Protecting the HEMA name

[bigdummy]

Yeah John, you and I just disagree which is ok. I guess we'll see who is right in the long run (probably neither of us). I do understand where you are coming from, and maybe with saber it's roughly the same as with karate or sport fencing. In fact I'd even go so far as to say that I and many other instructors who teach KDF longsword fencing can also teach a beginner course right out of our memory. But I also think that if you want your students to be any good in the long run you should start them on the road of reading the sources as early as possible. I know not everyone agrees with me on this.

So let me put it this way: With the older historical sources, I have a position in between the two extremes of "it's the Bible and the meanings you can derive are infinite" vs. "We'll have it all figured out in another 5 or 10 years." Maybe in a couple of generations we will have the KDF completely figured out, in which case it will be time to re-evaluate pedagogy. Maybe it will take longer than that, but at this point I don't think we are even close... and this is one of the reasons I think it's dangerous to adopt the more authoritarian pedagogy of sport fencing or Karate or Kendo or any of the other disciplines under discussion so far.* I understand that traditional, authoritarian sport / martial arts pedagogy may be necessary particularly if you are running a class for people who are paying a fee and include students who aren't really into it for serious competition or Martial Arts training but just want to learn a little bit about fencing - that is different. But for serious training I think research is a fundamental necessity at this point.

I had an enlightening experience at FA 2011 which helped drive home this point to me. Axel and Anders from GHFS got together with about ten fencers, mostly very experienced guys by the standards of our little HEMA world, --all people who have done competitive fencing, have trained for several years, and have read the historical sources, (in fact in many cases the same handful of sources, Ringeck, 3227a, Meyer and so on)--.

They asked everyone to show off their version of each of the five Mastercuts from the KDF zettel against an opponent, and we all did it. It was immediately apparent that we all had fairly substantially different versions of the ones we understood the best, and we all had at least some which we understood poorly. Nobody had really effective versions of all 5. Now when teaching a student, you might gloss over being a little vague over say, the best ways to use the Krumphau to break Ochs, but should you?

On a similar note, how many of the currently available English translations of the manuals relevant to your particular area of study do you think are say, 90% accurate? Or do you read the original languages ?

So these are a couple of the reasons that I personally think we still have a long way to go, and that HEMA... at least the techniques from the pre 17th Century MS to use an arbitrary cut-off, requires a different pedagogical approach which includes research, translation, and experimentation as well as drills, exercise and sparring. I am not saying that from the first day of class you give your students the book and encourage them to challenge you on every simple example of footwork or guards, but I do think you should point them to the best resources available (wiktenauer, translation books and so on) be honest up front that we are still learning, and leave that door ajar just a little bit so that when the conundrum does arrive, as it inevitably will, when the student comes up against something which doesn't feel right in whatever stage of training and you don't have a terrific answer for, let them see if they can find an answer to their dilemma in the historical source(s). You might learn something yourself that way - I have, repeatedly.



BD

* ... or the vastly more 'free form' learning approach of LARP or SCA.

[John H]

Always good to disagree, I’ve no issue with that, I merely wanted to hold a mirror up and get people thinking how important texts are in the long run. I know there are more ‘study groups’ than traditional teaching in HEMA at this point but I truly believe that this will change in the future and needs to change. For us to have people who are able to spend 50 years studying the art and achieve great things they need to do it for a living and that means traditional teaching and school/student relationships. I’m sure I’ll be dead before that is seen (at least I hope I die before I get that old.)

From the Sabre sources I read, most are English, as there is an abundance of easily available UK and American texts. I dabble in Spanish and I make my wife help on the Russian stuff I find (sorry nothing worth translating guys.) I’ve read through Holzmans book on Italian and it worked with what I have heard from Sullins and Kirby, thus I trust it is accurate. I would love more English translations of the Swedish, German, Polish etc stuff out there as I now have more time to read through. I have seen translations of the English manuals into other languages but I saw no reason to seek re-translations of them.

I’ve probably read 15+ books that I can count without looking (and many more I disregarded and forgot he name of,) and there are a lot of differences between styles, but in the end it’s the same ‘system’ if that makes sense. Most of the style differences can be explained by the blade used or the intended use of the system. Is the recommended guard with the point up and close to the body, or with arm extended and point on target? These are two different blades that behave differently, but neither is wrong. I see one sabre/broadsword system that encourages each parry with a pass back ending with crossed legs. I can be pretty sure this system is meant to be used when grappling is not allowed, dictating it was more of ‘school work’ rather than dirty military fighting. Is it wrong, not when used as intended but if taught to some recruits who were going to head off to fight in a battle, it would not serve them well.

I have a similar drill, or point, as what you did with Axel and Anders. I make people line up and tell everyone to jab. I will almost always get 5+ different types of jabs. The point I try to make is no one is wrong in the global side of ‘how to jab,’ each system has a different way of doing it, but it serves the same purpose in each system. You are only wrong if you betray the intent of the action. I know this isn’t an exact parallel, as a mastercut from one specific system should be the same, but I think this is more accurate to what we will see in the end. Many different schools will have slight differences due to different interpretations. This is what we currently see with bicorno and a fendente. I won’t argue with different interpretations so long as they accomplish the same goal and don’t leave blatant weaknesses.

I just listened to an associate at my firm walk into the other room and get on the phone and tell her client “Jonathan says…” I find that horribly unprofessional and something that does not instill confidence in the associate by the client. Even if she asked me it’s better to go in and speak authoritatively to the client. If I were the client I would be thinking “why am I seeing you if you must ask him everything?” This is also what I expect out of someone ‘teaching’ rather than a study group, and the defining difference I would expect as a student vs a study group member. Remember I do expect a proper teacher student relationship to be the vast majority of HEMA groups soon enough.

When it comes to ‘debated’ issues that we don’t all agree on or are not sure on, I think the beginners should be shown ‘how the school/group interpretation works’ (I’m assuming the version being used has a logical and tested reason for being used.) As they advance then they can learn why the school interoperates it that way and why others disagree, etc. This happened with bicorno last week at our school, and we talked about why we do it one way, and the advantages of it and applications. The person bringing it up wasn’t interested in the text, he just saw that someone else was doing it differently and wanted to know why. We analyzed each and talked how to take advantage of theirs and why we believed ours had less ability to be taken advantage of.

[bigdummy]

Well, a large part of our difference in perspective on this probably boils down to your studying 19th C saber and my studying 15th / 16th Century KDF. If you are teaching the contents of a 19th Century military training manual, arguably you can be much more definitive. With the stuff I and many many others are studying, not so much.

I also don't think that this statement is correct:

For us to have people who are able to spend 50 years studying the art and achieve great things they need to do it for a living and that means traditional teaching and school/student relationships.

For my period, I don't think there is a lot of evidence that most of these people who practiced this art actually did it for a living. It was something like a lifelong 'hobby' for lack of a better word, and this informs how I think I and most of us will really approach it. Even if HEMA becomes very big and very widespread, most of us will be students, not Masters. Especially if there is any kind of meritocratic means for determining the latter

BD

[John H]

For my period, I don't think there is a lot of evidence that most of these people who practiced this art actually did it for a living. It was something like a lifelong 'hobby' for lack of a better word, and this informs how I think I and most of us will really approach it.

BD

I won't claim to be a historian to 15th C but I find it very odd in an era where written texts are far more expensive and highly valued, that they let a hobbiest dictate the text. I also thought I read that many of the authors ran schools. Just about all of Meyers illustrations show what looks like a fencing school.

[bigdummy]

Well, that just goes to show you how many broad assumptions we make about the pre-Industrial world and the strange documents which derive thereof.

We know that most of the members of the Federfechter and the Marxbruder, the fencing Guilds most closely associated with the KDF, were artisans in the craft Guilds of the towns. Joachim Meyer himself was registered in Strasbourg as a member of the messerschmid's guild, i.e. he was a knife maker or a cutler, until very late in his life when he took a job as a Master at Arms for a Prince in order to try to pay for the production of his famous books (he died two weeks later).

So the best evidence is that most of the active participants in this martial art were middle class skilled laborers who had day jobs the same as most of us today do. And just like most soldiers did during that period. That is what I mean by a 'hobby'. Some would also be knights but we only know of one Master who was a knight as far as I am aware.

As for the mansucripts themselves, some are fancy (expensive) books with very nice illustrations made by professional artists, written for wealthy patrons. Others are simple folios or notebooks with either no artwork or very crude / simple artwork, which appear to have been made for the personal use of their owners, and later kept by others and passed down from generation to generation. Paper and written materials in the late Medieval period were not necessarily that expensive, though making a very nice book of course was.

BD

[Szabolcs Waldmann]

Hi there,

I read through this rather long thread and found it very enlightening. While reading a couple of things came up in my mind so I just thought I'd share them.

My first opinion is, that the treatises and the techniques within were, of course, all written to a certain frame, ruleset, or environment. If you take that very environment, and you use the techniques, you will probably do a flawless win against somebody untutored or who is trying to use some other art, which was meant to be used somewhere else.
What do I mean. It's clear for me, for example, that Meyer's techniques are, meant to be used with a very explicit ruleset (which for example does not allow thrusting). Yes, you can kill a man with Meyers techniques. But try to do a doppel prellhaw in a historical self- defense situation, or in a torunament where they allow simple thrusts to the face (because for example masks are used). Or try to do real Lichtenauer in a franco-belgian torunament. Since most of Lichtenauer is either thrusts or hauws with the edges, I think that you, as a well trained Lichtenaer fencer would do pretty good, but would be outmatched by a simpleton who knows the rules and the specific technics needed to win in such a torunament.
So I think if you are a good hemaist wou can still be defeated by some LARPers on their ground. Also, there is a huge amount of schools for the longsword, which have a strong handicap at any ruleset. Fiore and Lichtenauer are the two which are most affected in my opinion by any tournament rules.

My second thought was, that I would like to back up Joeli in his statement that historical techniques are... how should I put it, only second to other skills needed for fencing.
Since some groups do no or very little physical training, have no physical conditioning program or consistent pedagogical framework, goal-oriented methodology to teach tactics and techniques, these are naturally outmatched by students with less technical knowledge (as in, treatises) but who are stronger, faster, can hold better distance, get in or get out faster etc. I understand, bigdummy, that you have the opposite observation, but what I see is contrary to your opinion.
First, I've seen my share of students in the past 10 years of my teaching career, and I've seen students who come from a different martial art (for example Kendo) and have a very good understanding of proper distance and speed, and students who knew every technique by name and could flowlessly execute them, and still loose to the former group, even tough the former group of people only had a fraction of technical knowledge in HEMA.
Second, the trounaments are not won (correct me if I am wrong) by the ones who have massive technological understanding, have a ton of treatises in their heads, etcetera, but by those who are fast, strong, and do some very low-level techniques, like distance of centerline holding, better than others. Those can be also acquired somewhere else, not only by studiing historical sources.

I also tend to teach my students that you cannot "pull" a technique. You can merely finish them, when they are started by the situation, by the opponent, by the environment. You cannot do a winden if you are to far away. You cannot do a Nachreissen when the opponent is standing staticly in a ward, etc. So in other words, your techniques, are actually limited to those, your opponet allows you to do by his inability to avoid the situation, which in turn would allow you to do a proper technique on him. And if this is true, then the better the fighters, the less fancy techniques we will se at torunaments, and the more the basic skills will decide.

In turn, when the rules allow /disallow certain things, interesting / fancy / strange techniques can be the only answer to a certain situation. Maybe if you use the very rules from Meyer's place and time, the best option would be a doppel prellhauw. That is, if the opponent is close enough and not awoiding you.

Historically seeing, not all fencers were good fencers and only a select few had enough money and time to be an above-average fencer. This select few, in turn, could probably do all kinds of fancy stuff on the also-rans.

SZAB

[bigdummy]

Szabolcs,

You seem to be implying that there is some dichotomy between people who are physically skilled and naturally aggressive on the one hand and those who are deeply involved with the historical manuals on the other, as if the two were mutually exclusive. I've only been to a few tournaments, but the best fighters I've seen in the tournament circuit, Mishael Lopes Cardozo, Anders Linnard, Axel Petterson, Matt Galas, Jake Norwood, Jay Vail, Jeff Tsay, Scott Brown, are all fighters who have a deep knowledge of the historical sources, and are also physically skilled. I'm not saying that an historical basis for your training, and ongoing research, are alone going to trump physical skill or fitness, but I think they are at least as important.

My contention is that you take a physically skilled guy who is fighting just based on LARP, or on re-enactor experience or on his own intuition, and you put him up against another physically skilled guy who is studying the manuals (like all the people I listed above) the latter will win more often than not. And I think we are starting to see this happen at an accelerating rate. The only thing which can prevent this trend from continuing, IMO, are highly artificial rules-sets such as we see in Sport fencing, SCA, or LARP, which could potentially ruin HEMA.

You are seeing more and more simple basic techniques winning HEMA matches - I'm seeing the opposite. I'm starting to see more zwerchs, krumphs, ringen techniques (throws, disarms), correct absetsens (for the first time this year) effective nachreissen in abzug, and a lot more relatively sophisticated techniques. I also still see things like hand sniping and sling cuts, but those have been there from the beginning - what is new are the more advanced techniques showing up - and winning matches- particularly at the higher levels, in the finals and quarter-finals. I guess in the long run we will see which trend plays out.

As for applying a technique without regard to what your opponent is doing (doing winden from out of range, trying a nachreissen against a static guard)- that is not only bad fencing, it isn't historical. The manuals tell you when a given technique can be applied and when it can't. In fact this year we were using Meyers four roles in our tournament fights to guide our strategy - to good effect.

Whether or not Meyer teaches schulefechten exclusively is another debate for another thread, suffice it to say I don't agree with your interpretation of that either.

BD

[Szabolcs Waldmann]

Hi!

Thanks for your answer! You see, we do not completelly disagree. You must forgive my poor english, dough, I lack more than a few words to express myself correctly.

Szabolcs,
You seem to be implying that there is some dichotomy between people who are physically skilled and naturally aggressive on the one hand and those who are deeply involved with the historical manuals on the other, as if the two were mutually exclusive.

No, no, I surelly did not mean that. BUT if two such distinct groups existed - one, with more physical skills, and one with less, but more knowledge of the art - I'd stil bet on the one with the better physical skills. You see what I was actually saying, was, "I would like to back up Joeli in his statement that historical techniques are... how should I put it, only second to other skills needed for fencing."

I've only been to a few tournaments, but the best fighters I've seen in the tournament circuit, Mishael Lopes Cardozo, Anders Linnard, Axel Petterson, Matt Galas, Jake Norwood, Jay Vail, Jeff Tsay, Scott Brown, are all fighters who have a deep knowledge of the historical sources, and are also physically skilled.

You are actually backing up my statement. I thought what you said earlier, was more or less, that the manuals, and the techniques, simply make a better fencer. The guys you just wrote about are top notch in physical skills. Sure, they are all respected researchers and living lexicons regarding fencing. But all of these guys are fast, strong, well-built, exceptional fighters. There are other researchers as well, equally respected and sought-after at HEMA events as teachers, but who do not win - or even take part - in fencing activities. They have a wast knowledge, still it does not help them against such amazing athlets as Axel, Scott or Lopes.
And I know these guys and I've seen them fence. I even fought with all of them (except for Jay Vail who I do not know at all). I cannot say, that they win with complicated techniques. They win with better skills.

I'm not saying that an historical basis for your training, and ongoing research, are alone going to trump physical skill or fitness, but I think they are at least as important.

I can agree on that.

As for applying a technique without regard to what your opponent is doing (doing winden from out of range, trying a nachreissen against a static guard)- that is not only bad fencing, it isn't historical. The manuals tell you when a given technique can be applied and when it can't.

Yes, you see, that's exactly what I meant. But I also think - here's the difference in opinions it seems - that you win by exploiting the opponent's weaknesses. His weakness is not preventing you from getting into the right position, to finish a proper technique. His strenght is the opposite, denying you the right time, distance, position for a proper technique. Which also means in my logic, that two very good fencers will not win against each other with world-class fullspeed facy and complicated techniques, but more with very fast cuts and thrusts in the right time.
In training, I see what you see. i see advanced students with steel swords and masks and gloves in 2/3rd speed executing very good techniques. As in tournaments, no, please, no. Just look at one of the later tournaments on Youtube. We did our homework, counted every technique, even every proper stance the participants vwere using. The result was very, very poor. You barely see a dozen properly done stances in a whole tournament...
No offense meant.

Whether or not Meyer teaches schulefechten exclusively is another debate for another thread, suffice it to say I don't agree with your interpretation of that either.

If you can point me to the right thread I'd be happy to discuss this further. I know many people are using Meyer, for he writes stuff down very clearly. They use it for backing up Lichtenauer, even tough a part of Meyer is Marozzo, a part Mertin Sieber, and (most of it) Lichtenauer. The english translations I found had a lot of translation errors ( I tried to get them right, also on the ARMA forum for example, I guess you can imagine how well that went), but, there are more than a few clues in our interpretation that point out that there must have been some ruleset preventing him, for example from using thursts with the longsword.

Thanks for reading.

Szab

[bigdummy]

I don't think it's so much 'complicated' techniques which help, as difficult and counter-intuitive. I don't think an absetzen or a zwerchau are complicated, but I also don't think that either technique is something you will see people coming with on their own. I think they are counter-intuitive. And I think these techniques win fights.

I think what the tournament does is that it compresses your repertoire due to the pressure it puts on you. The immediate social pressure, fear of injuries, fear of long term effects on your ability to teach. These shrink what you can do down to what you can really do. Initially this turned out to be very basic stuff, and I agree you saw, and still see, poor guards, footwork, and techniques. Those tricks people can do in class, they often aren't doing them full-speed against opposition in sparring, and haven't drilled them to the point that they are second-nature. Only when people have done a given technique sufficiently that it IS second nature, can it be executed under the pressure of a big international tournament. I spent 4 months training the absetzen and felt lucky to pull it off 3 times in 9 matches during my last tournament in March. But it helped me defeat two of my toughest opponents.

And I know these guys and I've seen them fence. I even fought with all of them (except for Jay Vail who I do not know at all). I cannot say, that they win with complicated techniques. They win with better skills.

I've fought many of these same guys myself, and I've also seen other people, equally or more physically fit, who didn't do as well in the tournaments. Many of the guys I listed are in their late 30's, 40's or even 50's, and yet the majority of fencers I'm seeing in the tournaments now are in their 20's, and very fit. Yet these older guys are still defeating the younger guys, and it's not through an edge in fitness in most cases, it's through knowledge of historical techniques.

I agree with you about translations of Meyer, but some of us can read a little German even in the great ignorant mass of America

BD

[bigdummy]

If you can point me to the right thread I'd be happy to discuss this further. I know many people are using Meyer, for he writes stuff down very clearly. They use it for backing up Lichtenauer, even tough a part of Meyer is Marozzo, a part Mertin Sieber, and (most of it) Lichtenauer. The english translations I found had a lot of translation errors ( I tried to get them right, also on the ARMA forum for example, I guess you can imagine how well that went), but, there are more than a few clues in our interpretation that point out that there must have been some ruleset preventing him, for example from using thursts with the longsword.

Thanks for reading.

Szab

I think there have been a variety of discussions about schulefechten and Meyer, separately and overlapping... both here and on HEMA Alliance forum among other places. You can find them easily enough with the search feature, and even if people do get a bit excited about this issue sometimes, it shouldn't be anything like ARMA forum ...

BD

[DavidCoblentz]

I am curious as to how the word "technique" is being defined in this discussion and precisely what is meant by "historical technique." Does historical technique refer only to blade work? Does it include tactical concepts? There seems to be a distinction between "historical techniques" and some of the more general skills needed for fencing. These other skills that are necessary for combat, for instance understanding distance and time, being physically fit, etc... are they not considered historical?

Do techniques (or tactics) which rely on a fencer's understanding of distance and time and exploiting flaws in the opponent's movements count as historical technique? What if the manner in which this is done is not described in any historical texts, but is not in contradiction with them?

What exactly constitutes using complicated techniques? Is this an obscure, single tempo movement used in a specific context? Is it a series of back-and-forth exchanges that lasts for several seconds? What about the use of a complex tactical strategy which involves few blade movements?

What do you look for when you watch a bout and try to pick out historical techniques? Are you looking for specific technical actions used the way they are described in a manual? Are you looking for someone applying the principles from a text in a way that fits the situation ahead of them?

[bigdummy]

I am curious as to how the word "technique" is being defined in this discussion and precisely what is meant by "historical technique." Does historical technique refer only to blade work? Does it include tactical concepts? There seems to be a distinction between "historical techniques" and some of the more general skills needed for fencing. These other skills that are necessary for combat, for instance understanding distance and time, being physically fit, etc... are they not considered historical?

In this case I would define an 'historical technique' as any technique, including both blade work and tactics, which derive from the historical sources but are not widely known outside of them. Basic distance and time management and being physically fit are universal to any kind of martial art, with respect to other people representing themselves as doing HEMA. Someone putting on a fencing mask and picking up a nylon simulator or a feder and starting to fight could work out quite a few things related to fighting. What I've been contending throughout this thread is that this hypothetical person would be at a disadvantage to someone making good use of historical sources.

Do techniques (or tactics) which rely on a fencer's understanding of distance and time and exploiting flaws in the opponent's movements count as historical technique? What if the manner in which this is done is not described in any historical texts, but is not in contradiction with them?

see above. It may be historical but there also wouldn't be anything 'uniquely' historical about it in the sense that the historical sources confer an advantage, unless you are using them to inform what you are doing.

What exactly constitutes using complicated techniques? Is this an obscure, single tempo movement used in a specific context? Is it a series of back-and-forth exchanges that lasts for several seconds? What about the use of a complex tactical strategy which involves few blade movements?

Upthread I cited an absetzen (a single time counter) as an example of a counter-intuitive technique which is actually pretty simple (though subtle) in it's execution. Probably everyone has their own idea of what qualifies as "complicated" but I assumed it was referring to either things like complex windings, disarms, grappling and (unarmored) half-swording tricks, or any technique progression which is 3 or 4 levels deep.

What do you look for when you watch a bout and try to pick out historical techniques? Are you looking for specific technical actions used the way they are described in a manual? Are you looking for someone applying the principles from a text in a way that fits the situation ahead of them?

All of the above.

BD

[John H]

I guess different systems will have different examples, but I’ll state from one side, I’m sure BD can tell many more. In all texts there are many ‘plays’ or techniques that are shown. Some systems have more than others, some are just basics many are specific counters to a very specific action. These can be complex actions or simple actions. Most of the ‘simpler action’s’ I refer too are basic fencing theory.

For Fiore if I wanted to do a specific disarm that was shown in a text, I would need to be presented with a specific attack. If I don’t get that one attack then that action is probably not appropriate. I would also need to choose that action as opposed to doing something basic like stepping to the side and counter cutting, or voiding, or parry riposte.

Example from last night training: I was drilling on a specific wrist manipulation that required my opponent to make a proper fendente (meaning directly at my head probably 5 degrees or less in off center line in that cut.) In the action I need to advance left, go to crown guard and catch his blade on my quillion to the right of my blade, then I passing step forward while I reach under smack his hands up, cup his grip, pull down, twist his blade off line and smack him in the head. The action ends up looking a lot like the bottom right corner of this link - http://www.thehaca.com/pdf/Dl13.jpg

My first drilling partner did it just fine and I was able to complete this no problem. My second drilling partner kept giving me trouble, I was not able to advance left on him and get his blade to the right of mine, I kept dragging his blade across my face. I stopped doing the drill for a seconds and allowed myself to take the simplest counter to what was going on. I circle stepped right and counter cut his blade and smacked him with the false edge in due tempi, it was far easier than when I usually perform that action. I realized he was cutting at a 35-45 degree angle which did not allow me to properly do my drill, but it opened up a far easier action of counter cutting his blade. A simpler but more effective action was appropriate. When he re-worked his cut my drill could proceed but my action was not appropriate with his attack.

Now this is a complex action, it requires me to choose to grapple rather than fight at the cutting distance of the blade, and if I were so inclined it means I also chose not to fight at binding range. For it to happen in a tournament, I would need to be in a low guard while my opponent is in a high guard, him to be willing to attack me while in that position (not something a seasoned fighter will usually do,) me to foresee his desire to cut strait in on me, me to be willing to step in on him, timing it right, and him not being ready to counter it. A simpler and safer action for me is to do an ascending cut while I step off line when he comes in with his attack, or just counter cut his blade.

Fortunately there are many such action so I can choose the correct one for the correct spot I am in, but I still need to do it over a simpler action.

Personally I don’t care if I see good basic fencing or classic techniques. Naturally if you get a clean technique pulled off you will get some applause from me but good clean fencing can get the same response.

[admin]

Any martial art or sport will field its fair share of good and bad, quality teachers and charlatans. You can't stop that, though you can try to minimise it with legislation.

To do so you simply need to get the good people to form federations or other such groupings and to recognise each other, but not the crap ones.

There are some HEMA charlatans in the UK, but note that they are not members of the British Federation for Historical Swordplay or British Combat Association or other such bodies of experts. That is the main purpose of such federations.

My advice, Frede, if you are worried about this, would be to form a Danish federation for HEMA, if you haven't got one already.

[Frede Jensen]

Any martial art or sport will field its fair share of good and bad, quality teachers and charlatans. You can't stop that, though you can try to minimise it with legislation.

To do so you simply need to get the good people to form federations or other such groupings and to recognise each other, but not the crap ones.

There are some HEMA charlatans in the UK, but note that they are not members of the British Federation for Historical Swordplay or British Combat Association or other such bodies of experts. That is the main purpose of such federations.

My advice, Frede, if you are worried about this, would be to form a Danish federation for HEMA, if you haven't got one already.

I think you are right. Trouble is HEMA in Denmark is more or less Laurentiusgildet. So we are very much outnumbered by reenactors and charlatans.

I have come to the conclusion that it is best to ignore them all and just let them do what they do and we can continue doing what we do. We have had good success with singeling out people and "showing them the light".

- F -

[admin]

It sounds like it would be very much in your interests to start the Danish HEMA federation. Having less real HEMA people should make that a lot easier than in countries where there are lots of competing groups.

[Iarlsoe]

It's me who is one of the guilty ones from Denmark. I have trained and teaches Glima wrestling and 1.33 sword and buckler fore a number of years, are also Viking reenacter (craftsman).
Along with other HEMA friends, we started training 1.33 and big viking shield like friends from Hammaborg do it, at Viking festivals in the evening. The interest has increased and we started to play with shield walls. We use techniques from large viking shield and sagas as background for what we do, for me it is something other than being a reenactment warrior with fencing helmet, and I hope it stays that way. I've never even made ​​reenactment fighting myself.
Whether it can be called HEMA or not is not up to me to decide. I train HEMA with all my heart, and participates in HEMA events around.

[bigdummy]

good for you mate, welcome to the forum.

BD

[Frede Jensen]

Iarlsoe I don't think you are the guilty one. You are one of the good guys.

I see others who "water down" the concept of HEMA though.

- F -

[admin]

Welcome to the forum Iarlsoe.