HEMA vs Modern Fencing.

[Chris Holzman]

Regarding Italian military practice sabres from Radaelli/Parise's time period on, I'd say something more like 600g to 640g is probably where most examples lie... Parise ... specifies that the sabre for fencing on the ground should be like the one used in the duel

In 1902 Gustav Arlow (follower of Barbasetti) wrote in his Hungarian book that the weight of duelling sabres should not exceed 750g and the usual weight was between 400 and 600g, with 12-16mm wide blade.

I quite like the sabres weighing in at about 600g. I think my antiques are 16 or 17mm at the base, and are right about 600g (though one is missing 5 inches of blade, its still the same weight, due to a slightly thicker guard - though it is the exact same blade model) that said, I'd just as soon have 20mm wide at the base, as its likely to yield a slightly stiffer first half of the blade.

My Hanwei Radaelli (with a replacement wood grip) weighs 573g, and is frankly a bit light feeling on the whole.

[Ulrich von L...n]

On the other hand in the same book Arlow wrote that duels with cavalry sabres are nonsense, because these swords are not fencing weapons and are designed to crush enemy's headgear and cut forcibly through enemy's guards and parries (p 228). Even when seconds had agreed on using cavalry sabres, they never used weapons heavier than 1kg and wider than 20mm (there is a footnote on that page saying that the usual width of a cavalry sabre is 39mm).

Exactly four decades later, in 1942, Laszlo Gerentser (coach of Sandor Posta, Olympic gold (sabre, individual), silver (sabre, team) in 1924) wrote in his book, Modern Sabre Fencing that based on the opinion of several duelling experts, the notion of duels with cavalry swords should be deleted from the vocabulary of chivalrous men. He put duelling swords in three categories: light (7-8mm of width, thinner is not recommended because they are too whippy, fencing with them is not realistic), middleweight (9-10mm), heavy (12-14mm).

[admin]

Regarding Italian military practice sabres from Radaelli/Parise's time period on, I'd say something more like 600g to 640g is probably where most examples lie.

Fair enough - all of the pre-1910 British examples I have played with have been heavier than that, but I know the Italians were pushing probably the lightest gymnasium sabres around until the modern sport sabre came along. Still, the difference between 600g and the modern average of 400g for a sport sabre is still significant - a 50% increase. I'm sure all the readers here appreciate that this is a big difference in the hand.

[admin]

Yes, the flick with the flat is currently allowable (in sabre). However, even at the outset of electric sabre, this was an issue for the rule-makers, as the cut-sensors demonstrate.. It's yet to be resolved, rather than proof that FIE rule-makers don't even try to have any sort of reality. (Which was the very strong claim made).

I don't think it is a strong claim at all, even given your own evidence above and that of others on this thread. I'm content to make a stronger claim - not only do I think that the FIE are not really concerned with realistic rules (in terms of preparation for fencing with sharps), but evidence also suggests that they don't really understand what 'realistic' means.

Maybe one day, when HEMA is bigger than it is now, they will take notice of the demand for more 'realism' in the art of sport fencing.

[Dave B]

In Gordon’s defense on this, there is still a divide on the sport side between those who only wish to win tournaments/the Olympics and those who wish to keep to the true spirit of fencing. Sound Familiar?

Good point John.

I think it's fair to say that both in modern fencing and Hema we fight with Sword Simulators, not swords. They replicate different types of swords, and may replicate them more or less closely, but nothing really different in principle.

I think that in both modern fencing and in Hema we have people who's focus is at being good at competitions, and people who just like to study swordsmanship and only use freeplay to further that. There may be differences in the proportions, but nothing really different in principle.

In Modern fencing and Hema there are people who study books / treatises do see how other people do/did fencing and those who do not. again There may be differences in proportion, and obviously the modern fencers study more modern books as a rule, but again no difference in principle.

Both have some people who will 'game' the rules, and make some effort to prevent this.

Personally I much preffer smallsword to foil, because I like the history and it feels more 'Martial' to me The example I was preparing to use was commanding. I know that Gordon knows that it can be effective, I have seen him have a sword taken out of his hand in freeplay (I even have access to the video), and I preffer the use of the left hand and turning of the shoulders to be allowed.

But arguably by banning the use of the left hand, modern fencing forces you to learn to use the point even when the distance makes that hard, and that can be seen as martial in it's way. I can find you a quote from a treatise from 230 years ago, written by a naval officer who was concerned that young gentlemen should learn fencing because it stands them in good stead in boarding actions, and he says you should not learn commanding because it is less effective than using the sword.

Its all a matter of prefference really. Mine is for historical stuff and personally I only do modern fencing as well becuase I don't have the chance to do Hema stuff every week, but I don't see it as fundamentally different

[admin]

Just a footnote - I refer to 'realistic' a lot in this thread. I fully accept that there are problems with that word, because whether you do sport fencing or HEMA, we don't generally have any real expectation of a fight with sharps (though people doing forms of HEMA like defence against knife etc may well do).

But what I consider realistic is this:
Would you and could you do what you are doing if you were using real weapons and facing the prospect of fighting either for your life or to prevent and/or administer serious wounding?

I try to keep the training in my group as close to answering "yes" to this question as possible, and that is where I consider the definition between sport and martial art lies.

[Chris Holzman]

On the other hand in the same book Arlow wrote that duels with cavalry sabres are nonsense, because these swords are not fencing weapons and are designed to crush enemy's headgear and cut forcibly through enemy's guards and parries (p 228). Even when seconds had agreed on using cavalry sabres, they never used weapons heavier than 1kg and wider than 20mm (there is a footnote on that page saying that the usual width of a cavalry sabre is 39mm).

Exactly four decades later, in 1942, Laszlo Gerentser (coach of Sandor Posta, Olympic gold (sabre, individual), silver (sabre, team) in 1924) wrote in his book, Modern Sabre Fencing that based on the opinion of several duelling experts, the notion of duels with cavalry swords should be deleted from the vocabulary of chivalrous men. He put duelling swords in three categories: light (7-8mm of width, thinner is not recommended because they are too whippy, fencing with them is not realistic), middleweight (9-10mm), heavy (12-14mm).

Very interesting. I would note that the 39mm cavalry sabre he's referring to is half an inch wider than the Italian model 1871/3 - so that's a fair difference in perspective as well. The 20mm blade is of course what Parise recommended in general, and is seen in issue weapons such as the US M1902 and 1872, as I recall, doubtless amongst others.

For people who haven't seen it, there is, by the way, video of Dr. Posta on youtube - and while the sabres used are typical modern fencing sabres, the method of use is dramatically more realistic in the delivery of cuts, and so on - clearly very clean Italo-Hungarian sabre of the time.

[Chris Holzman]

Regarding Italian military practice sabres from Radaelli/Parise's time period on, I'd say something more like 600g to 640g is probably where most examples lie.

Fair enough - all of the pre-1910 British examples I have played with have been heavier than that, but I know the Italians were pushing probably the lightest gymnasium sabres around until the modern sport sabre came along. Still, the difference between 600g and the modern average of 400g for a sport sabre is still significant - a 50% increase. I'm sure all the readers here appreciate that this is a big difference in the hand.

Indeed. In addition, the British and Canadian examples I've seen in photos tend to have much more serious bolsters around the opening in the guard, and heavier looking pommel nuts as well. That is going to add some small amount of weight. Have those British examples that you've handled been based on 1/4" thick blades (at the base)? For example, the Hanwei Radaelli, although narrower in profile than my antiques, is based on thicker 1/4" stock, whereas my antiques are more like 3/16th" thick at the base, and start tapering earlier. If they were of the same profile size, the Hanwei would be considerably heavier.

[admin]

To be honest, the originals I have seen over the years have varied a lot, even within a single hilt pattern. I have seen 1899 patterns with Radaelli thin blades and a button at the end and also with broad blades more like the Hanwei Hutton, but straight. I guess this is due to two main reasons - 1) they were made by different companies to different specs at different times and 2) the blades were replaced by different companies when they broke.
Frankly, as I am principally interested in British infantry sabre fencing of c.1850-1880, I stick to the heavier models and am having two replicas made of my 1864 pattern gymnasium sabre, which is the exact same weight and size as the real infantry officer's sword (33 inch curved blade, 2lbs total weight), but with a flexible dumbell-section blade.

[Dave B]

But what I consider realistic is this:
Would you and could you do what you are doing if you were using real weapons and facing the prospect of fighting either for your life or to prevent and/or administer serious wounding?

Not sure it is entirely that clear. You were talking in terms of what the FIE does. The FIE regulate only competition, not everything that constitutes modern fencing.

In a competitive context do you only do what you would do with a sharp sword? it seems unlikely given that the purpose of competition is to test skills. I'd assume that you would therefore try things to see if they work in order to learn and develop, which is something you would not do in a 'real' fight.

[admin]

In a competitive context do you only do what you would do with a sharp sword?

I agree that within a competition people will generally do what they can to win within those rules.

However, in running and judging competitions I always try to keep as closely as possible to what is martially valid and penalise behaviour that is obviously silly or false within a martial context. Most HEMA rules are designed in such a way as to reinforce martial principles. That is what most of us strive towards and that is what makes us so very different to the FIE.
You know this.

[Dave B]

OK, but the point I was getting at, possibly badly, is that things are a matter of degree, and that FIE competitions are not the same as what happens at fencing clubs (or not the two I go to) any more than what happens at Hema tournaments is what happens at Hema clubs.

[John H]

As I see the issue when comparing HEMA to modern fencing is we are really talking about 600+ years of fencing evolution, and weaponry, and frankly a wide area to cover. If Gordon says the epee is ‘real’ it is because it is very close to what people actually dueled with, we have video footage of that. The ‘goal’ of the duel was not ‘leave his head on the ground next to his body’ as the goals 100 years earlier were, when they would be using a more robust sabre. But even at that we apparently have records of duels in the 1600’s where death was not the most desirable outcome.

When we talk about the blade not being ‘real’ there is a big spectrum. Todays fencing saber is a long way from the military blades I prefer but compare it to the dueling blades I use for training they are much closer. From the numbers Chis posts about the preferred dueling blade, my ones are pretty close, yet I still think it’s too far off. Now move all that to a longsword and we are talking vastly different weapons, different goals etc.

[admin]

I happen to believe that epee as it was taught and practiced in c.1900 was very 'realistic', because as I said above they still had the mentality that this was a system that at least in theory you could use in a real duel. Classical Fencing retains that, as I understand it. Today in sport epee that is no longer the case - thrusting someone in the toe 0.3 of a second before they thrust you in the face is not what epee fencers in c.1900 were aiming towards, I think.

[Cutlery Penguin]

any more than what happens at Hema tournaments is what happens at Hema clubs.

In that I mainly win, it is for me.

[admin]

Yeah, I don't really get that point. HEMA competition rules are generally all about trying to encourage martial good form (to the point of obsession) and we spar on a weekly basis to the same rules as most HEMA event competitions are run.

[John H]

Yes but each club is different and as we see from the ‘bouncing’ thread some people have a sharp difference between drilling and sparring. I know we do, but we also have a sharp difference between those who are ‘fighters’ and those who ‘like to play with swords.’ Some people just won’t spar, and at this point we won’t be turning them away. I’d love to have a full group of ‘fighters’ who all stay in good shape and we beat each other into fighting better. On this side of the pond there are a lot of ‘ren rats’ that are attracted to HEMA and they are in the mix to, even in that mix you have 'fighters' and 'just like to hold the sword.'

[Ulrich von L...n]

I would note that the 39mm cavalry sabre he's referring to is half an inch wider than the Italian model 1871/3 ...

The width variation of cavalry sabres in our museum:
M1861 30mm (770g, blade 850mm),
M1861 36mm (1196g, 905mm),
M1904 32mm (857g, 700mm),
M1904 32mm (924g, 755mm).

[Ulrich von L...n]

... video of Dr. Posta on youtube - and while the sabres used are typical modern fencing sabres, the method of use is dramatically more realistic in the delivery of cuts, and so on - clearly very clean Italo-Hungarian sabre of the time.

Dr. Posta and his coach Dr. Gerentser (from a movie newsreel, 1924):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giJ0UW9OQoc
Starting from 1:17 sabre fencing.

IMO the visual impression of the whole fencing might have been influenced by the static nature of the filming apparatus. We - my girlfriend and I - definitely fence in a more static way, with a lot of parry - ripost etc. play when we don't have a cameraman.

[Chris Holzman]

I would note that the 39mm cavalry sabre he's referring to is half an inch wider than the Italian model 1871/3 ...

The width variation of cavalry sabres in our museum:
M1861 30mm (770g, blade 850mm),
M1861 36mm (1196g, 905mm),
M1904 32mm (857g, 700mm),
M1904 32mm (924g, 755mm).

Sorry - but which swords are you referring to by those model numbers? Italian, Austrian-Hungarian? Just feeling a bit lost here at the moment. I don't know much about the Italian models prior to the 1871, other than that they were a more traditional/typical grip construction, and wider blades than the 1871/3.

If the 1904 you're referring to is the m1904 Austro-Hungarian sabre is definitely a pretty good sized sword, though its been *ages* since I've handled one in person, and I can't remember how wide they are, but 32mm seems about what I'd recollect.