Sport fencing vs HEMA

[telkanuru]

But the misconception are somewhat interesting. If you think HEMAists got it wrong about sportfencing, I belive thats nothing compared to how people from the outside tends to distort the image of HEMA. And that is one of our main struggles today. And that is why HEMAist generally think its a bad idea to attend to any courses in historical fencing that USFCA offer.

1) The USFCA offers historical fencing courses? Weird.

2) If you don't like the current image of the group, I would suggest recruiting fewer people with adenoids and beards. Honestly, in my research and coursework, I've stumbled across a few groups like this, and the kindest thing I can say about them is that they're enthusiastic amateurs. Most (all) lack the physical ability necessary for what they're attempting, and the manuscript tradition is sparse at best when it comes to instruction. There are a few - very few - scholars in the field who have a good grasp on the subject materiel. This information, taken as a whole, makes the entire endeavor look like a quaint hobby, rather than a serious scholastic pursuit.

[Bonehead]

2) If you don't like the current image of the group, I would suggest recruiting fewer people with adenoids and beards. Honestly, in my research and coursework, I've stumbled across a few groups like this, and the kindest thing I can say about them is that they're enthusiastic amateurs. Most (all) lack the physical ability necessary for what they're attempting, and the manuscript tradition is sparse at best when it comes to instruction. There are a few - very few - scholars in the field who have a good grasp on the subject materiel. This information, taken as a whole, makes the entire endeavor look like a quaint hobby, rather than a serious scholastic pursuit.

You're studying history right? I have often gotten the sense of Historical/SCA/HEMA/Classical fencing that you describe, like they lack scholastic rigour, but as a computer guy I don't really have the experience to know for sure.

Are you doing just undergrad stuff, or are you masters/doctorate level? I'm interested to hear how someone experience with the study of history actually views the accuracy of these practices.

[telkanuru]

You're studying history right? I have often gotten the sense of Historical/SCA/HEMA/Classical fencing that you describe, like they lack scholastic rigour, but as a computer guy I don't really have the experience to know for sure.

Are you doing just undergrad stuff, or are you masters/doctorate level? I'm interested to hear how someone experience with the study of history actually views the accuracy of these practices.

My situation's slightly odd. Actually, it's really odd. Working at a masters would be an accurate representation of the level of where I am, although not a precise reflection of what I'm actually doing.

I can't really comment in-depth on the current literature, my particular interest being in church history, gender studies, and medieval forms of piety and devotion, but there are several points I feel competent to comment on, having done some study on medieval warfare. The most important thing from the start is that the four groups that you list, roughly defined, all have different purposes, and may represent different time periods. Some of the issues I will describe are probably less acute after the sixteenth century.

The first and most important thing is that the manuscript tradition - the written record - is, at best, not good. Instruction manuals for warfare simply weren't written down that often, and, IIRC, not at all before the thirteenth or fourteenth century. We are not really sure of the specific tactics used in major battles, never mind the hand-to-hand combat. To assume that those which we do have are anything close to a complete or accurate depiction of even one specific fighting style is questionable. Even if we could assume this to be true, learning a physical activity from a book to any degree of competence is a near-impossible goal, even ignoring the tremendous physical strength required to wear a huge quantity of metal and fight in it all day.

There is also the point that the idea of a system is in and of itself anachronistic. Outside of the nobility, whose training was probably an apprentice-like arrangement, people who fought learned by doing. That is, they learned by not being killed, and by killing other people. The diversity of ability and technique resulting from this was most likely astonishing.

Because of the paucity of anything written, it is hard or impossible to make specific claims about modes of fighting for a region within a time frame. This is vitally important: the time gap from our present day to the Revolutionary War is approximately the same as the duration of the Crusades and the Western presence in the Levant. It would be an idiotic assumption that tactics used in 1776 can be transposed on to 1976, and so too with medieval warfare (or really medieval studies in general). To be clear: broader claims can be made, but they require stringing together more isolated studies.

Finally, I can't help but get the impression from many of these groups that they approach this subject in a romantic way. While a fine initial motivation, it does have the tendency, particularly in a mind unused to historical rigor, to result in 'filling in the gaps'. So-called 'classical' fencing is probably the apogee of this.

In short, for the medieval period, you basically have people making assumptions based on guesses and hints of information. I cannot see an attempt to build anything substantial on such a basis to be in any way historically rigorous.

[Inquartata]

I think he means that the coach counter attacks to the head, and the student is told to complete the attack rather than abandoning half way through in an attempt to parry.

Still can't recall ever seeing it...

Honestly, how many sabre fencers would one expect to have a problem finishing in this sort of artificial situation?

[swordwench]

You know, I was starting to get a kick out of their thread. I'd done a little rapier many years ago, and still hang out with some SCAdians (which I realize is a different animal), so it was a fun read...

Until I got to the post that said:

"I think I acknowledged that Epee is less defensible in this regard, Foil fencers (particularly at club level) seem to have more of a focus on not being hit. Actually I quite enjoy Epee, in it's way, but I think most sport fencers acknowledge that it is more athletic and less tactical than foil or sable."

Really? REALLY??? I spend a lot of my time reffing pretty decent men's epee (and fencing sabre pretty badly), and let me say, this is NOT the impression I get. Not that epee isn't athletic (shut up, Inq), but LESS TACTICAL? Oy vay. I would say that's MOST of what epee is. Where do they form these bizarre opinions of our sport?

Plus, the poster used it's instead of its, so it was easy to dismiss him.

[sabreur]

<3 sw

[Issus]

Hi guys,

I'm one of those HEMA guys butting in here. Just so it is know I have nothing against Fencing. I have dabbled with some Sabre and love watching Epee and Foil when it is on TV (which was all the time back at home in Ireland. Eurosport is the best TV channel in the world. But off topic)

telkanuru just annoyed me for a minute with his generalisations. I understand that these can be valid but for most of the groups I know this is not true. HEMA is not SCA or LARPing. People are trying to recreate arts that have been lost. But most legitimate groups are using the best scholarly resources that they can. Several books by highly respected researchers have been published on numerous historical styles from Longsword to Rapier to Smallsword and everything in between and beyond.

Examples of these include: http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Main_Page , Dr. Jeffrey Forgeng "The Art of Combat: A German Martial Arts Treatise of 1570", Tom Leoni "The Art of Dueling: Salvator Fabris' rapier fencing treatise of 1606".

As far as competition goes there are several different events around the USA and Europe. To use one as example, Swordfish held in Sweden attempts to be as professional as possible. Many of the best HEMA fencers in the world travel here to compete each year. Some of the bouts:

Sabre third place match: http://youtu.be/c3_YCJ406JU
Longsword Semifinal: http://youtu.be/cLt0mA23MDE
Rapier and Dagger final: http://youtu.be/dyCgyEzgt_E

Obviously your love here is Olympic fencing. But we are trying to bring back these styles with an eye on accuracy and professionalism with a love for it similar to yours. This is still young and so there are many groups that are not quite there yet. However, as said before, most larger groups are attempting and striving for better.

(These are all my views and do not represent the larger community. Please do not take them as such)

[foibles]

Until I got to the post that said:

"I think I acknowledged that Epee is less defensible in this regard, Foil fencers (particularly at club level) seem to have more of a focus on not being hit. Actually I quite enjoy Epee, in it's way, but I think most sport fencers acknowledge that it is more athletic and less tactical than foil or sable."

Really? REALLY??? I spend a lot of my time reffing pretty decent men's epee (and fencing sabre pretty badly), and let me say, this is NOT the impression I get. Not that epee isn't athletic (shut up, Inq), but LESS TACTICAL? Oy vay. I would say that's MOST of what epee is. Where do they form these bizarre opinions of our sport?

IMHO, there's a subtlety to epee that makes the tactics far less obvious to the newly or uninitiated. Longer set-up times, etc.

[EldRick]

If you feel a need to make double-touches "more realistic", then end the match at the first or second double-touch, since both fencers are now presumably dead or wounded...

[Donnerschlag]

Yet another HEMA practitioner here (Different association than the one in the link, but practices the same arts)

I practiced sabre for about 2 years before taking up longsword and Ringen, which I have practiced for the last 1 1/2 years. (Ringen is basically the European equivalent of Japanese Jujutsu.)
The reasons I took up HEMA is because I like the idea of practicing something that is much less geared towards tournament fighting and point sparring; something with less rules, and a little more martial. However I also wanted to practice an art that my ancestors practiced, as opposed to some equivalent Asian martial art. HEMA fit the bill. (Another feature I find attractive is it's "experimental archaeology" qualities that caters to my love of history as well.)

Some would say that swordsmanship has little to no application in the modern age, regardless of pedigree or style. For the most part, I agree; but there are still advantages and applications, abstract or no. Sure, there's always the cliche, "ever-so conveniently placed off-cut of pipe/broomstick" argument, however I happen to take an Arnis-like holistic view of martial arts and believe that most applications of the sword translate fairly easily to empty hand applications. There is also a large amount of ringen involved in HEMA swordplay. (at least in most organizations.) So to say that all swordplay is equally "useless" in this day and age is mostly true, but still not quite entirely true.

Despite not being all THAT close to a Sport fencing salle, I'm seriously considering taking it up again, because I find it really fun. Sure, it may not be "real", but it's a game, and a very enjoyable one. It gets me my fix of sport elements. The very same elements that I don't like present in HEMA. (It's very charm is it's lack of rules to fake-up free-play/bouts/sparring. Once you add those rules in, you quickly end up with sport fencing but with different weapons.)



TL;DR version: they both have their pros and cons, which make them more of an "apple and orange" argument than anything. I enjoy them both for their differences, and like to keep them separate and distinct.

[telkanuru]

telkanuru just annoyed me for a minute with his generalisations. I understand that these can be valid but for most of the groups I know this is not true. HEMA is not SCA or LARPing.

the four groups that you list, roughly defined, all have different purposes, and may represent different time periods

People are trying to recreate arts that have been lost. But most legitimate groups are using the best scholarly resources that they can. Several books by highly respected researchers have been published on numerous historical styles from Longsword to Rapier to Smallsword and everything in between and beyond.

Examples of these include: http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Main_Page , Dr. Jeffrey Forgeng "The Art of Combat: A German Martial Arts Treatise of 1570", Tom Leoni "The Art of Dueling: Salvator Fabris' rapier fencing treatise of 1606".

Some of the issues I will describe are probably less acute after the sixteenth century.

Reading comprehension is a high art.

Also, I don't see how the fact that there are books on the matter negates any of the points I made, particularly when those books are forced by lack of sources to concentrate on a single treatise.

People are trying to recreate arts that have been lost

This is the crux of the issue. It's an admirable and interesting goal, but in no way does it constitute actual scholarship as is conventionally understood. Because it's a lost art, you can't know if what you're doing is actually correct.

[Grasshopper]

It would be an idiotic assumption that tactics used in 1776 can be transposed on to 1976,

Like grabbing the bell-bottoms to trip your opponent.

[Donnerschlag]

This is the crux of the issue. It's an admirable and interesting goal, but in no way does it constitute actual scholarship as is conventionally understood. Because it's a lost art, you can't know if what you're doing is actually correct.

True, we cannot be absolutely sure that what we do is 100% completely identical to the essence of fighting that masters of the day would've displayed. However, it's not like all we have to work with is a crude picture on some rotting tapestry, leaving us with no clue whatsoever. There's far more evidence present than one would initially expect. When the HEMA movement was still in the "interpretation" stage, the better of us would test all interpretations by sparring. That's why you bout, and fight your a** off. If your interpretation doesn't work, then back to the drawing board, no excuses. Most of the more incompetent fighters had a tendency to become too attached to their interpretation, and make excuses for why it didn't work. I mean: sure, there are quite a few "klopfechter" present in HEMA, but isn't that true of any martial discipline?

[Inquartata]

Not that epee isn't athletic (shut up, Inq),

But----

[telkanuru]

True, we cannot be absolutely sure that what we do is 100% completely identical to the essence of fighting that masters of the day would've displayed. However, it's not like all we have to work with is a crude picture on some rotting tapestry, leaving us with no clue whatsoever. There's far more evidence present than one would initially expect. When the HEMA movement was still in the "interpretation" stage, the better of us would test all interpretations by sparring. That's why you bout, and fight your a** off. If your interpretation doesn't work, then back to the drawing board, no excuses. Most of the more incompetent fighters had a tendency to become too attached to their interpretation, and make excuses for why it didn't work. I mean: sure, there are quite a few "klopfechter" present in HEMA, but isn't that true of any martial discipline?

Sure, there's other, non-textual ways to figure things out. Some of them might even work. However, determining the temporal or physical spread of a technique is another thing entirely. Determining whether or not it was used (the fact that it works doesn't mean it's right, or was used) is another thing entirely. Again, what you do is perfectly interesting as an intellectual exercise; as a historical one, it lacks rigor.

[Donnerschlag]

Sure, there's other, non-textual ways to figure things out. Some of them might even work. However, determining the temporal or physical spread of a technique is another thing entirely. Determining whether or not it was used (the fact that it works doesn't mean it's right, or was used) is another thing entirely. Again, what you do is perfectly interesting as an intellectual exercise; as a historical one, it lacks rigor.

Unfortunately I would have to agree with you in regards to the lack rigor, especially HEMA-wide. :P
It doesn't help that there are too many deluded dance-fighters in HEMA who ruin it for the rest of us.

Anyways, the resurrection of HEMA is still in it's infancy, and I remain hopeful for what the future holds in store for the art.

[Bonehead]

True, we cannot be absolutely sure that what we do is 100% completely identical to the essence of fighting that masters of the day would've displayed. However, it's not like all we have to work with is a crude picture on some rotting tapestry, leaving us with no clue whatsoever. There's far more evidence present than one would initially expect. When the HEMA movement was still in the "interpretation" stage, the better of us would test all interpretations by sparring. That's why you bout, and fight your a** off. If your interpretation doesn't work, then back to the drawing board, no excuses. Most of the more incompetent fighters had a tendency to become too attached to their interpretation, and make excuses for why it didn't work. I mean: sure, there are quite a few "klopfechter" present in HEMA, but isn't that true of any martial discipline?

Here's one thing that's bothered me a lot of recreationists of the various sorts. How much they take the (few surviving) writings of some people in the past as gospel.

I can find parts within vast majority of fencing book that I'm pretty sure are just flat out wrong. Even the better ones have a lot of things that I disagree with, and those are just the current ones.

Looking at older books there is more that I find utterly wrong, and not just things that can be explained away about how the sport itself evolved.

People used to think that pumping smoke up peoples ass was a good way to cure drowning, or that letting blood was a good thing. In pretty much everything that's ever written there will always be many things that are wrong, and the more time passes, the more we learn and can find fault with.

So I would expect that in order to 'accurately' recreate fighting styles of the past, you would have to knowingly choose to use techniques and ideas, that are not very useful simply because the people of the time you were trying to recreate, would have believe that technique or idea.

The best fencers in the world are not the ones who do things because people always did them, they are the ones who constantly look for innovation, and an edge to set them apart. That's what competition is all about.

I realise some changes can be attributed to the thing itself changing (lighter weapons etc). But some things are just better ideas.

Suppose I wanted to recreate 1930s high jump. The fosbury flop is a *better* way to jump over bar than the known waysin the 1930s. There might be an even better way to do it. So if I was trying to recreate 1930s high jump, would I allow a fosbury flop? There was no rule preventing it, yet nobody knew about it.

And that's the catch. Do you want to become good at this new thing, HEMA, or do you want to accurately recreate the past? You can't do both.

[Grasshopper]

The fosbury flop is a *better* way to jump over bar than the known waysin the 1930s. There might be an even better way to do it. So if I was trying to recreate 1930s high jump, would I allow a fosbury flop? There was no rule preventing it, yet nobody knew about it.

Didn't fosbury invent the flunge too?

[Alex B]

Sure, there's other, non-textual ways to figure things out. Some of them might even work. However, determining the temporal or physical spread of a technique is another thing entirely. Determining whether or not it was used (the fact that it works doesn't mean it's right, or was used) is another thing entirely. Again, what you do is perfectly interesting as an intellectual exercise; as a historical one, it lacks rigor.

Hello, another HEMAist here (apparently we're invading). I just want you to understand the amount of material we have to work from.

Personally, I work from the Liechtenauer tradition. We don't know much about the man Liechtenauer himself, but he did leave us his verses, which are a quick summary of his own style. Later masters would then write glosses of Liechtenauer's verse, explaining exactly what the guards and techniques were. Other masters wrote original works, adding their own variations on guards and attacks, but staying within the same tradition. Over the course of around 300 years, we have at least over 40 different treatises explaining Liechtenauer's system or expanding upon it, many with extensive text and illustrations. And this is just one tradition from one country. We have a lot of material to work from.

What these manuals often don't have is the fine details (things like precise timing), so we tend to have arguments amongst each other over the fine details, and come up with different interpretations, but there is enough overlapping material that we can be confident that we know roughly what we're doing, and that the techniques we are using today were used then.

So what we typically do is compare several treatises, come up with an interpretation, test it in sparring, and then go back to the sources again. This process repeats. We're not inventing techniques, we are interpreting them from the information we have.

I just want to make sure that you understand we're not working with guesses and hints as you said above.

And as for the comment about books being forced to focus on a single treatise, this is not the case. Books can easily discuss several treatises, however some treatises are so rich in information that they really do need to have a book all to themselves. The two books mentioned above: Dr. Jeffrey Forgeng's "The Art of Combat: A German Martial Arts Treatise of 1570" and Tom Leoni's "The Art of Dueling: Salvator Fabris' rapier fencing treatise of 1606", are in fact translations of two of the more indepth treatises we have, which clock in at 319, and 290 pages respectively. They're not focusing on a single treatise because of lack of information anywhere else, those particular examples are translating a single treatise each because those treatises are long enough to need an entire book.

I hope that clears some stuff up. You'd be surprised exactly how much we have to work with, and the academic and athletic abilities of some people within HEMA

[Alex B]

Here's one thing that's bothered me a lot of recreationists of the various sorts. How much they take the (few surviving) writings of some people in the past as gospel.

I can find parts within vast majority of fencing book that I'm pretty sure are just flat out wrong. Even the better ones have a lot of things that I disagree with, and those are just the current ones.

Looking at older books there is more that I find utterly wrong, and not just things that can be explained away about how the sport itself evolved.

People used to think that pumping smoke up peoples ass was a good way to cure drowning, or that letting blood was a good thing. In pretty much everything that's ever written there will always be many things that are wrong, and the more time passes, the more we learn and can find fault with.

So I would expect that in order to 'accurately' recreate fighting styles of the past, you would have to knowingly choose to use techniques and ideas, that are not very useful simply because the people of the time you were trying to recreate, would have believe that technique or idea.

The best fencers in the world are not the ones who do things because people always did them, they are the ones who constantly look for innovation, and an edge to set them apart. That's what competition is all about.

I realise some changes can be attributed to the thing itself changing (lighter weapons etc). But some things are just better ideas.

Suppose I wanted to recreate 1930s high jump. The fosbury flop is a *better* way to jump over bar than the known waysin the 1930s. There might be an even better way to do it. So if I was trying to recreate 1930s high jump, would I allow a fosbury flop? There was no rule preventing it, yet nobody knew about it.

And that's the catch. Do you want to become good at this new thing, HEMA, or do you want to accurately recreate the past? You can't do both.

We've generally found that using the historical techniques works better than making up new techniques. In many, many areas of life, we clearly know better now. However, I found it doubtful that people today can come up with a better system for fighting with longswords (or any other historical weapon) than the people that actually used it in life or death combat.