I think there is a huge problem with the term "martial art", because it is so encompassing -- I find myself using it to mean different things at different times, and I know I'm not alone in this. At its most basic level, the term just means an art geared towards combat, but not specifically towards a battlefield, duel, pub fight, tournament, etc. So frankly, if someone practices hitting other people so hard with a stick that the blows are felt through armor, and they are also trying to avoid getting hit themselves, then that's a frigging martial art :!: It even meets the centuries old fundamental principle of fencing: to hit and not be hit.

I wouldn't call SCA heavy fighting a complete martial art, but that doesn't make it stand out either. Gracie Jiu Jitsu is a great grappling art, but doesn't include much in the way of weapons, and it's geared towards a single opponent. The classical fencing I'm studying is filled with all sorts of great cutting and thrusting material for a single hand sword, against a single opponent, but has no grappling. And yet, they are both great martial arts, in their own ways.

I like lots of martial arts, but I'm pretty much focused on swordplay, and the best test of "real" that we can use for swords is "What if they were sharp?" LOTS of period material covers this, and not just manuals or treatises. Classical fencing continues a very long tradition in Western Martial Arts of having both a sporting aspect, and a "for real" aspect. The sport is closely aligned with the concept of sharps, but the fencer is taught to know which actions and strategies are appropriate for each, and thus the two aspects complement each other.

Also, the degree to which an art is practiced as a sport or in an ostensibly "real" fashion can vary by school or group and by individual as much as by art. Look at the differences in Tae Kwon Do, Karate, and Kendo. Even *if* the SCA had *only* 5,000 heavy fighters, they aren't all doing the same thing.

So, is SCA heavy combat a martial art? Yup. Is it a combat sport? Yup. Could someone win a fight with it? Yup. Could someone lose a fight with it? Yup. Is it a sword art? Um, not really. It's a stick art with a strong nod towards the idea of swords (and some folks nodding a lot more strongly than others). No doubt there are plenty of SCA fighters who would die quickly in fight with sharps, but that's true of a lot of other martial artists too. I also know a number of SCA fighters who *have* trained in other arts, and it would be a mistake to think they can't adjust what they do to the situation. I know a bunch of sport fencers who are like that too. What's my point? Any adversary should be considered very dangerous until you have probed them enough to understand what they are capable of.

Bestial fencers, and people with no sense of self preservation can be just as dangerous as those skilled in the art. This is repeated over and over in the period literature. How can we consider them less than martial?

I was at the gym that last two hours doing my squats and deadlifts and kicking around this idea that I have heard a number of times in relation to "mindset". It really has me puzzled. I am not really sure how I feel about it so I will put a few ideas out there and see what feedback I get.

It has been suggested that the Masters that wrote historic fighting texts are somehow able to capture and convey the proper mindset through the techniques they illustrate to the modern reader since they have the benefit of having lived in a time when men died by the sword. That is something I need broken down. I don't think anyone of us believe that there is anything magical in the ink and paper, so what is it that is being conveyed that can not be captured otherwise? I am open on this.

The commonality I see in all the fighting arts I have encountered is the basic concept of defending at all times and striking when an opportunity is available or one is created. Very simple. No fancy wording or anything. It is basic to my sword and shield fighting, my rapier fighting, the longsword I study... it just make sense. It does not mean that people who practice the sword arts will do this properly all the time but the idea is there as a basic foundation. It was there from the time of the ancient Spartans who carried their shield into battle in front of them ( not behind them).

Is this the whole issue (defending first) or is there something more that I am missing. Is it fearless-ness. How do you teach people not to be afraid. Everyone, except a person with nothing to live for or a crazy person, will experience some fear before a life and death struggle. In any combat system you train the people so that when they go into battle their training will take over and they don't have to think about the details of what they are doing. In any training system some people will do what they have been trained to do and some will not. That is a statistical issue. In non of our sword training programs can we simulate a real life and death struggle. We can simulate a very intense desire to win.

I can not understand why it has been suggested that in a life and death struggle we would defend first and then attack... but when we just want to win a tournament we would attack without defending first? It does not make sense. You do what you train to do. If you take winning serious, you will act the same way regardless if your life is on the line or not. If you are suicidal by habit in sparring when you want to win, you will most likely be suicidal with sharp blades too. A person who attacks suicidally does so because it is the best he can do. In my longsword sparring I sometimes attack without closing off my opponents lines first. I do this because I am not aware I am doing it, not because I don't care. I would likely make the same mistake in a duel with sharp swords and die as a result.

Am I on target with the whole mindset thing? I need some clarity and I think other people in this forum need it too.

I would also like to take a moment to thank all of you for participating in 8 pages of good discussion so far. I don't want to pretend to know everything or anything. I just ask questions, test, observe, report and ask questions again.

Everyone should note that Michael's talking about the German school specifically, not all Western martial arts. In Silver's system, for example, single time defenses aren't required. There's no notion that an attack will force defense and keep you safe. Silver knew about and condemned double kills. He knew about suicidally aggressive opponents as well. Consider his account of people who believed the thruster to have the advantage. I suspect his resolute men half drunke would be in the same category.

I must again question the idea that we moderns are so much more fearless than folks back in the day. While any rational martial art of course values defense first, historical warriors were often willing to sacrifice themselves under the right circumstances. Fighting in the front lines of a pike formation could be nearly a death sentence. Florange claimed only six of the three or four hundred in the landsknechts' first rank at Novara survived. Though victorious, the Swiss suffered significant losses in that battle.

The culture at the time valued honor above life. That, I think, is one reason why duelists could place attack above defense. They wanted to look good, to fight bravely, to make sure they other guy didn't walk away unhurt.

Darn it, I didn't mean to get back into this. :)

My post was addressed at Bill. I have no will power when it comes to these arguments. I am going to go away now, try to not post anymore, and write "I am a very bad man" on the blackboard 100 times.

Thank you Michael for your response. I will read it a few times over and think about it.

I offer to you for consideration the exact thoughts that went though my head in the first one minute as Adam and I were facing off and before we committed to engagement.

Quote:

The setup was familiar to me except for one variable, the low legs. I expected that they would be the prime target and I set up with my right leg forward and my sword in a low guard on that leg. I was confident that my shield would protect my upper body. I thought to try to provoke Adam into attacking me with a few thrusts. Adam warded my thrusts away. It became clear after we crossed tips a few times that Adam was not going to just jump on my sword. I knew that I would have to gain control of Adam's sword with my shield in order to do anything. No other sure way to proceed. I thought to myself to be patient. Then an uncomfortable feeling struck me. Was I being patient or complacent. I started the fight like spring under full tension and I felt that I just let some of that tension out. I need it back. I need to be ready to explode when I have to. I must be ready to react to Adam when he acts. Am I getting relaxed... or am I getting tired. It seems like we have been circling each other for 10 minutes. I fear that this circling will run down my battery. If I get even a little tired I may not react fast enough. If I don't do something now I will loose. I have to go now!

We had scheduled this duel many months ahead so there was a lot of anticipation built up.

We fought for a whole hour after that with just a few 5 minute breaks according to Mike. In those other matches my mind was pretty much a blank with little higher level thoughts other then planning a misdirection. I was just running on autopilot treating those matches as practice.

.

Dietrich Dellinger wrote:

Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: Sure, modern fencing has stupid rules like rights of way I apologize if I stray too far off topic here, but I feel that right of way deserves a little defense. I used to feel the same way about right of way. I preferred epee to foil and sabre because I thought fencing without right of way it was more realistic. Over the years I've come full circle and embraced right of way because I don't think there's anything less realistic than not defending yourself.

I would like to second this statement. Right of way is a highly important principle of fencing that requires a student of the sword arts respect the attack of his opponent and to respect his own defense. It is called "fencing" because it is the art of defense.

Historically, a fencer would begin with the foil and train with it until the principles of fencing (including right of way) were drilled into his muscle memory. Only then would he graduate to saber, which expanded attack options to cuts, or to épée, which expanded a broader target area. Right of way does not disappear when a fencer picks up a saber or an épée; rather, it is assumed that the fencer knows the art well enough that it will be automatic. However, as foil, saber, and épée moved into the realm of sport, priorities changed.

As Bill Grandy has mentioned, a sport is NOT a bad thing. A lot of Meyer's 1570 treatise deals with sport fencing, which is why the thrust is largely absent in the longsword section. The thrust was removed for safety concerns, much like certain aspects of combat are barred from SCA fencing.

Joachim Meyer, 1570 wrote:

But here I remind the friendly reader at the outset, since there is a great difference between sword combat in our time and how it was practiced by our predecessors and the combat masters of old, that this account of the cuts will only cover what is currently in use and pertinent to the sword. And as to the practice of former days, when they fought dangerously both with cuts and thrusts, I will discuss it in its proper and separate place.

Sport fencing, such as Olympic foil or SCA heavy combat, is a great way to hone skills and to become proficient at a specific skill-set. But to train exclusively within the confines of the sport is restricting.

My fencing background started with SCA heavy fencing in the West Kingdom, Olympic fencing in the French school, the German Liechtenauer school, to some extent the Italian Fiore school, and a bit of Fabris. My original mindset in the SCA and with Olympic fencing was exactly that which Michael Edelson described. I figured that if I didn't hit my opponent this time, I will do so next time. That is an artifact of training solely within a sport.

It wasn't until I began studying the historical manuals of Liechtenauer, Fiore, Fabris, and the classical French foil that I learned the importance of right of way. Right of way is an artificial rule added to the sport that reinforces the mindset required to keep a fencer alive (as was described by Michael Edelson a few posts before this one).

Now that I have this knowledge, I intend to apply these principles the next time I strap on my SCA armor, the next time I go through winding exercises with metal blunts with my 16th century German group, when I bout with a French foil in my hand, or engage in other competitive environments (which is to say, when not doing drills with a partner).



It was said that SCA combat has to be a martial art because it makes someone good at fighting. But so can football. Football involves tackling, running into an opponent with the proper bio-mechanics to disrupt him, strength building, coordination, and other skills necessary in a fight. But football is not a martial art. Neither is SCA combat or Olympic fencing on its own. After all, sporting rules such as no grappling, no hitting below the knee, and right-of-way do not exist in an earnest fight. These sports and the rules within those sports are but a tool in the drawer of a giant workbench that is a martial art.

(Craig)

.

.

Referring to the videos in the original post, I was rooting for the sword-and-board to win. I have a particular fondness for sword and shield combat that I do not have the opportunity to practice as a Landsknecht reenactor (I have a pike in my hand 80% of the time and, once it's gone, my Katzbalger is all that remains). Another reason I was rooting for sword and shield against the longsword is that, according to George Silver, the longsword has the advantage.

Quote:

The two handed sword has the vantage against the sword and target, the sword and buckler, the sword and dagger, or rapier and poniard.

I don't necessarily completely agree with Silver on the topic "Of the vantages of weapons in their kinds, places, & times, both in private and public fight." Plus, I was rooting for the sword and shield to win because I think SCA combat is fun and the sport gets a bad rap.

Good job experimenting and I think that the topic raised has been worthwhile.

(Craig)

.

Well I will be using the smaller round strap on shield (yeah yeah a very bad shield design I know) for my duel so we'll see how that goes oppose to Tsafa's big shield :) .

Razor from SBG will be there to shoot the videos so it'll be fun.