Yeah, if I were the long swordsman in those vids, I wouldn't have tried any cuts at all, just keep out of the opponents range at all times while remaining in the longsword trust range, throwing quick small trusts with quick recoveries. When you charge in as you did, he should of had his longsword planted for you to basically run right into it. I would then possibly do some cuts after an initial trust landed.

Hi Vassilis,

Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote:

I agree with that SCA fighting is inherently based on WMA.

That's not really possible my friend. SCA combat was devised in the late 1960's, and modified by various practitioners, sometimes with EMA experience (Paul Porter incorporated his Judo skills), in the 1970's and 80's.

Real practice of resurrected historic European fighting didn't begin until the early 1990's, so it's quite impossible that SCA fighting comes from period fighting. The people who made up SCA fighting will readily admit that too.

Beyond that, assuming your test was done SCA sword & shield vs. period longsword, it really doesn't tell us very much, beyond the obvious thing that it's difficult for a man with a two-handed sword to get around a shield. The shield man can close off an entire line of attack and he has just as much reach as the longswordsman.

All the best,

Christian

Hello Dave,

No, not really. The vast majority of SCA combatants do not study a WMA art, so the two remain, by and large, distinct. On top of that, we have little information on knightly sword and shield as practiced in period (though there's some interesting ways to extrapolate it), so given that the sword and shield is the primary mode of SCA combat, that's a big disconnect in of itself.

All the best,

Christian

Awesome link Sam. I noticed that since they were making most of their cuts from the wrist. I am guessing they use lighter weapons to simulate later period swords. The shields they use are a bit smaller and lighter so they are more maneuverable. Every different style shield has a different fighting style with some commonalities. I started my duel out with a low sword guard but abandoned it for a higher guard when I realized my legs not at great risk. I would not miss an opportunity to sparr with those guys and pick up a few new tricks to add to my arsenal.


I was going to mention the difficulty of dept perception on an incoming thrust but I think you covered it. As George Silver put it "there is not perfect fight without both cut and thrust".

Can a cut from the wrist work in SCA Heavy, or is it to light to "feel" through armour? Has anyone attempted using a light shield in SCA Heavy and fighting like the Marozzo people do? I am curious because I will soon be settling in Toronto for University and might join the SCA group there for the sake of practicing my own studies in rapier. However, if a 16th Century sword and target style like this is feasible for heavy, I might give that a shot as well.

Ok, I'm confused.

I've only recently gotten back into the 'sword-swinging community', for want of a better term, after a twenty year absence. Some things have changed a lot. There are a lot more period manuals available now in translation and in the original, and they're much more accessible, thanks to the internet. There are decent reproduction swords available now, of a bewildering range of styles and periods, at a price most of us can afford, in both blunt versions for sparring and sharp versions for cutting. It's very exciting, but this whole "WMA thing" has me confused.

I thought WMA stood for "Western Martial Arts", and included all the martial-arts-type systems originating in the west and/or focusing on western weapons. So, to my mind, that included such things as Savate and le canne, shillelagh play etc, as well as the more recent revivals of longsword and rapier. Wouldn't sca fighting fit into this model, given that their fighting systems are based on what little is known about the historical styles, extrapolated to fill in the gaps? Isn't that similar to the way the modern students of Silver, the fechtbücher and the Italian treatises have worked, admittedly with a greater volume of more detailed material. After all, you can't learn a martial art from a book. The book can only give you a guide, to be filled in with experimentation and long study. Or have I got it all wrong?

To my eyes, the difference between the SCA and other groups is a philosophical one. The SCA has a principle of inclusivity- it wants everyone to be able to play, irrespective of finances or skill level. So, the armor and weapons may not always be pretty or historically accurate, but as long as the fighter has enough skill and knowledge to avoid hurting themselves or others, and their gear fulfills the same criterion, they can participate. In my past experience of the SCA, people started as bashers in poor armour, but were encouraged over time to improve the quality of their techniques and their equipment. Most did. From what I've been reading that hasn't changed.

Other groups take a more exclusive approach, in which students are required to demonstrate high levels of skill before being allowed to spar freely. Given the less rule-oriented nature of their play, the use of hardwood wasters or metal blunts, and the frequent use of minimal armour, this is a necessity if serious injuries are to be avoided. This approach generally allows far fewer people to participate, but arguably at a much higher average level of skill and 'historical accuracy' (as far as that can be judged).

Please, please note that I'm *not* arguing that one approach is better than the other! I simply think that they are approaching the mountain top from different directions. I firmly believe that all students of the sword can and should learn from each other, and that all approaches have some value. I'm certainly not trying to annoy anyone. I'm simply trying to understand the current situation as it appears to me after a long absence.

So, to return to the start, I'm confused. Why *isn't* SCA fighting a Western Martial Art? What am I missing?

BTW- excellent videos! I enjoyed them hugely. Thanks so much for posting them.

SCA is a modern martial sport with a historical flair. It is not based off of historical fighting arts any more than American football is. Yes, it has overlaps, as do many physical activities, because there is only so large of a range that the human body has.

So, you might argue that SCA is a western martial art because it evolved in the western hemisphere. It is not, however, a historical martial art (unless if you count the 1960s as historical). This is not a knock on SCA fighting: It is what it is. It isn't a difference in philosophy, but a difference in what the players are attempting to accomplish.

It is also somewhat of a losing game to try to mix and mash historical western martial arts usage with SCA fighting due to the fact that SCA fighting has evolved to work specifically for SCA rules, whereas historical martial arts had evolved to fight in life or death situations. It is the same reason you won't see historical martial arts usage in the modern sport of fencing. For that matter, its also the same reason you see separate techniques used for kendo as opposed to kenjutsu: One has a sportive aspect where a certain level of playing to the rules affects how you use your techniques.

An aspect of some SCA events that I appreciate is an attempt to simulate mass infantry formations and battle situations. The group battle setting, variety of weapons, ensuing chaos, etc. has a high degree risk that requires a lot of safety precautions. The precautions may not be historical, but are really justified in my opinion.

I am wondering how many other sport combat groups regularly attempt to simulate the type of mass battle situations that were historically a part of Western medieval European history?

Hi Marc,

Marc Pengryffyn wrote:

Thanks Bill. Yes I can understand why SCA fighting isn't referred to as a historical martial art. As I understand it, that's covered by the term HEMA- for Historical European Martial Art. Right? That's why I'm confused that both Vassilis and Christian seem to agree that its not even a WMA, since I've been under the impression that that term was, as I said, even used for such recent arts as Le Canne.

Well, arts such as La Canne are martial arts because the intent is to train for martial encounters. SCA is not: It is a combat sport, but does not have a real-world aspect to it.

Quote:

I might also disagree (respectfully of course!) that SCA "is not based off of historical fighting arts any more than American football is". When I started SCA fighting some thirty years ago we had very little access to historical training manuals, and there are in fact few if any surviving from the early or high middle ages I gather. But we did study closely what materials there were available, from historical accounts of battles and individual combats to diagrams and illuminated manuscripts. Not nearly as good as having a decent translation of Liechtenauer or Marozzo I confess, but if the sources are lacking you do the best you can with what little you've got. I agree that SCA fighting of necessity has less historical support than those of later periods, but I don't think it's entirely a-historical either.

I see where you're coming from. It still, however, is a style that was *invented* by people who have never fought in a historical combative context. It wasn't based on techniques from earlier martial arts, but was instead a form that was fleshed out by modern people, *inspired* by the ideas of historical combat.

Quote:

Also, I suspect too much attention is placed on the competitive form of SCA combat, the rules of which are primarily intended to prevent injury. Karateka may engage in full-contact competitions, which have a lot of rules and arguably don't simulate real fighting, but does that mean Karate isn't a martial art? I always saw SCA combats as a form of spectacle, and part of your training was geared towards that format, but we also spent a lot of time and effort trying to discover techniques that would have been effective in actual combat.

The thing about karate, though, is that the sport aspect is meant to compliment the martial art aspect. The two are used together, with the understanding of what is artificial in the rules. In SCA combat, you train in order to do SCA fighting.

Quote:

I don't think the comparison with fencing or kendo is entirely valid, since hits in SCA combat aren't gauged by an arbitrary set of rules, but by the individual's judgement of whether the blow would have been crippling if the weapons were real.

Well, the gauging of the power of the blow is very arbitrary. In fact, the rules are that you are supposed to strike as if you were blasting through the armor (which goes against the very teachings of historical fight masters). I would argue that both Kendo and Fencing are, in fact, far more historically accurate than SCA, because the rules have evolved from a direct lineage, and were used historically to compliment martial training. The rules aren't arbitrary; they were developed with specific reasons for training. (Right-of-way, for instance, is possibly one of the most important rules I've ever known in any combat sport, and yet it is the first rule that modern people seem to complain about). SCA rules are not about developing better fighters: They are rules to fit the requirements of SCA participants (safety, fairness, fun, etc).

Quote:

There's no historical sparring format that acts that way, as far as I know, although some tournament play and later prizematches have comparable aspects. To my mind, SCA competitions are analogous to the full-contact bouts of martial arts like karate. If that's all you do, and all your training is geared towards it, then you're getting more sport-like and less martial-artish.But certainly in my day, and I suspect even now, that isn't the totality of SCA combat.

I agree with you, and I think you're definately right: Not everyone in SCA is only interested in the sportive aspect.

Quote:

Regarding- "historical martial arts had evolved to fight in life or death situations"- I think that's true, but I don't believe that stayed their sole purpose for very long. From my reading of the sword schools of the renaissance and after, people had as many reasons for attending them then as people have for attending martial arts classes now. There's a strong element of self-defence, but also maintaining fitness, socializing and more-or-less friendly competition.

I completely agree that it wasn't always about life or death encounters all of the time, and that there were many reasons to train in martial arts. But the arts themselves are rooted in the idea of actual martial encounters.

Quote:

Does the competitive dussack play of the german schools differ that much from what the SCA does?

Yes, very much so: The dussack play was practiced as a sport side-by-side with martial training. The sport developed timing, pressure under fire, and even aggression. But the practitioners were still training with the techniques that were too dangerous for free-play, and were still very aware of what they had to leave out in order to safely practice. I don't think you can say the same is true of the vast majority of modern combat sports (not just SCA).

For example, how many SCA combatants seriously practice grappling as part of their SCA training? How many train with dagger techniques for when they are disarmed? Sure, the SCA mass combat rules may not allow these techniques... but if you seriously train them anyway, as our historical predecessors did, then you have a much better understanding of how real combat works. If you aren't training those techniques, then you are only doing the game aspect. And *that* to me is why I don't consider SCA combat a martial art. That doesn't diminish what it is, but I do think we shouldn't kid ourselves about that.

I think it is akin to playing paintball every weekend, and claiming to have the same training as a special forces Marine... you can be a pretty hard-core paintball player, and it might require an incredible level of skill and dedication, but if that's all you train for, then it simply isn't combat.

Quote:

Thanks for your reply, and I hope you take my respectful disagreements in the spirit in which they are intended.

Oh, absolutely! And in turn, I hope I don't sound like I'm trying to downplay SCA. I don't have any problems with it... I just hope people understand what it is and what it isn't. To be fair, I don't think most of the modern revival of historical WMA is at a level where free play against groups such as SCA proves anything, because we in the WMA world have too few years on our belts... give us another twenty years of research and training, and that might be a different story. :)