[Bill Tsafa]

Ya know Michael... Start Wars lightsaber fighting was based on Japaneses sword arts. They had Katana experts on the set advising from the very first Start Wars movie in 1977

Same goes for Star Trek Batleth which is based on a Chinese historical weapon

add to that a little stage fighting, so the audience can follow it better...

There is a reason why it looks so good in the movies

[Michael Edelson]

[Joe Fults]

As an outsider to both of these organizations I'm constantly amazed by the passionate need to differentiate and diminish what other people are choosing to do each time one of these threads develops. I cannot see that either persuit is threatened by the other. Neither activity appears to have achieved market saturation or exclusivity. Clearly there is ample room for both interests.

Why is this exclusion so important?

[Taylor Ellis]

[Chad Arnow]

Michael,
Which part is not true? Are people practicing longsword for battlefield use somewhere and I'm not aware of it?

Using military training is an odd example for you to go to. A soldier is taught those things because the nature of his job means there's a greater-than-average change he'll have to use those techniques in war. Are HEMA practitioners honestly practicing their art because they think they might have to stave off a charge of Saxon raiders? I think most practice the art for reasons other than the original "martial" ones, though grappling and other techniques have clear street applications.

Anyway, I said they were combat systems, didn't I? That means they are meant to be used in combat. Not all combat has the same goals, seriousness, or contexts. But it's all combat. Sport combat is a form of combat. "Real" combat (where life is on the line) is a form of combat and a much more serious one. But combat is a big umbrella as a term. Combat system (as a term) paints in similarly broad strokes, and encompasses SCA combat, HEMA, current military drill, etc.

If you want to argue etymology, we can. But it's a side issue. We're just defining "martial art" differently. If it helps, I use the term WMA and HEMA when I'm thinking of these things, but I just keep in mind that it's a modern usage of the term, not the initial intent of the words. We use the term "martial art" these days for many things whose application is less than martial. (Side note: in some ways, I preferred when ARMA called themselves The Historical Armed Combat Association, as I think it's a more fitting term )

My point is that each set of systems (SCA and HEMA) has its place, its uses, and its benefits. Though both can have battlefield applications, both are ultimately divested (in varying degrees, admittedly) from war, from which the term "martial" derives.

Michael, sometimes I feel like you just like to argue with me.

[Gavin Kisebach]

I agree with you on that Michael.

If a soldier trains in time of peace, he is still a soldier, and still has learned something of war. He is still better prepared after intense training than an untrained levy, even if he never has the experience of actually going to war.

Military training is often misrepresented as well, as though it were monolithic and established. In my short foray into the military, any number of techniques and training regimens changed; sometimes drastically. if you were to read and try to follow a military manual from, say, 2007, you would find vast changes from a similar manual from 1980. The manual from 1980 may have been written by a decorated Vietnam veteran, or a cadre of veterans from the Falklands war, but that doe NOT mean that the teachings in the book are "right", or that they will get you there and back again.

I can only presume that historical training manuals were similar; based on limited (though no doubt excellent) experience, with debatable conclusions.

[Michael Edelson]

[Bill Grandy]

[David Teague]

Hello All,

Why don't we all just say the following:

To each his own.

Enjoy what you do, don't worry about what others think of your activity.

Really, if we did all worry about what "people" thought, not a single one one us would be doing what we do.

We'd be watching sports on TV instead, just like all the "normal people".

Cheers,

David

[Gavin Kisebach]

Gosh Bill there's now a dizzying array of points to respond to.

[P. Cha]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[P. Cha]

[P. Cha]

[Gavin Kisebach]

[William Carew]

Historically, within Europe, training with weapons had both social-recreational and mortal-self defence applications: period authors often detailed both applications within the very same texts! Joachim Meyer certainly did.

Context was and still is key. Unfortunately, it is an appreciation of the different but often complimentary agonistic and antagonistic contexts within which HEMA was historically taught, practiced and used that appears to be missing from these discussions (which seem to flare up in forums with disappointing regularity).

The fencer that trained with Joachim Meyer in the 16th century learned how to throw cuts in recreational fechtschulen bouts that would make use of the whippy nature of the fencing foils employed in such engagements... but the same fencer would also learn how to throw a deadly zornhau or zwerchhau, how to disarm an opponent and how to fence for his life with a military sword, rapier or halberd within the same art (with a unified understanding of footwork, line, distance, initiative, pressure etc). It was and remains the same art with different applications depending on the situation. Modern practitioners can choose to focus solely on the lethal (or non-lethal) contexts of their chosen arts if they desire, but to pretend that both did not exist historically and were not practiced side by side is fallacious.

Thanks to the work of scholars like Matt Galas and J Christoph Amberger, we now know beyond doubt that social, recreational and (usually) non-lethal play was an integral feature of historical practice within the European fencing guilds such as the German fechtschulen. We have some of the rules the guilds established (e.g. no thrusts, no hand-strikes, no wrestling) to introduce both more safety and also cleaner and more appealing (to them) fencing (e.g. the red flower). This is before we even delve into the long history of knightly pas d'armes and tournaments, with their associated rules. And lest we start thinking the judicial duels featured so heavily in the earlier German sources were no-holds barred all-in brawls, even these were governed by strict and ruthlessly enforced rules (as were duels in 16th century Italy)! Meyer explains that even in earnest combat with one another, honourable Germans in his day would avoid using the point against one another, while the point was permitted against the common enemy. Much historical practice was governed by rules and restrictions, even in mortal combats... Interesting, no?

There is also a good case to be made that historically speaking, sporting and playful fencing practice helped prepare fencers to develop the all important attributes of judgement, perception and the understanding of timing, line and distance that is vital both in play and in earnest with dangerous techniques. Friendly freeplay is also fun and entertaining, then as now. We all know, and historical texts sometimes confirm, that some techniques are too dangerous to use in play. We are thus advised that dangerous techniques shouldn’t be used in play, but it needn’t follow that playful practice be abandoned altogether. If we really want to practice the arts as they were practiced back then, and not simply as we wish they were, we need to understand the context and accept the place of play within the art. To do otherwise is to turn one's back on the sources and declare that one knows better than the masters.

I’m still hoping that we can lay this storm in a teacup to bed once and for all, and just get on with the serious business of training harder, sharing information, fencing and working together. Wishful thinking?

Bill

[William Carew]

[Joe Fults]

[E Stafford]

. Wow. I didn't think it would go this far this fast.

Sorry for not being involved. Internet is somewhat unreliable these days, and I've been exhausted this week.

I liked Mr. Grandy's paintball analogy, and considered pulling it out myself. Good minds come to the same conclusion.

My biggest problem is the portrayal, once again, of SCA and reenactment groups as somehow escapist. Something I didn't mention in my original post is the fact that I am (going to be) a medieval and classics history major. For some reason, ren faire and medieval recreation groups have a vibe for being...odd. Might have something to do with the fantasy people and otherkin we attract. It's a vibe I'm getting from EVERYONE. Yet, Civil War reenacting, part of our (well, American's) history, is totally acceptable and even applauded. Don't ask. So, for me, it's got more to do with historical research, AND I get to play swishy poke. For most of us, the fighting is the main draw and the research (A&S for those in the know) is the side.

I also didn't consider that the SCA was the most accessible of the WMA groups, and seeing that brought up surprised me. It makes sense; the Outlands (Wyoming and Colorado) have groups within a couple of hours of any of towns/settlements (Wyoming doesn't have cities.) The other groups are small clubs, with the exception of ARMA, who have the home study program. But, when learning a martial art, you really have to have a sifu/sensei/teacher (I have no idea what we would call a teacher, so pardon the borrowing of Asian terms.)

Anyway, I think this worked out. And, I haven't been around to see these arguments rehashed in other forums. So, apologies to everyone with battle fatigue. I'll be around.

[Anders Nilsson]

As i wrote earlier, it mostly a personal issue. I have meet SCA fighters that are serious and are studying manuals. SCA cut and thrust/rapier fighting is HEMA. Those practitioners I have meet do what Rapier HEMA groups do, the difference is that SCA do it in historical clothes.

I don´t like the heavy fighting thou.
Any martial art that has "Holes in the game" is a quite bad martial art. If you want to become a skilled fighter you need to be comfortable wherever the fight ends up. In HEMA you need to be able to fight with you first and sometimes secondary weapon, (In my case, longsword and dagger) you also have to know how to punch, kick and wrestle, (Ringen, ringen am schwert, dagger), you also need to be able to hold your own if the fight ends up on the ground, (Ringen, dagger).

If your martial art has "Holes in the game" it´s not a complete martial art, and I wouldn´t classify it as a good martial art. And this goes for many martial arts, for example boxing and TKD falls inte this cathegory.

Other things that bugs me about heavy fighting is their armour.
At first. They mix ages and weapons.
Why would a Vendelperiod warrior be fighting with Zweihanders against a spanish conquistador? (Or a Spartan Vs Knight, etc etc, I have seen plenty of odd bouts from SCA gatherings)
That´s so unhistorical that it burns in my soul.
If you want to explore a fighting style of for example the Vendelperiod, you need to examine the facts and finds, and start training with the weapons used at the time, and against the weapons and armour they would have faced.
Everything else is fantasy, and if it´s fantasy, I would like to be a cavetroll

Second is the quality of much of the SCA armour. In Sweden they are called Lord Jofa and Count Gaffa. Because the use of hockeyprotections and Gaffatape is so common in SCA armour.
Once again, it´s a personal problem, but one that would easily be fixed with some dresscode.
Much armour is also made for heavy fighting and not after historical finds. Heavy fighting armour is usually thicker than historical armour, thus making it unhistorical.
If you want to do historical fighting in armour, you need something that works like historical armour. If not, it´s fantasy, and then I still want to be a cavetroll
(Note that I wrote "Works like historical armour". I have stainless steel in my gothic plate, so it´s not a historical armour. But the weight and movement of my armour is the same so "It works like historical armour", thus making it possible for me to train historical technics in it.)

Third is their simulation of armour. They use hard swings to defeat armour, when tests and historical texts show that to defeat armour you need to stab in the weak points. Show me the test that shows that you can cut through any type of armour with a sword.

What I like about heavy fighting is their battles. I would like to try them out, they look really fun, and in that context, the Heavy fighting rules makes sense.
I for one want to go one step further. I have a dream of doing battlefield HEMA. As experiemental archelogy. To use what find of weapons use, and commands and drills and then try them out on a field in formation.