HEMA vs Modern Fencing.

[The Salmon Lord]

Indeed. I am often telling people a sword is not just a weapon. It can be an object d’art, man jewellery, a residual part of a uniform or a symbolic item as well.

Even when it’s a weapon other aspects than pure martial considerations affect the design. For example a stirrup hilted sabre is horrible for protecting your hands, but means it can sit on the hip a lot easier than a basket hilt.

This continues with sports fencing swords, but the need to be effective weapons has gone. The Leon Paul sabre never has to actually cut or injure another person. Indeed the very opposite, the weapons have all sorts of features designed to reduce injury. So with the context having changed you lead into all sorts of areas that a “weapon sword” would probably never go. Such as the notorious flickmasters. Or indeed a sword designed to accommodate a wire.

I’m intrigued to think however, if fighting with sharps still happened at any level would the pistol grip be used?

[KeithFarrell]

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.

If you could confirm this about Olympic singlestick then I would be interested to hear the answer!

[Michael S]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fencing_at ... inglestick

[Phil C]

It was a competitive event- for decades they were the only Olympic medals the US won at fencing

[Joeli]

It was a competitive event- for decades they were the only Olympic medals the US won at fencing

That's just too funny and awesome at the same time. Who knew that HEMA(ish) would end up in the modern(ish) olympics.

[The Salmon Lord]

Captain Hutton was on the 1908 organising committee.

[admin]

The extreme light weight of the modern sport sabre renders it almost useless as a training tool for real sabre fencing in my opinion. Sport fencers tend to answer that it developed from the Italian Duelling sabre, but as exponents of that weapon here will confirm, they weigh in the region of 2lbs and have very little in common with the modern sport weapon. They weigh much the same as a standard infantry officer's sabre, but are just balanced closer to the hilt.

Waite in 1881 (and Hutton in 1889) point out that actions which are possible with the sport foil (of their time, which is more or less the same as now) were not possible with the military sabre because of the added weight of the real military weapon.

I completely agree that much fencing does take place in a linear area naturally. But you can buy an egg without buying a chicken. I do not see the need to enforce a piste on the fencers.

I conceed though that of my objections to sport fencing being 'realistic' the piste is probably of the least concern. The weight of the weapons, the rules (as they have become) and the lack of any actions with the left hand are of more effect on the result, in my opinion. Overall I would simply say 'the rules' are the problem.

Regardless of whether you agree or not, I think it is something that sport fencers might want to ponder on - after all, I am aware of a fair number of sport fencers leaving to start historical fencing, but very few who move in the other direction. There must be some attraction to HEMA that sport fencing does not hold. My personal hunch is that sport fencing would do itself a lot of good (in terms of popularity and student numbers) if it acknowleded the interest and movement in historical fencing to a greater degree.

[Gordon L]

"The weight of the weapon is of more concern than [shape of the piste]"

The Olympic epée is the weight it is, because that is the weight and design of the weapon that people actually used in earnest.

Which is a bit of a bugger for arguments along the lines of "there's no reality to" Olympic rules epée.

[Gordon L]

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.

I'd say there's a world of difference between changes which may be a departure from simple combat efficiency, and changes which remove all "reality" and "even any attempt at reality".

For example some late 18th/early 19th century military combat swords had a guard which was hinged - it folded flat to rest more easily on the hip when not in use, then folded out into position when being used as a sword.

That obviously detracts from combat efficiency. In no way does it make it lose "reality".

[Gordon L]

Now that some others have moved us onto the subject of the light sabre - I'd like to correct a widely communicated misconception about them.

Used with proper technique, they do not flick.

They only flick if you attack with the flat of the blade, which is patently not a useful cut. (And in the days prior to electric scoring of Olympic-rules sabre, the president and judges would simply have ignored it).

[Gordon L]

Captain Hutton was on the 1908 organising committee.

Not only that, he quite literally wrote the rulebook for Olympic fencing.

The FIE was formed about twenty years afterwards essentially because the French and the Italians could not bear having to use the British rulebook.

[Gordon L]

Oh, and one of my favourite factoids - on page two of "Cold Steel", Hutton recommends that you train with the light sabre - i.e. the things that I have heard variously derided as "those whippy car aerial things", or "Fairy sabres".

For my part, I'm happy to go with Hutton's recommendation.

And (one of) my teacher's teacher(s), Royal Marines sword instructor and the European Military Sabre champion of around 1950, seemed happy to train with it, too.

[Cutlery Penguin]

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.

I'd say there's a world of difference between changes which may be a departure from simple combat efficiency, and changes which remove all "reality" and "even any attempt at reality".

Depends where on the path of evolution you are. At the beginning yes, 200 years later, possibly not.

[Dave B]

Its all a matter of degree isn't it though.

The great Fiore was training a usefull and deadly martial art, but he was training people who would have probably used it in the recreational combat of the barriers, which was in effect a sport, albeit a dangerous one.

Mendoza's pugilism would have been excellent in a street fight, but he was primarily training for a sporting event, albeit an incredibly brutal one.

Some modern fencers are only interested in learning to win fights on the box, but thats not the entirity of modern fencing.

[admin]

The Olympic epée is the weight it is, because that is the weight and design of the weapon that people actually used in earnest.

Which is a bit of a bugger for arguments along the lines of "there's no reality to" Olympic rules epée.

Actually it is the weight of the sabre that I have particular issue with.
In the case of epee I agree the weapon is fine, but the rules are ridiculous, because as I stated before they reward the person who thrusts someone in the toe 0.3 of a second before getting thrust through the face. I understand that the rules of epee originally stemmed out of the French first-blood duels of the late-19thC, but what epee has lost since then is the context - the way that epee fencers are rewarded now is completely different from the original intention of epee fencing, where caution and not getting stabbed in the face would have been very high on the priority list.

[admin]

Now that some others have moved us onto the subject of the light sabre - I'd like to correct a widely communicated misconception about them.

Used with proper technique, they do not flick.

They only flick if you attack with the flat of the blade, which is patently not a useful cut.

With all due respect, I think this is a mixture of your misunderstanding what we mean and us badly communicating it. We/I do not mean whipping the blade with the flat, but rather the way that cuts are given in modern sport sabre with a sort of fly-fishing motion, which is is pretty easy to demonstrate does not really cut with a real sword (and is pretty difficult with a proper weight sabre). The way that cutting is taught in the British military sabre manuals is to make solid contact with the centre of percussion and then slice the remaining part of the blade across the object hit. This method of cutting works very well, but is not so advantageous in sport sabre, where you only really need to tag the person as quickly and from as far away as possible.

[admin]

Oh, and one of my favourite factoids - on page two of "Cold Steel", Hutton recommends that you train with the light sabre - i.e. the things that I have heard variously derided as "those whippy car aerial things", or "Fairy sabres".

Sorry Gordon, but this is a misunderstanding on your part. Hutton is refering to the Italian style infantry officer's sabre. That is a proper sabre of just under 2lbs in weight - it is only light in comparison to a cavalry sabre. He bought them from Pillin and similar examples survive. It is a completely different beast to the modern fairy sabre.

And (one of) my teacher's teacher(s), Royal Marines sword instructor and the European Military Sabre champion of around 1950, seemed happy to train with it, too.

Unfortunately the British Armed Forces switched from military forms of fencing to sport fencing (ie. sport sabre replaced military sabre, singlestick and cutlass) in around 1920, thanks to the realities of WW1 with its aeroplanes and tanks.

[John H]

I’m not one to argue on reality, frankly I think sport fencing is great, it teaches quite a lot of things that are useful for HEMA. In our area many of the HEMA people are former sport fencers. To address Matts comments on people leaving sport and moving to HEMA I’ll tell you what the head coach at the sport club I use to train at said the first time he saw me - “You’ll never compete” and walked away. I was over 21 and he didn’t care one bit about someone he couldn’t put on the team, he actually viewed me as a liability as someone who may injury his team or teach them bad habits. Because he was such an ass the moment I found the club I am at now, I left and found quite a few people who ‘know of him,’ all have nothing good to say. In sport fencing after you get over a certain age you ‘are too old to compete,’ but that doesn’t mean we aren’t interested in learning and fighting.

Here are the reasons I prefer HEMA.

Rules: I fenced sport Saber, (dumbing it down for those unfamiliar) if both lights go off you have to find out who ‘had right of way’ or ‘attacked first,’ unless other things happened (not addressing for simplicity.) In HEMA if both are hit both loose, no question to who attacked first or parry-riposte etc. The philosophy on the sport side is you need to recognize you are being attacked and defend yourself, on the HEMA side you need to ‘not get hit no matter what.’ If you parried and he remised and you still got hit, you still loose, no excuses no assuming someone had the ‘duty to defend.’ The attacker must take responsibility for initiating the attack and needs to be conscious of ‘if it is safe’ to do so. Both are good skills IMO, valuable and needed.

I spent some time working on voiding/attack with a student at the sports group. I would attack, he would void and the moment he heard my foot land, he lunged into me. Both lights would go off because he was ‘fine tuning’ it so that I didn’t even have time to ‘recover/guard.’ My foot landed, right of way move to him, and he would have died too. Something in me wanted some sense of ‘what if this was a real sword.’

Physics: Gordon, you mentioned that linear footwork is a natural aspect of foil/epee, true because physics does not apply to them as it does to Smallsword or Rapier. Dave B brought up commanding the blade, which hopefully he will elaborate on as I’m already writing a great wall of text. But in Rapier I can command you blade quite easily and circular footwork helps me command it, smallsword is not as pronounced as Rapier in this aspect but it still exists. Sabre/Broadsword: we should all understand that time = distance and the need to keep your actions small means quicker actions. By creating circular footwork I can cost my opponent time by increasing his distance to defend. I can do this even better with an expulsion, which again is not possible on a sports blade as it is too flimsy, or at least functions completely different, and strait blades function different than curved ones do. If you take Rapier and make it linear you are removing a lot of the fight and ability to create and open angles on your opponent. An Epee has little need for second and fourth, while rapier needs to live there, this is due to physics. Different weapons act different.

I’ve always said the differences are ‘rules and tools.’ If my kid wants to start fencing I’ll put them in sport fencing (partially for the social aspect,) when they get over 20 I’ll encourage them to move to HEMA. I consider sport fencing a great ‘training’ for HEMA.

[admin]

I agree with all of that.

[The Salmon Lord]

Interestingly John I would say that one of the defining characteristics of smallsword play is that it is by and large linear. And gets more linear as time progresses. Primarily because the sword is so much lighter and quicker and there are no cuts whatsoever. Aside from the demi volte or volte, which are pretty rare in free fencing there is not a lot of coming offline as a defensive or offensive action I can really think of.