HEMA vs Modern Fencing.

[admin]

Now that is truly a level of efficiency that only our modern science and understanding of the universe has enabled. Liechtenauer could never have dreamt of that.

Something some of the guys over on the other forum seem to be missing is that sport fencing with longswords, sword and buckler etc existed for centuries. There was lots of competition between fencers - sword and buckler bouts were a common pastime in London (at Smithfields, just outside the City walls). What they were doing in the 14th-19thC and what we are doing is not very different from what modern sport fencers are doing, in that we are all trying to evolve our personal systems to be the most successful they can be within the parameters we set ourselves. The only real material difference between sport fencing and modern HEMA is that we are trying to use rules and equipment which simulate some kind of 'reality' (eg. grappling allowed, heavier weapons, the after-blow etc etc). As I keep saying - change a few of the rules in sport fencing and you'd have something like HEMA (and something that lots of us would probably be more interested in).

[Dave B]

Exactly. When Fiore says he's had 5 'duels' I think he's expecting people to think thats a lot. and when he says how much more dangerous it is than the barriers, you could take that as a warning to his students to stick to the barriers, to fencing a sport.

And you are bob on in talking about 'the parameters we set'. After all if an modern fencer turned up with an Epee 91 cm long, that would be seen as cheating - everyone sets totally arbitary parameters on weapon types and so on.

[admin]

And sport fencing of the 14th-19thC had its own rules and parameters. We know that the Bolognese in the 16thC counted points based on the body location hit, that they used blunted swords, that they allowed the after-blow etc etc. The German and Belgian Guilds used 'feder' flexible longswords and in Belgium at least struck only with the flat, to prevent injury. In Germany thrusts were often forbidden in the 16thC. We know that in knightly combats in armour certain kinds of blow were sometimes forbidden, that certain types of armour was specified, that a certain number of hits were counted and that usually blunted weapons were used. Sometimes they added additional rule restrictions, such as no grappling, or fighting over a fence/barrier.
It is all sport fencing of one kind or another. It is just a question of specifically what kind of parameters interest you and what period of history. You can fence in a 1960's way, or a 1460's way... it will still be sport fencing to some degree.

[Old old-timer]

I'd be up for that new discussion.

[Gordon L]

The only real material difference between sport fencing and modern HEMA is that we are trying to use rules and equipment which simulate some kind of 'reality'

This strongly implies "sport fencing" does not use rules which simulate any kind of 'reality', nor are they trying to.

Is that what you actually intended to mean?

[admin]

Welcome to the forum Gordon.

Well I'll turn the question around - do you think that the rules as they are now in 2012 do intend to simulate some reality of swordsmanship still?

All modern sport fencing is done on a narrow piste and disallows any use of the left hand. That's very limiting for martial training. When they were doing sport foil in the late-19th century (purely as a sport by that point) they were also teaching military sabre, where they accepted that 'in the field' basically anything goes, including the use of the left hand for disarms etc. This greatly affected how they training military sabre fencing to officers - for example John Musgrave Waite in 1881 notes that whilst the use of the left hand was not allowed in the salle, one should never dwell on the lunge because in a real fight the opponent would not think twice about grabbing your weapon from you.
Modern Foil does not allow thrusts at the face or legs etc, modern sport sabre rewards a flicky type of cut that would not really cut with a real sword, as well as bent-arm advances etc, and epee encourages behaviour that would often lead to suicide (thrusting someone in the toe a fraction of a second before they thrust you through the face). Obviously there are more examples I could pick, but those are the first ones that came to mind.

I didn't think that any modern sport fencers believed that sport fencing was still practiced in a way that would encourage safe and sensible swordplay in a real fight. I'd be interested to know your views though.

Let me also add (as I've said above) that I do believe modern sport fencing teaches a lot of things that lay very strong foundations for a 'realistic' or sensible method of martial swordsmanship, but you'd need to strip away some of the more modern affectations which have come about out of a desire to play the rules and win the match, rather than stay alive and incapacitate an enemy. As I keep saying, I believe that if you trained sport fencers to a different set of rules (more realistic ones) then you could very quickly have some very martial effective fencers.

[Dave B]

The only real material difference between sport fencing and modern HEMA is that we are trying to use rules and equipment which simulate some kind of 'reality'

This strongly implies "sport fencing" does not use rules which simulate any kind of 'reality', nor are they trying to.

Is that what you actually intended to mean?

Is that Gordon that attends the smallsword symposium? If so good to see you. I don't think anyone is trying to belittle modern fencing Gordon, just to say that it it has evolved as a sport, not that there is anything wrong with that.

[Gordon L]

Welcome to the forum Gordon.

Thank you. I expect to enjoy being here.

Well I'll turn the question around - do you think that the rules as they are now in 2012 do intend to simulate some reality of swordsmanship still?

And I shall go for the first counter-riposte - do you feel that whether they do or not, there is no intent to have them do so?

[Andreas Engström]

And I shall go for the first counter-riposte - do you feel that whether they do or not, there is no intent to have them do so?

Surely that can't be correct metaphor. You asked a question, Matt replied with a long, well-reasoned post, which you choose to completely ignore, instead asking a quite different question?

That's not a counter-riposte - I'm not sure if there's even a fencing metaphor to employ for it. Perhaps something along the lines of "instead of parrying your opponent's riposte, walking over to the next piste and start a completely new match, trying to pretend that the first match never even happened"?

This isn't an interrogation forum - a discussion usually entails both parties giving their opinions.

-Andreas

[scholadays]

That's not a counter-riposte - I'm not sure if there's even a fencing metaphor to employ for it.

As there was no attempt to parry, is it a counter-attack out of time?

[Gordon L]

Andreas

You asked a question, Matt replied with a long, well-reasoned post, which you choose to completely ignore, instead asking a quite different question?

Andreas, before I return to my discussion with admin (for the rest of this post, I shall presume Matt = admin = Matt ?)

I asked a question - did Matt actually intend to mean the two things he so strongly implied.

Matt elected to "turn it around" rather than answer my question. I re-worded my original question to focus more clearly on one of the two strong implications.

I agree Matt's post was long, but it also avoided both aspects of the question I asked.

For the record, I shall be happy to engage with the points and questions Matt raised in response, and also his later questions, but to do so prior to the answer to the initial questions would be to put the cart before the horse).

As a further aside, the proper fencing metaphor for what I did was a remise - I simply placed my point back on target without any additional action, in the face of a counter that did not affect my line.

So I shall ask again, because I think it an important question. I ask for the audience's indulgence in this matter.

Matt(?), did you intend to mean those two strong implications:
a) "sport fencing" has no reality to it
b) "sport fencing" does not try to have any reality to it?

----------------------------------
P.S. Hi Dave, yes, that's me.

[admin]

Hi Gordon,
I gave a longer answer in that it provide more clarity. If you wuld like a more concise response then here it is:

The only real material difference between sport fencing and modern HEMA is that we are trying to use rules and equipment which simulate some kind of 'reality'

This strongly implies "sport fencing" does not use rules which simulate any kind of 'reality', nor are they trying to.

Is that what you actually intended to mean?

More or less, yes. I think that they were originally intended to cater for certain kinds of 'reality', but they have now diverged so far from the original 'sentiment du fer', especially in application, that the statement stands true. Bear in mind that I include equipment used under 'rules'.

[scholadays]

As a further aside, the proper fencing metaphor for what I did was a remise - I simply placed my point back on target without any additional action, in the face of a counter that did not affect my line.

Hhmm..slow mo' replay please...

...Is that what you actually intended to mean?

Well I'll turn the question around - do you think that the rules as they are now in 2012 do intend to simulate some reality of swordsmanship still?

...do you feel that whether they do or not, there is no intent to have them do so?

Yeah, good point, yours was a remise.

Attack from the left, counter attack out of time from the right, remise from the left? We really should phrase all our discussions like this - it does make things much clearer. Anyway...


Pret?

Allez..

[Gordon L]

I think this is an interesting discussion, on a topic that is important in lots of ways to the fencing community.

At any rate, it's a topic that I am interested in.

I also think it is an involved discussion, which has a lot of strands to it.

So I'm going attempt to address the whole of it, and I can already foresee that it'll take quite a few posts.

On a practical note : the time I have spare to devote to it is limited, and my PC is temperamental.

So, again, with the audience's indulgence, I'm going to try to pick my way through the individual aspects of the discussion, fairly slowly. And as you've already witnessed, I think the underlying attitudes, implications and assumptions are key to understanding the whole kaboodle, so I'll be addressing those, as well as the explicit surface arguments.

I'm also aware that side-threads and sub-threads could easily multiply faster than I have time to address, so... while i am delighted to try and address them, I'm probably going to have to run a "Parking Lot" for issues and queries that come up faster than I can address them.

Andreas, you wanted some of my opinions - I'm happy to oblige.

[Gordon L]

I'll deal with the most contentious line of argument first:

saying that "sports fencing" has no reality to it, nor does it attempt to" cannot be interpreted by "sports fencers" as deriding "modern fencing".

Nor could it be interpreted by "sports fencers" as saying their "sport is ridiculous or similar" because, if it were, that would be an instance of flaming sports fencers, according to Matt in an earlier post on this thread.

This purported lack of derision or flaminess depends on how factual the following statements are:
1) sports fencing" has no reality to it
2) "sports fencing" does not even try to have some reality to it

My opinion is that neither 1) nor 2) is true. I think you might find a great many people with one or both feet in the "sports fencing" world to share this opinion.

I think this is one of the principal reasons for the sort of posts we see in forum discussions on both sides of the fence: "we're polite, why are they so hostile" in the HEMA camp; and "they're so ignorant - why are they so insulting?" in the sports fencing camp.

And these last two paragraphs of mine are easily dismissed by people who feel that
a) "sports fencing" has no reality to it
b) that there is no attempt at reality in it
is a simple statement of the bleedin' obvious.

And so: the next post.

[Gordon L]

Do the ridiculous celebratory behaviours exhibited in sports competitions on winning points and matches, discredit the swordsmanship demonstrated? Or discredit all "sports fencers" by association?

Is "modern fencing" the same thing as "sports fencing"?

Are "modern fencing" clubs exclusively devoted to modern Olympic-rules fencing?

Are the teachers at "modern fencing" clubs teaching nothing but "sports fencing"?

I'll leave these questions as "Parking Lot" issues for now, and come back to them later. (Please remind me later, if I forget to, and you're interested in those three aspects of this thread.)

[Gordon L]

Matt's specific reasons that "sport fencing" has no reality to it:

No. 1 - It is done on a narrow piste

This is, imo, one of the easiest to dismiss.

"sports fencing" is based on specific weapons - currently at the Olympics these consist of the "foil" (i.e the fleuret), the épée [de combat], and the [Italian light] sabre.

Originally, the only Olympic weapons were the fleuret and the sabre. The épée was added soon afterwards. Singlestick was an Olympic weapon briefly (iirc as a demonstration event - I'll confirm one way or the other if anyone wants). Rapier and dagger was also proposed as an Olympic event, but never formed part of the Olympics.

The epée de combat is a late-model small-sword blade, set with a cheap steel guard. The fleuret has remained unchanged bar the coquille for even longer than the epée's blade. The (Italian Light) sabre is the foiled version of the Italian duelling sabre, which is itself a derivation of a late-model spadroon.

The key thing about all of these is that they are all late-vintage, lightweight weapons, and so are considerably faster to wield than their fore-runners.

Let's consider, for example, the épéé. It's a late model smallsword, with a different hilt. The small-sword, over its evolution, became gradually lighter and shorter. Even the early smallswords are lighter and shorter the preceding rapiers.

The rapier's typical blade length is 39", as opposed to the small-sword's 33" or less (although there are smallswords known up to 35"). The comparison of blade-weight is made clear in the colichemarde transitional blades - fortés as large and heavy as a rapier's, with a mid-section and foible as small and light as later smallswords'.

So the smallsword (and consequently the épéé) is much lighter, and has a much lower moment of inertia than the rapier. This makes it much faster to wield than the rapier. And so styles of fence change markedly over the transitional period.

One key difference is that periods of fencing time for blade actions become much shorter.

The human body doesn't alter much however, so periods of fencing time for body movements do not shrink.

Previously, you could circle your opponent for advantage in line. With the smallsword, the defender can cover an arc of about 120degrees at a radius of about 50" to 60", without the need to move his feet at all.

An attacker wishing to evade this defensive sweep needs, therefore, to cover 52" to 62" to bypass this defensive sweep - four-a-half to five feet, or more. About four or five periods of fencing time, as compared to the one period of fencing time the defender requires to counter it.

Unsurprisingly, circular movements to gain advantage wither as a consequence, and displacements become increasing small, and increasingly linear. The volte and demi-volte are still emphasised during the period of the transitional blade forms, but become gradually less emphasised, leaving the inquartata as the only important sideways motion by the time that the smallsword is itself transitioning into épée de combat.

(Incidentally, the inquartata popped up in a thread recently - possibly even this one. Someone asked if it was even used or taught anymore. I can confirm it gets used - used discriminately and with excellent timing, it's highly effective. And I can confirm, as my own Master still teaches it, as do I, that it is still taught).

So, it is the reality of fencing that changes into a linear form, which in turn then gets reflected into the terrain de combat.

It is not an artificial restriction, it's a difference that makes no difference - for the reality of that specific weapon.

As a quick check - I went to the Smallsword Symposium's videos and watched the free-play, where there are no rules restricting anyone to a linear path. You still see linear fighting, rather than fighting in the round.

The only instance that I've seen that veers more than a metre off the centre line results in the attacker, who causes the veer, getting stabbed.

The other veers are smaller and happen when a defender is getting pressed close to a wall, and attempts to then change the path to go along the wall rather than continue stepping back into it. Predictably, in those situations, the defender is hit.

However, smallsword and epée duelling were outdoor pursuits - as Olympic epée also was, originally.

[Dave B]

Ah, I thought it had to be that Gordon - How are you Gordon - see you in Edinburgh this year?

Whilst I am not in the 'Modern Fencing' has no reality' camp, I have some arguments for you, perhaps involving commanding the sword, but I'll wait for you to get to an appropriate point before jumping in!

[Cutlery Penguin]

Whilst I'm loathe to interrupt you when you're clearly on a roll I think there is something missing from your argument if I understand it correctly.

My impression of your argument is that swords evolved along certain paths for which we have clear proof, and that the fighting styles used are natural consequences of those evolutionary changes.

The important point that I feel you have missed is that the driving force for those evolutionary changes needs to he taken into consideration if any judgement on the efficacy of a system those changes create can be made.

If swords evolved purely to be more deadly then you are completely correct. However if issues like aesthetics and ease of carrying/wearing play a part then that evolution, and the changes it dictates may well be a departure away from simple combat efficacy.

[Dave B]

Indeed, although I'm very fond of smallsword, and it is an extremely effective weapon, I'm not sure it was martially superior to a cut and thrust sword. It may be it was just superior for wearing around town. The fact that military types stuck with heavier swords may suggest that