Interesting to see HEMA become increasingly popular.
I've done European medieval combat re-enactment for a few years, so I'd like to expand on that one fighter's comment on the "thee" and "thou" thing.
Generally, in the re-enactment community, there are three different focusses: one is authenticity, trying to replicate historical costumes, equipment and trades; another is entertainment of an audience that is rarely familiar with the subject matter; the third is combat, both as a martial art and as a form of group sports.
The theatricals that seem to be popular at American "ren faires" and the medieval markets in various parts of Europe are strictly an expression of that second focus. Most re-enactors I've met are either into the first or third one (or a mix thereof).
I see HEMA as a logical evolution of that third focus, though I personally find its emphasis on duelling and professional competitions (with all the restrictions that brings) less intriguing.
I guess my point is that you can have medieval combat without the "thee" and "thou" parts outside of HEMA as well. It's very different from HEMA and certainly attracts a different kind of people, but it's still an alternative even if you couldn't care less about the theatrics.
Semi-Related to this is Lars Andersen taking archery to the next level by using forgotten skills he learned by looking at old art and various texts. Worth a watch!
I doubt it has close resemblance with medieval long sword fighting, though :-)
It must have been a lot slower fighting in leather, chainmail or plate armor than in this ultra light modern equipment.
And, I assume a medieval fighter would take far smaller chances than these modern hobbyists knowing a counter blow could be (almost surely would be) fatal.
Also, these guys fight one on one. But in a war you would have to guard yourself from blows and cuts not just from one enemy but from a crowd of enemy soldiers, left and right.
The guy you were fighting might be using a sword or he might have another weapon. Maybe he was using a shield and you didn't. And if he had a sword, he might not have read the memo that it should be max 4 feet long.
And fighting on some uneven, damp meadow he might be fighting uphill or downhill, and just keeping ones balance when striking or blocking would be hard compared to fighting indoor on a floor.
> I doubt it has close resemblance with medieval long sword fighting, though :-)
It does actually resemble it very much, but medieval longsword fighting was probably very different than what you think it was.
> It must have been a lot slower fighting in leather, chainmail or plate armor than in this ultra light modern equipment.
Not really. The main difference is visibility. First, the modern HEMA equipment is a lot heavier than e.g. standard fencing gear. It's a lot thicker (like those dog attack suits) and often have steel or kevlar plates in the inside. Second, medieval gear wasn't all that heavy. I have a full suit of maille (as it's really called) and it weighs less than 15 kilos, helmet included. A full steel plate armour shouldn't weight more than 25 kilos. That's less than modern soldiers have to carry around on the battlefield.
The biggest difference is that a fencing mask gives you better visibility than a historical closed helmet.
> these guys fight one on one
That's what happened in medieval times too most often. The original medieval books were written mostly for one-on-one combat, either for dueling or trial-by-sword. That happened a lot more than being caught in a war on a battlefield. Swords have little use on a medieval battlefield anyway. You use different weapons and tactics.
> And fighting on some uneven, damp meadow [...] would be hard compared to fighting indoor on a floor.
My HEMA group trains for this as well, and I suspect many other groups too. It is also mentioned in the medieval books. I have trained in loose sand, in the surf on a beach, in deep snow, etc. It's true that competitions are usually held indoors on an even ground though.
>It must have been a lot slower fighting in leather, chainmail or plate armor than in this ultra light modern equipment.
I recently saw a full-armor longsword fight. It was fast as hell. I'm talking leather, chainmail, chest plates and metal helmets. I could barely follow the action.
It was pretty awesome and that one live match turned me from skeptic into fan.
> It must have been a lot slower fighting in leather, chainmail or plate armor than in this ultra light modern equipment.
Others have commented on the heft of modern equipment relative to medieval equivalents, but it bears mentioning that the plate armor of the period was exceptionally well made. Not just light weight, but form fitted for the wearer. It's been said that fighters in good plate could do cartwheels, due to the exceptional balance of the armor; it was like a second skin.
This video shows how people fought in full body plate armour using some 15-th century techniques, it's really surprising how flexible it is, you can even jump and do body rolls in it. It's definitely not as stiff as I always thought it was.
The short of it being that armor wasn't particularly heavy, especially when compared to the modern combat load, and that it affords quite a bit of mobility.
If this interests you, the entire lecture is worth your time.
I think it's very similar to kendo, the Japanese equivalent of fencing (sort of). Since kendo dates back to the 1800s or so, the sword is a bamboo stick, but like in HEMA points are awarded based on a couple of criteria: the strike has to be to one of the designated target zones, the strike has to be an intentional attack (that is, flailing wildly won't score you a point), and something called zanshin which is basically the same as what they call control in the video; does the attacker control the situation after a successful strike?
But just like here, it's more a sport than faithful recreation of sword fighting since a) you're not gonna die if an attack fails and b) this is not battlefield conditions.
> It must have been a lot slower fighting in leather, chainmail or plate armor than in this ultra light modern equipment.
One thing that nobody has mentioned so far is (I believe) people were much more fit in those days. Today we have a very sedentary lifestyle. Not so much in those days, people were much more active. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2614780/How-F...
I've seen a video of a big Polish swordfighting battle (you can probably find it on google), people in full armor and swords. What I could spot is that swords are completely ineffective against armor; swords glance off, are unable to penetrate armor, and just bend. I'd use a mace or club and beat people's head in. Which is probably why those weren't used in that one.
The book illustration/art history blog BibliOdyssey has some great scans of a 16th century German longsword fighting manual called Der Fechtbuch that features some of the moves seen in this video. As well as some that really surprised me, like the opening illustration of two combatants fighting with reversed swords (hilt to hilt rather than blade to blade) which was apparently an actual technique used for bludgeoning.
I remember an old post on /r/askhistorians about medieval fighting, and this article was referenced. There was even a video of two re-enactors emulating the style. It was vastly different than everything I'd come to expect from films, but it makes more sense when you think about it. Armor could be extremely effective for taking a direct sword hit, so the strategy was to almost wrestle your opponent up close and wedge the blade in between the plates, using both hands as leverage to slice.
I'm not the type to be into this kind of thing but that slow-motion kill was sick! He/She caught their opponent wide open AND had the presence of mind to instantly defend.
That was legit.
That slow-motion was pretty awesome, I agree. You could tell that the fencer had practiced that to where retreating into a defensive guard was likely instinctice. :)
When you look at many of the plates from earlier fencing manuals, such as those of Fabris or Capo Ferro (Italian fencers from the 1600s), many of the prime guards and ways you strike are done so that you are parrying in measure -- your blade and hilt are in a position that prevents the opponent's sword from connecting with your body. Many similar ideas are present in other swordmasters' treatises.
Disclaimer: I'm a terrible fencer, but several of my friends are up to their eyeballs in historican fencing, so when I go home on holiday, I get an earfull of it. ;)
The documentary "Reclaiming the Blade" is about the semi-lost art of medieval and renaissance sword fighting, and is quite good. If this topic is even slightly interesting, you'll probably find the documentary entertaining.
Fascinating to see this matter being discussed on here.
By way of putting my cards on the table, I am a former curator from the Royal Armouries in England (most recently taking care of the RA collection at the Tower of London). I now live in Boston where I founded The School of Mars, teaching arming sword inspired from a variety of early manuals.
A lot of the myths seem to have been adequately busted in this thread, for which I am thankful. But just to recap.
- Actual swordplay, even in armour, was much faster than we tend to give it credit for. The weapons were properly designed (longswords usually no more than 3lbs. and balanced such that the blade's weight was compensated for by a heavy pommel), allowing them to fly in the hands of someone trained to use them. The armour, too, was custom made for each person, fitting them like a second skin, allowing for a wide range of movement and for the weight (usually 45-60lbs for a battle harness) to be spread throughout the whole body rather than being carried in one or two places. Some of our interpreters would demonstrate this by doing somersaults, cartwheels, and even yoga poses in their harness.
- Yes, battlefield combat is a very different game from tournament style 'one on one' combat. Some techniques are more suited to one than the other. However, many of the techniques in the manuals are usable in both situations, and it is more a matter of the mindset and application of the individual. I agree that most of the HEMA community trains for tournament style combat, because this is mainly the way in which techniques are demonstrated and used in competition. It would be very interesting indeed for training regimes to work out systems of teaching how to apply these techniques to a battle environment.
- Categorizing HEMA is going to depend largely on what your intentions are in studying it. If you want to attempt to accurately re-create the style of fighting from a particular master/manual, and restrict your research/practice to just the contents of said manual and any contextualising resources, then you are more in the realm of re-enactment. I am not yet convinced that the full realization of this is possible, given that we are dealing with texts of variable clarity and no living individuals from an unbroken lineage to verify our theories. That is not to say that there isn't a martial/competitive aspect to this particular type of re-enactment, but in this case one is dealing with a fundamentally 'dead' style, with a set end date and a finite number of techniques, unable to change after its period.
- To make it a martial art requires that we allow the style to be organic, to grow with modern practitioners and teachers as everyone discovers variations of the style that suits them (much like the masters did themselves). This is the idea that I am attempting to bring about with School of Mars. The manuals form the foundation of the teachings, but as new insights from modern practitioners, who may have been exposed to other styles etc., the techniques adapt, or have new techniques or applications added on. We today have the benefit of access to a rich martial heritage that spans the globe, which the early masters did not. To some the thought of mingling them could be seen as heresy, but in my opinion doing so is simply part of reviving the martial arts of Europe in a modern setting. I suspect that the early masters would have leapt upon the opportunity to gain inspiration from other martial styles had they the ability.
About the battlefield combat: I'm not sure HEMA can really explore battlefield combat at scale, at least not with very strict minimum requirements on armour.
HEMA tries to follow the authentic fighting styles very closely and therefore places a lot of emphasis on killing/disarming blows, including stabs to the head (at eye level) or throat and slashes at the hands. This works with sufficient protective gear under controlled conditions.
Battlefield scenarios as seen in re-enactment are far more chaotic. It works because the ruleset is the spectral opposite of HEMA: no stabs to the head, no blows to the hands. Basically medieval combat without the "fun parts".
I don't think it'd be possible to create that kind of environment with a HEMA ruleset without making a whole lot more dangerous and accident prone.
OTOH battlefield re-enactment can frequently get away with barely any armour at all (because the rules emphasize safe techniques) while plated gambesons and face guards seem to be the norm in most of HEMA.
This looks so great: I've been looking for a martial art to supplement my daily workout and give me some strength and agility - and some fun - this seems a lot more exciting than the Krav Maga classes I was looking at. Anyone know if there's a good place in the UK to do this?
Cool! I was watching "Big Giant Swords" on the Discovery channel (a fantastic show) and they touched on competitive sword fighting last week. After seeing this, the whole thing makes a lot more sense.
[+] [-] pluma|11 years ago|reply
I've done European medieval combat re-enactment for a few years, so I'd like to expand on that one fighter's comment on the "thee" and "thou" thing.
Generally, in the re-enactment community, there are three different focusses: one is authenticity, trying to replicate historical costumes, equipment and trades; another is entertainment of an audience that is rarely familiar with the subject matter; the third is combat, both as a martial art and as a form of group sports.
The theatricals that seem to be popular at American "ren faires" and the medieval markets in various parts of Europe are strictly an expression of that second focus. Most re-enactors I've met are either into the first or third one (or a mix thereof).
I see HEMA as a logical evolution of that third focus, though I personally find its emphasis on duelling and professional competitions (with all the restrictions that brings) less intriguing.
I guess my point is that you can have medieval combat without the "thee" and "thou" parts outside of HEMA as well. It's very different from HEMA and certainly attracts a different kind of people, but it's still an alternative even if you couldn't care less about the theatrics.
[+] [-] swimfar|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rickdale|11 years ago|reply
https://youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk
[+] [-] agumonkey|11 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8b1zWOgOKA https://www.youtube.com/user/FrenchFreerunFamily/videos
[+] [-] flexie|11 years ago|reply
I doubt it has close resemblance with medieval long sword fighting, though :-)
It must have been a lot slower fighting in leather, chainmail or plate armor than in this ultra light modern equipment.
And, I assume a medieval fighter would take far smaller chances than these modern hobbyists knowing a counter blow could be (almost surely would be) fatal.
Also, these guys fight one on one. But in a war you would have to guard yourself from blows and cuts not just from one enemy but from a crowd of enemy soldiers, left and right.
The guy you were fighting might be using a sword or he might have another weapon. Maybe he was using a shield and you didn't. And if he had a sword, he might not have read the memo that it should be max 4 feet long.
And fighting on some uneven, damp meadow he might be fighting uphill or downhill, and just keeping ones balance when striking or blocking would be hard compared to fighting indoor on a floor.
[+] [-] Sander_Marechal|11 years ago|reply
> I doubt it has close resemblance with medieval long sword fighting, though :-)
It does actually resemble it very much, but medieval longsword fighting was probably very different than what you think it was.
> It must have been a lot slower fighting in leather, chainmail or plate armor than in this ultra light modern equipment.
Not really. The main difference is visibility. First, the modern HEMA equipment is a lot heavier than e.g. standard fencing gear. It's a lot thicker (like those dog attack suits) and often have steel or kevlar plates in the inside. Second, medieval gear wasn't all that heavy. I have a full suit of maille (as it's really called) and it weighs less than 15 kilos, helmet included. A full steel plate armour shouldn't weight more than 25 kilos. That's less than modern soldiers have to carry around on the battlefield.
The biggest difference is that a fencing mask gives you better visibility than a historical closed helmet.
> these guys fight one on one
That's what happened in medieval times too most often. The original medieval books were written mostly for one-on-one combat, either for dueling or trial-by-sword. That happened a lot more than being caught in a war on a battlefield. Swords have little use on a medieval battlefield anyway. You use different weapons and tactics.
> And fighting on some uneven, damp meadow [...] would be hard compared to fighting indoor on a floor.
My HEMA group trains for this as well, and I suspect many other groups too. It is also mentioned in the medieval books. I have trained in loose sand, in the surf on a beach, in deep snow, etc. It's true that competitions are usually held indoors on an even ground though.
[+] [-] bane|11 years ago|reply
I recently saw a full-armor longsword fight. It was fast as hell. I'm talking leather, chainmail, chest plates and metal helmets. I could barely follow the action.
It was pretty awesome and that one live match turned me from skeptic into fan.
[+] [-] daeken|11 years ago|reply
Others have commented on the heft of modern equipment relative to medieval equivalents, but it bears mentioning that the plate armor of the period was exceptionally well made. Not just light weight, but form fitted for the wearer. It's been said that fighters in good plate could do cartwheels, due to the exceptional balance of the armor; it was like a second skin.
[+] [-] maurits|11 years ago|reply
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q
[+] [-] gambiting|11 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q&feature=youtu.be
[+] [-] some_username|11 years ago|reply
The Met has a fantastic lecture, How to Mount a Horse in Armor and Other Chivalric Problems, where a this question is explicitly addressed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqC_squo6X4#t=1427
The short of it being that armor wasn't particularly heavy, especially when compared to the modern combat load, and that it affords quite a bit of mobility.
If this interests you, the entire lecture is worth your time.
[+] [-] dagw|11 years ago|reply
Take a look at people fighting and doing various exercises in full plate armor on youtube. They're surprisingly fast and mobile.
Also there are HEMA groups that train and compete in group combat and various weapon combinations.
[+] [-] platz|11 years ago|reply
TLDR: The round shield was uniquely suited to be used or assist as an attack weapon instead of merely defensive
[+] [-] arnsholt|11 years ago|reply
But just like here, it's more a sport than faithful recreation of sword fighting since a) you're not gonna die if an attack fails and b) this is not battlefield conditions.
[+] [-] PakG1|11 years ago|reply
One thing that nobody has mentioned so far is (I believe) people were much more fit in those days. Today we have a very sedentary lifestyle. Not so much in those days, people were much more active. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2614780/How-F...
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Cthulhu_|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gexla|11 years ago|reply
Probably closer to training than fighting. It may also be close to whatever sport they made of it back in the day.
I'm comparing modern day martial arts. Pretty much all training and sport.
[+] [-] TrevorJ|11 years ago|reply
It's a bit silly, but check this short clip out it will open your eyes a bit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm11yAXeegg
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] benbreen|11 years ago|reply
http://bibliodyssey.blogspot.com/2012/06/der-fechtkampf.html
[+] [-] nacho_weekend|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bane|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bane|11 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFGPCTMp2cw
[+] [-] machinshin_|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brosky117|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gknoy|11 years ago|reply
When you look at many of the plates from earlier fencing manuals, such as those of Fabris or Capo Ferro (Italian fencers from the 1600s), many of the prime guards and ways you strike are done so that you are parrying in measure -- your blade and hilt are in a position that prevents the opponent's sword from connecting with your body. Many similar ideas are present in other swordmasters' treatises.
Disclaimer: I'm a terrible fencer, but several of my friends are up to their eyeballs in historican fencing, so when I go home on holiday, I get an earfull of it. ;)
[+] [-] hookey|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CurrentB|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kbenson|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jkot|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] probably_wrong|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JamesHester|11 years ago|reply
- Yes, battlefield combat is a very different game from tournament style 'one on one' combat. Some techniques are more suited to one than the other. However, many of the techniques in the manuals are usable in both situations, and it is more a matter of the mindset and application of the individual. I agree that most of the HEMA community trains for tournament style combat, because this is mainly the way in which techniques are demonstrated and used in competition. It would be very interesting indeed for training regimes to work out systems of teaching how to apply these techniques to a battle environment.
- Categorizing HEMA is going to depend largely on what your intentions are in studying it. If you want to attempt to accurately re-create the style of fighting from a particular master/manual, and restrict your research/practice to just the contents of said manual and any contextualising resources, then you are more in the realm of re-enactment. I am not yet convinced that the full realization of this is possible, given that we are dealing with texts of variable clarity and no living individuals from an unbroken lineage to verify our theories. That is not to say that there isn't a martial/competitive aspect to this particular type of re-enactment, but in this case one is dealing with a fundamentally 'dead' style, with a set end date and a finite number of techniques, unable to change after its period.
- To make it a martial art requires that we allow the style to be organic, to grow with modern practitioners and teachers as everyone discovers variations of the style that suits them (much like the masters did themselves). This is the idea that I am attempting to bring about with School of Mars. The manuals form the foundation of the teachings, but as new insights from modern practitioners, who may have been exposed to other styles etc., the techniques adapt, or have new techniques or applications added on. We today have the benefit of access to a rich martial heritage that spans the globe, which the early masters did not. To some the thought of mingling them could be seen as heresy, but in my opinion doing so is simply part of reviving the martial arts of Europe in a modern setting. I suspect that the early masters would have leapt upon the opportunity to gain inspiration from other martial styles had they the ability.
/rant. :-)
[+] [-] pluma|11 years ago|reply
HEMA tries to follow the authentic fighting styles very closely and therefore places a lot of emphasis on killing/disarming blows, including stabs to the head (at eye level) or throat and slashes at the hands. This works with sufficient protective gear under controlled conditions.
Battlefield scenarios as seen in re-enactment are far more chaotic. It works because the ruleset is the spectral opposite of HEMA: no stabs to the head, no blows to the hands. Basically medieval combat without the "fun parts".
I don't think it'd be possible to create that kind of environment with a HEMA ruleset without making a whole lot more dangerous and accident prone.
OTOH battlefield re-enactment can frequently get away with barely any armour at all (because the rules emphasize safe techniques) while plated gambesons and face guards seem to be the norm in most of HEMA.
Meh. What do I know anyway.
[+] [-] ktzar|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flarg|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pmlnr|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MagaManGo|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] enjo|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pakled_engineer|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] daktanis|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wtbob|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] IndianAstronaut|11 years ago|reply