponent who is seated, so you both have an honourable encounter, and an enjoyable one as well.

Precedence: For all of those who are looking for precedence for fencing from a chair, look no further than the Paralympic Games. For those who want a more period approach, I believe there is an incident in one of the many duelling books, where it is reported that one individual fought seated, even in a chair, while the other stood. I don't have the story to hand, if I find it I will include it later on.

Not Often Seen

Facing a seated opponent is something that does not happen very often. Even when a person is legged in SCA rapier combat, most will choose either to go to their knees or post, rather than sitting on their behind. Personally, I find this quite odd. The seated position, is quite stable, and substantially more comfortable for an extended period of time, especially for a person with dodgy joints, but I digress. 

The fencer who chooses to start their fencing bout from a chair, by choice, does not happen all that often, though there are is a small number who are doing so more often. This is an unusual situation, and there are some important things to consider when facing this opponent, seated as they are. These are things which should be considered above and beyond facing an opponent who has been legged, but should also be applied in the same situation.

"It's a Trap!" ... No. It's not.

One of the things that runs through some people's minds about the seated combatant is that the chair is some sort of defensive device that the seated combatant is going to use all of a sudden (especially with some recent discussions about di Grassi's approach to defensive items and the concept of off-hand chair, a discussion for another article). Another thought is, the combatant is going to lure their opponent in, and then spring out of their chair to launch a devastating attack against their opponent. 

Put these fears aside. If your opponent is starting fencing from a chair, there is likely a good reason for it. It is not the best position to start from as the person loses most of the control of Distance by doing so. They may lure you in, but they are not going to be springing out of their chair at anytime, so you can put that one to bed.

Comfort

Just like any combatant who has had their mobility impaired by your action, you should check your opponent's comfort. You should check whether they are comfortable, is the sun in their eyes, or glare affecting them. Ask them whether they are comfortable in their position. We will return to this comfort area shortly.

While it is a true courtesy, I would suggest that you ask whether they want to check their Distance, and check yours as well. This is useful for at least a couple of reasons. First, it allows your opponent to check their Distance knowing when they can strike you, thus giving you an idea of when they can strike you. Second, when you check your Distance, it allows you to give the same courtesy, and a rough idea of how close you have to be to strike your opponent safely. The seated combatant isn't going to walk into your blow after all. There are some things that the seated combatant can do, but mostly it is up to the standing combatant, hence checking Distance is useful.

When we come to the combative elements of facing the seated combatant, there are some two main headings that things can be placed under: Line and facing. The Line is the more straight-forward one and has less discussion so it will be dealt with first, but this belies its importance. Likewise, just because the subject of facing is being placed second does not mean that it is of "secondary" importance, they are both of equal importance if you want to have a bout that both you, and your opponent, will enjoy.

The Line

The Line is determined by the position of the hilt of the sword, in most standard ward positions this usually divides the individual through the waist, or thereabouts, unless you are from an Iberian school. A person who is seated is not likely going to be performing something from one of those schools from a chair due to the movement requirement. This means that the target for the Low Line is the hips and legs, maybe the lower belly.

Forget the Leg

Why am I discussing the Low Line? Unless you are aiming for the lower belly or femoral arteries of the seated opponent's legs, striking at the Low Line is a waste of time. Indeed, I would say that striking a seated opponent in the leg is just plain rude. Just don't do it, "Just to be sure." or for any other reason, leave the legs alone. Yes, incidental contact happens, and this needs to be accepted, but targeting the legs of a seated combatant, not polite. It's not like the fencer in the chair can be any more immobile, or any more seated.

Facing

The facing of the opponent is important when it comes to the fencer who is seated, it becomes more important when the fencer is seated in a chair. Like any opponent who is grounded you should not "corkscrew" (move around your opponent) this is just plain impolite. In the case of the seated combatant, they have no way to move, except to possibly swivel on their chair, if they are able, in most instances they can't, or simply won't, as this will affect their comfort. In regard to this, remain to their front.

Don't Turn the Opponent

The seated combatant will have placed their chair in a particular position facing you in a particular way so it is comfortable for them. This will likely result in the back of the chair not being directly behind them and other similar factors involved. Further the stability of the combatant is likely founded on the position of them in their chair. While it is convenient for you to change the facing so you can stand front facing to them, so the chair is front-on as this will give you the bigger target, this is certainly not convenient for them. 

Their stability is likely compromised due to this positioning. If they try to lean backward, they could topple the chair over and hurt themselves. Remain to the seated combatant's front. Consider your opponent's comfort as well as your own. Doing so will make it a much more pleasurable bout for you and your opponent.

Be Polite

In all of these instances, put yourself in your opponent's place. Would you appreciate your opponent doing the same to you? This is one of those times when you need to ask yourself, what is more important, the win, or the experience? 

We should always be considering how we can make the experience of fencing better for our opponent. This involves being polite, greeting a new opponent and introducing ourselves. Saluting our opponent in an honourable fashion. Giving our opponent the benefit of the doubt, in all instances. It does not mean that we should not use our skills, or seek to win the bout, but we should try and make the experience as enjoyable as possible. The way that we know that we have achieve this is by, both combatants coming off the arena both with smiles, and more so when the same combatant seeking us for follow-up bouts afterward, because the experience was so enjoyable. 

Have fun with your fencing, but take your opponent's fun into account as well.

Cheers,

Henry.

Read the Whole Thing

 Greetings,

I posted a document in October of last year, which I had been working on for a couple of months. It was a recreation of an Elizabethan political pamphlet, which I spoke about on my blog about Elizabethan English you can find that post here. Now, I did this because I wanted to try writing my own Elizabethan political pamphlet and it gave me the chance to have a play with the language, so it was a bit of fun. The reception was not what I expected.

It was thought that I was decrying the use of rubber-band guns (RBGs) on the rapier melee field in the SCA, complaining about their use. I merely used the subject of firearms and their impact upon  swordsmanship, a very Elizabethan political topic as my focus. I however focused the argument primarily on the unreliability of the weapons and their primary source of ignition, black powder. The issue was that most read the first part of the argument, where the initial complaint was made, and did not bother to read the rest where the argument unfolded. This, unfortunately happens with a lot of texts, and I have not been immune.

When I first was introduced to the rapier and all things about it, I went madly searching about for treatises about their use. Well, back in the late 1990s there was the choice of three manuals: Saviolo, di Grassi and Silver. For my initial starting I started with George Silver. I started to read his Paradoxes of Defence, only to find that the man was decrying the use of rapiers and telling the reader how useless they were and other such opinions. I did not finish reading the treatise in that sitting feeling that there was nothing of use that I could find in his treatise, indeed I almost avoided anything to do with the author. 

Some almost ten years later I circled back to his treatises. Had I read further than I did, in among his complaints about the Italians and their practices, there are actually some gems which are quite useful and I have been using in my training ever since. So for ten years I missed out on useful information because I did not bother reading the whole thing because I thought I knew what he was on about from the first part of his treatise.

Don't fall into the same trap that I did and others often do, don't assume that you know what the author is talking about just by what they have said in their introductory comments. This goes once for modern documents, double for any document which is either not originally written in our language, and triple for any which is not in our time. Arguments were formed differently in different periods. In the pursuit of arms of different periods, or indeed the pursuit of scholarship of anything from a different period this needs to be taken into account. Read the entire thing before you make your opinions about what the author is trying to say, and their evidence.

Scholarly articles in the modern world, have an abstract which give the reader a precis of what the writer will be writing about, describing in very general terms the ideas which will be presented and a very basic idea of the argument. This is not sufficient to know the argument presented. 

Scholarly articles are usually set out with an introduction, body and conclusion. Sometimes these are even given headings so that they are easy to find. When a person is skimming through lots of documents it may be sufficient to read just the introduction and the conclusion, but this only scrapes the surface of what the author is speaking about and what evidence they use to support it. Only the basic idea of the argument is then known.

Only through reading the entire document will the reader understand where the reader is coming from, what data they are using as evidence, and how they are forming their argument. This is the only way that the reader can understand whether the argument is strong enough to be supported or not. The paper may be well-written but the data may be rubbish, and you won't know unless you read the whole thing.

In terms of a novel, would you only read the beginning and the end? No, you want to see what trials the character went through and how they got to the end. This is the same with anything else that you read. If you want to make a decent argument about something you need to read the whole thing. If you don't you will make assumptions about what is in there and your argument will be poor, and it will become obvious that you haven't actually read it.

You never know, you might actually find something of real interest in something that you read that you thought at the beginning was not going to interest you.

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.

Human Bodies: It's Just a Shoulder... No It's Not

Greetings,

The following article is going to get all anatomical. For those who are waiting for my Part 2 about Females and Combat Training, this is not it, you are just going to have to wait. This article will be addressing some of the parts of the body which we assume that we all know about, but actually do not know as much as they thought. In my case, it was necessary that I learn about these things due to various medical conditions and to understand how to maximise my abilities. Another important thing, I do not have any sort of medical degree or medical training, I just want to point out some stuff that people may not realise.

So, you are fencing away with a friend and you get hit in the area around your shoulder. To be more precise, a couple of inches inside where the ball-joint of your shoulder is. According to SCA rules that is a "killing blow" and you are out, it may not be according to other rules. This discussion will examine why this shot would most likely be a killing blow in the period in which swords were most prevalent, but before this we are going to have a look at breathing.

Lungs

Human lungs showing lobes
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2312_Gross_Anatomy_of_the_Lungs.jpg

Your average adult does not utilise all of their lungs when they breathe. In fact they only utilise about 66% of their lungs when they breathe. This is because they have not learnt how to use all of the upper lobes of the lungs. Lobes? Ok, so the lungs are divided into five lobes, three on the right and two on the left. For the most part people are content to use all of their middle and lower lobes and some of their upper lobes.

This means that they are not utilising nor gaining all of the advantage of their lungs. Of course to gain access to these extra parts of the lungs takes practice. One way to access part of them is to lift your arms above your head and place your hands on top of your head. Sportsmen do this in a passive fashion. People with lung complaints, be it sickness or injury learn to utilise various parts of their lungs due to practice. It takes a lot of concentration.

Lungs and Combat

What has this got to do with the previous conversation about the "shoulder" shot? Well, examining the lungs as they are separate from the body does not help with allowing us to see how they are situated in the body. So, we need to have a look at how the lungs, complete, sit within the body to see how this is going to affect a shot which is made against the torso.

Lungs in the torso
http://www.naturallivingideas.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/lungs-2.jpg

What can be seen in the image is that the lungs actually cover a much wider area that previously thought. Pretty much all that is rib-cage, protects lungs, except for the much lower parts which protect the liver and other parts from the rear. Pay special attention to how close the lung is to the "shoulder" area. This anatomical model does not actually fit the internal structure all that well, but you get the idea. A shot to the "shoulder" has a likelihood of striking the lung. Not a good prognosis for living in the Renaissance period.

"Shoulder" Hit

So, now we will have a closer look at the subclavian area, for this so-called "shoulder" hit and see exactly what can be hit should a weapon strike this area. Even if the lung is not struck the combatant will still be left in a very sorry state.

The right shoulder
http://www.maropice.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/large-intestine-anatomy-luxury-anatomy-subclavian-vein-left-subclavian-vein-anatomy-of-large-intestine-anatomy.jpg

What can be seen in this graphic is that the pink area is all lungs and other associated breathing apparatus. The red lines are arteries, i.e. coming from the heart, and the blue lines are veins, coming back to the heart. Just in case you did not know the carotid artery is the one which carries blood to your brain. The subclavian artery is the one which supplies blood to the arm. Needless to say if any of these are struck the combatant would be in real trouble.

Conclusion

Much more could be said on this subject, but it was designed to simply point out some elements of note for people to understand. Breathing exercises will improve the efficiency of your lung use and will enable you to fence longer. It is also a useful skill to have in case you are not able to use some part of your chest or lungs due to illness or injury. Talk to a medical professional or physiotherapist or someone similar about breathing exercises, you can only try them and find out.

This has been a very brief anatomy lesson with regard to the lungs and the shoulder. There are other systems which are damaged when the shoulder is struck by a sword, such as nerves and muscles, however to keep this a little more succinct I decided to go for the elements which would have the greatest impact. When fencing, consider what you are fencing with and what the actual impact of a real weapon of that kind would do to the part of the body that just got struck. For starters, it will help improve your defense and that can only be a good thing. Hopefully it will also make you really appreciate the martial side of the combats you are involved in. [Edited: Thanks Beth Tobin for the correction about the number of lobes and their location]

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.