HEMA vs Modern Fencing.

[Phil C]

Maybe we should just send them a copy of Reclaiming the Blade for them to watch.

And have them confuse us with Jedi-wannabes instead?

[Ulrich von L...n]

Most people evidently don't realise that 'martial' means 'pertaining to the god of war (Mars)', ie. a military art. The expression is first documented in a 16thC English source as far as I am aware.

Pallas Armata
Author: G.A. (?)
Printed at London by I.D. for John Williams, at the signe of the Crane inc. Paul's Church-yard. 1639.

Preface
...
Introduction (a long one with several dedications from various academics)
...

To his worthy, valourous, and ingenious friend the Author.
Not for thy love, or kindnesse showne to me
Doe I commend this Booke, or yet praise thee;
For though I know thou art a friend of mine,
I praise this for its own sake, not for thine,
Thou herein to the Reader dost impart
In a plaine way that famous Martiall art
Of fencing, which by charge and toylesome paine
Thou hast attain'd, and striv'st to make us gaine
By thy great labour, and hereby dost prove
That th'art not onely full of skill but love
Of th'common good, for which thy name shall be
Both lov'd of us and our posteritie.

Jo. Sotheby
Of Greyes-Inne.

[Ulrich von L...n]

How many of us are around around now world-wide? What is the latest count? 10,000? 15,000? 20,000?
BD

Great HEMA Census (unfortunately it isn't updated):
http://www.hroarr.com/survey/worldwide/practitioners/
6430 paying practitioners in 2010 (62% complete) => 10 thousand

I would say a figure between 7 and 10 thousand HEMAists is a fair guestimate for 2012.

[Moberg]

They seem to be really confused about HEMA though, they think it's something to do with Renaissance Faires and re-enactment and a bunch of them seem to think it only exists in the US. And then some HEMAista chimed in and said there were only 100 HEMA practitioners world wide 5 years ago. Maybe 15 years ago...

How many of us are around around now world-wide? What is the latest count? 10,000? 15,000? 20,000?

BD

Sorry BD. My bad of the estimation of a couple of hundreds HEMAists fiveish years ago. It should be a couple of thousands. I am aware of the hroarr census as I practise with Roger on a weekly basis.

I started the thread at the other side of the fence because I thought it would be something that they would pick up. Misconceptions from people outside the hobby are always fun and grateful to discuss. Same for them as for us. But I do think, as I stated in one post, that the misconcepions are mutual and a reason why we should learn from each other but not try to teach each other. And I wanted to ask them what they thought was behind the USFCA invitation. I started sportfencing a couple of month ago and was quite surpised that it didn't live up to the picture I got from my HEMA fellows. And that was before the debate about USFCA aggression.


BR MM

[Gav]

Most people evidently don't realise that 'martial' means 'pertaining to the god of war (Mars)', ie. a military art. The expression is first documented in a 16thC English source as far as I am aware.

That certainly isn't true for me...

I tried to interact with this board a while back but the experience was so unpleasant I gave up. It's good to see things are more polite this time around.

Yes I am the moderator of the forum you are discussing.

As some of your lot signed on over the uh fence I thought I would jump over here and at least say hello.

Stick my hand out in friendship and all that.

[Michael Chidester]

I was only illustrating the small changes that would transition sport fencing into something more martial (thereby showing that HEMA and sport fencing are not so drastically removed from each other in application).

I was not suggesting sport fencing does change its rules - that's none of my business - but I do think it is useful to show HEMA people how sport fencing could easy be HEMA if you just changed a few parameters. Many HEMA people seem to think that sport fencing is more different than it actually is.

Yes, I've made the same observation from time to time. I suspect that most people who claim that HEMA and Olympic fencing are utterly unrelated (like the guy on the HEMA Alliance thread who claimed that it made about as much sense for the USFCA to offer certification for badminton coaches) tend to subconsciously reduce HEMA to only 14th century Liechtenauer longsword and modern fencing to only foil. Yeah, there's not a lot of overlap in that particular comparison, but HEMA is far vaster and more varied than that (and so is sport fencing).

Matt Galas made the reasonable observation the other day that sport fencing federations (such as the USFCA) interested in expanding their sphere ought to start with smallsword and military sabre fencing--these are the direct HEMA roots of Olympic fencing, and if they find this transition easy then there might be merit in having them take a look at the rapier, side sword, longsword, etc.

The problem with that might be that there simply aren't enough sabreurs and smallswordsmen to be worth their attention. They're probably taking a look at longsword and rapier because those are the weapons with the largest followings by far--and even then, such a small base by comparison that they're only vaguely interested. Ten thousand practitioners of HEMA (taking all weapons and time periods together) do not really hold much weight compared to the hundreds of thousands of sport and classical fencers in the world.

[Cutlery Penguin]

Hi Gav.

Sorry you didn't get a good welcome first time round. Welcome back.

[admin]

Hi Gav,
I see your previous experience here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11618&p=208599#p208599
I'm sorry if that was a negative experience for you, it seems fairly laid back to me .

Since that old thread it's important to note that most historical fencing rules have in many ways now moved even further away from sport fencing rules.

For example, most competitions now much more heavy penalise double hits so that if a certain number of doubles occur in a bout then both fighters are disqualified.
We also now fairly universally use the 'afterblow' rule, which is a historical fencing rule found in a variety of 16th-19th century fencing sources to encourage more 'martial' behaviour. In this rule the person who is first hit is allowed to attack back at the other person within one tempo. This takes into account that even when you fatally wound an opponent they do not usually cease to be a threat (even late 19thC fencing sources are keen to point this out and encourage you to return to guard and retreat after scoring a hit). The rule encourages fencers to protect themselves after scoring a hit, instead of immediately stopping fencing (which of course would be very dangerous in 'real life'). In most rules if you get hit by an afterblow then you lose the point you scored with the initial hit.

[Gav]

I see your previous experience here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11618&p=208599#p208599
I'm sorry if that was a negative experience for you, it seems fairly laid back to me

I know you're being amusing but there's quite a lot of frothing lunacy going on back in that exchange.

Do you really want to know why many people who fence get annoyed with historical fencers? Go back and read that thread. Pay close attention to the absolute levels of disdain.

What I am interested in is helping you guys understand what you can take from fencing to help make your own past time better. Why bother reinventing the wheel when there's been a bunch of people solving these problems for a long time?

I'm not interested in converting you guys to fencing. Nor do I think my way, or yours, is intrinsically better. I know that they are just different.

Also don't assume I - in fact most fencers - don't know anything about the history of the sword. That is complete nonsense. In my library I have shelves of books on my particular interests. When it comes to fencing; I have lots of books on coaching; I have many books on martial philosophy; I have histories of the sword/duelling and sundry pursuits. I am as educated in the hardcore stuff It's been my pleasure to read here.

PS
I'm not actually all that interested in how you guys simulate wounding - it has zero interest to me. Similarly I don't expect you to be interested in the technicalities of how electrical scoring apparatus works. That's all sideshow.

PPS

The rule encourages fencers to protect themselves after scoring a hit, instead of immediately stopping fencing (which of course would be very dangerous in 'real life').

We train for this ALL the time. It's a core requirement.

Your comment comes from a series of misunderstandings. I'm trying to think up a good way to explain this but maybe I should just tell you a simple drill.

Pupil lunges and hits coach.
On his recovery coach launches an attack.
Pupil is expected to parry AND riposte.

This oversimplification simulates two things: sometimes you miss so may need to defend yourself on recovery and sometimes you hit but your opponent follows through anyway ... so you may need to defend yourself on recovery. It's actually irreverent in this scenario whether the 1st hit is valid [though that is desirable] but it's important for the pupil to understand that they need to be able to defend themselves unexpectedly. It also allows the pupil to consider the person over there is very much alive and will probably react in some way to their attack.

[Dave B]

Do you really want to know why many people who fence get annoyed with historical fencers? Go back and read that thread. Pay close attention to the absolute levels of disdain.

I'd like to think that this is a minority of people, and that it seems worse than it is because of the problems all forums have - social skills are more difficult on the internet.

I'd suggest that you get absolute disdain from some sport fencers on the subject of historical fencing too - Certainly I've experienced it in my own time in sport fencing when the subject comes up. But that's from a minority too, and often from the ill-informed. From people who think they are good fencers just because they are quick and fit, but actually don't know as much as they think they do about thier own type of fencing, never mind anyone else's.

I hope the majority on both sides would preffer to be friendly and open minded.

[The Salmon Lord]

I'd like to think it was too. Im not convinced it is though. I think theres a lot of underlying dislike of Sport Fencing amongst a lot of people in HEMA circles.

[Motley]

Hello Gav,

I just want to say welcome too. It is good to see some one purely in the sport camp pop in over here. Try not to let your past experience colour this one too much.

EDIT: Dave B cross posted with me, what he said too!

Dan.

[Motley]

I'd like to think it was too. Im not convinced it is though. I think theres a lot of underlying dislike of Sport Fencing amongst a lot of people in HEMA circles.

Those people should be discouraged from alienating the rest of us though. Whether that is possible, I don't know.

[knirirr]

I'd like to think it was too. Im not convinced it is though. I think theres a lot of underlying dislike of Sport Fencing amongst a lot of people in HEMA circles.

Unfortunately I think you're right in that there is quite a bit of underlying dislike, although I can quite understand why.
One can only hope that further exchanges between sport and historical fencers will improve matters.

[admin]

Gav,

I think you're interpreting hostility where there isn't any.

One of the key things to point out at this point is that many of us in HEMA are ex-sport fencers. Most of us only fenced at university or club level, but I know at least one person here who has fenced at regional (UK) level. I fenced foil and sabre from age 16 to 22 and epee for about a year later in my 20's.

Therefore many of us have been involved with sport fencing for years. Some of us chose to completely move over to historical fencing, whilst others here do both at the same time. As a community we have a lot of exposure to sport fencing and in some cases sport fencing has a lot of exposure to us - a whole sport fencing club has attended one of the events I run and I have taught sessions for sport fencers (as have others here).

What I am interested in is helping you guys understand what you can take from fencing to help make your own past time better. Why bother reinventing the wheel when there's been a bunch of people solving these problems for a long time?

See this is where the problem is.
Firstly it comes across in a condescending way. HEMA is growing at a far faster rate than sport fencing and doesn't need help from sport fencing. If you approach HEMAists with that tone then of course they will tell you where to stick it.
Secondly it completely overlooks the fact that a large percentage of instructors in HEMA are past or current sport fencers! We have been there and done that. It is not secret or hidden wisdom.

I'm not actually all that interested in how you guys simulate wounding - it has zero interest to me. Similarly I don't expect you to be interested in the technicalities of how electrical scoring apparatus works. That's all sideshow.

It's really not a sideshow. It is the essence of why some people want to do HEMA instead of sport fencing. The rules we use define our aims and objectives and that is why so many HEMA people just can't understand modern sport fencing.

The rule encourages fencers to protect themselves after scoring a hit, instead of immediately stopping fencing (which of course would be very dangerous in 'real life').

We train for this ALL the time. It's a core requirement.

Your comment comes from a series of misunderstandings.

You may think that, but I disagree. I'll just reiterate that I fenced at school and university and many other people here have or still sport fence. I agree that recovering to guard is something that is taught still in class, but it is largely ignored in competition and actual fencing. Not to mention the way that the right of way rule has led to sabruers advancing into distance with their arms bent so as to have priority when safely in distance to hit.

This sort of situation, whereby a safe recovery is practically impossible in one tempo, is only too familiar to those of us who have done sport fencing:

Pupil lunges and hits coach.
On his recovery coach launches an attack.
Pupil is expected to parry AND riposte.

This oversimplification simulates two things: sometimes you miss so may need to defend yourself on recovery and sometimes you hit but your opponent follows through anyway ... so you may need to defend yourself on recovery. It's actually irreverent in this scenario whether the 1st hit is valid [though that is desirable] but it's important for the pupil to understand that they need to be able to defend themselves unexpectedly. It also allows the pupil to consider the person over there is very much alive and will probably react in some way to their attack.

I do not deny that you still teach some of this aspect of fencing and that's great. I do not regret fencing foil and sabre for all those years at all, it taught me a lot of useful stuff. As I said right near the start of this thread, if some specific rules were changed in sport fencing then you could end up with something very similar to what we do. But at the moment there is quite a wide gap.. which is fine.

[Gav]

Do you really want to know why many people who fence get annoyed with historical fencers? Go back and read that thread. Pay close attention to the absolute levels of disdain.

I'd like to think that this is a minority of people, and that it seems worse than it is because of the problems all forums have - social skills are more difficult on the internet:

I'd suggest that you get absolute disdain from some sport fencers on the subject of historical fencing too - Certainly I've experienced it in my own time in sport fencing when the subject comes up. But that's from a minority too, and often from the ill-informed. From people who think they are good fencers just because they are quick and fit, but actually don't know as much as they think they do about thier own type of fencing, never mind anyone else's.

I hope the majority on both sides would preffer to be friendly and open minded.

I don't want to dwell on the past.

And you're right there's a lot of disdain but it is, in my experience, driven by a conversation which goes like this.

"You're a fencer?"
"Yes I am."
"You're doing it wrong."
"excuse me?
"According to Capo Ferro you're doing it wrong?"
"Really? You do know that was drawn a long time ago?"
"You're doing it wrong - you should do it like this."
Demonstration of really bad technique...
"Thanks." Turn back to bar.
"You're doing it wrong..."
"Oh F*** Off."

To be told, especially when you've represented your country, that you're doing it wrong because some unfit oik says so is not just irritating it's insulting.

Now you're going to get the same in return from us lot too - I know that - but many more fencers are really curious about the old stuff than you might think.

One of my friends, if he even suspects there's a historical fencer in the room, won't even speak of fencing now - it's just not worth the hassle.

[admin]

I have to say that I find that very surprising because having been both a sport fencer and of course a historical fencer I have mostly seen the flak coming from sport towards historical. But I have also experienced a lot of interest from sport fencers in what we do.
But this just comes down to personal experience I guess.

[admin]

p.s. I should also mention that the reason I took up epee in my late-20's was because I was starting to look at historical smallsword sources at the time and wanted to get more practice with what I thought was a similar weapon. It turned out that I would have been better sticking with foil, but it didn't matter much in the end as I lost interest in smallsword.

[knirirr]

I have to say that I find that very surprising because having been both a sport fencer and of course a historical fencer I have mostly seen the flak coming from sport towards historical.

That has also been my experience. It has not been uncommon for sport fencing acquaintances to ask me if I intend to "return to serious/proper fencing," amongst other things.
However, when I used to do sport fencing (started 1989) I didn't know of HEMA, and didn't find out about it until around 1997, via the DDS.

[Stevie T]

It's sounds like Gav has encountered a typical re-enactor who's studied a bit of HEMA, we're terrible oxygen theives who have a habit of telling people they're wrong, I used to be particularly bad at that sort of thing. Getting better now that I don't do so many events where I talk to the public so much.