**** me, I think I'll end my argument now. If Napoleon Dynamite was to try to explain fencing it would have sounded alot like what you wrote. Like the wise man once said, you can't argue with a fool.
If you wanted an explanation of fencing I would have deferred to your knowledge. This is an explanation of an efficient way to hit someone with a stick and defend with a shield, as one person (out of thousands) learned, which is what you asked for.
Originally Posted by Polar Bear
I've put up, now your turn. What the most efficient way you know of to attack and defend with sword and shield?
Well said, that's my opinion too : but only regarding this 'Heavy' stuff that I've seen a few vids of.
Originally Posted by SBG-ape
It is appallingly difficult to create equipments & rulesets in which those who approximate medieval combat will 'win' against those who only play to the rules. It is very haqrd on the refs too, in fact I've only ever seen TERRIBLE (& corrupt) referreing at bouts of more realistic types.
Looks fun as ****, although I'm curious- what's the difference between what you guys do and what the ARMA guys do?
EDIT: Didn't read the whole thread, so sorry if this was already answered. Just a bit busy atm, but interested nonetheless.
There are both overarching philosophical differences & numerous specific differences. Just to name a few: What's done in the SCA is in armor, but pretending they aren't in armor. ARMA or other scholarly HEMA groups will fight unarmored or wear armor & use actual armored techniques. The SCA doesn't allow grappling or use of the shield as an offensive weapon, both of which are legitimate historical strategies.
Fundamentally, what's done in the HEMA community is attempting to understand & practice historical martial arts as they once were. What's done in the SCA is attempting to provide a venue for large groups of people to have fun hitting each other with sticks while calling each other by pretend names & playing dress up...not that there's anything wrong with that, I did it myself as a child (superman pajamas/lone ranger mask/stick fighting).
It would be interesting if you could specify which manuals you refer to. Because there is this one little problem... most of the manuals I seem to remember (and especially all those "studied" atm by recreation groups) contain advice for one on one combat. Duelling or judicial fighting.
Originally Posted by SBG-ape
I do not remember Liechtenauer, Talhoffer or anyone else actually referring to warfare. There is abundandt pictorial evidence showing that medieval warfare was highly organized. Tactics and formations played a big role. Yet those manuals never lose a single word on how to keep formation when fighting with polearms shoulder to shoulder in an organized group.
They never talk about what to do when you come under fire from enemy archers while advancing with your battlegroup. They loose not a single word on strategies how to survive the specific dangers of a crowded battlefield. On how to combine the strengths of infantry and archers. Or how to put cavalry to use.
Lets not even start to talk about artillery, which if we go by Liechtenauer, might as well just not have existed.
One could argue that they were written to educate the individual soldier, not the commander. But then... why is there hardly ever a word on how to hit a target from horesback with a friggin lance? THE actual main weapon of knights in times of war? Why is there no advice on how to behave in the midst of a group of knights, attacking with lances in full gallopp? The most likely situation a knight would find himself in on a battlefield? How to avoid beeing singled out and taken down by infantry?
They are all about single combat. Mainly with the sword, which according to the same pictorial evidence, played a minor role in actual war (the main weapons beeing ranged or polearms/lances). Duelling or judicial fighting is not war. It is not "martial". If anything, duelling could be considered a cruel, archaic type of sport.
Going by the strict definitions some have advocated here, all the HEMA/ARMA styles could thus be considered non-martial arts.
To put it in the most brutally simple form, the SCA uses rattan weapons and full armor to engage in full contact weapons fighting as part of events that attempt to recreate medieval cultures, crafts, and customs. The fighting can be one-on-one or battles of up to 2000 people. http://www.sca.org
Originally Posted by mojo23
YouTube- 100 Minutes War 11/21/2009
As far as I can tell, ARMA seeks to study historical fighting styles as a scholaly pursuit (ARMA folks, feel free to chime in here). http://www.thearma.org/
And here's a question for you non-SCA WMA types, would yuou say what you do is "recreation" or "reenactment," or neither, or both?
Last edited by captainzorikh; 3/05/2010 3:03pm at .
Reason: |Addd link
Only if you ignore the fact that swords were used in practically every battlefield until the modern age.
Originally Posted by kwan_dao
Nothing wrong with it indeed.
Originally Posted by SBG-ape
Actually, we are pretending we are in armor, we are pretending that we are all wearing an iron helmet and a chain mail shirt. Some people actually wear more or less than that, so long as they are within minimal armor standards according to the Society and the kingdom they are fighting in.
There is historical precedent for not grappling etc. In certain tournaments, grappling was forbidden. In a culture in which honor and chivalry is important, there is honor in playing by the rules and not taking unfair advantage of one's opponent, especially if you want to prove that you are better than him. To enter a tournament that only allows you to use weapons says that you are good enough with weapons that you don't need to grapple, or strike with the shield. And if you are facing someone like that, who would dare dishonor themselves by not fighting by the same rules? So while war is war, and fighting for your life is fighting for you life, it is perfectly within the chivalric tradition to fight by rules that disallow grappling and shield-bashing.
For some of us, it's a little bit more than "playing dress up." For some of us it's about trying to recreate a chivalric ideal that may have never historically existed, but is something to aspire to.
Being the biggest badass on the planet is fun and all, but what will you do with that power? If you want an opportunity to defend the weak, honor ladies, serve a good king, and do your part to make a kinder, gentler society where honor, grace, honesty, and fairness are virtues to be upheld at all time, the SCA is a place you can do that.
...and we get to wear cool clothes and make up funny names.
I'll just pass on Kwan Dao's post here and skip straight to captainzorikh's post.
You need to differentiate between ARMA and Hema/WMA. ARMA is a club or an organisation aimed at studying primarily Renaissance Martial Arts, thus the name Association for Renaissance Martial Arts. Is basically an American organisation consisting of several smaller or larger clubs and an academic division.
HEMA stands for Historical European Martial Arts and are ALL martial arts that have European origin, from the period of 1280AD-1945 roughly. The reason for the dates are that the first proper manual dates to 1280 and after 1945 the Asian recreationst influence is so strong.
WMA stands for Western Martial Arts and includes everything of European origin up until today, but is mostly a term used by the Americans, I believe, possibly since it includes all Western culture.
Modern HEMA/WMA is not reenactment and I believe most practice in modern gear. It is partly a recreation of broken lines of European Martial Arts, but some rare instances are unbroken, like Jogo Do Pau and more modern variants like La Canne and Savate. Possibly even Irish Stick Fighting.
Today there are about 280 clubs and more than 8000 practitioners worldwide and people practice medieval wrestling, dagger, sword & buckler, longsword, quartstaff, spear, halberd, pollax, sabre, rapier, backsword/sidesword, pugilism, bartitsu, glima, jogo do pau, juego del canaria and more.
The sources that are at the core of Hema are the manuscripts that describe fighting techniques for unarmed, dagger, sword & buckler, longsword, halberd, pollax and spear and rapier, either with or without armour, on foot or on horse, from 1280 and onwards to the early 18th century.
The early sources describe primarily techniques for judicial duelling, but they are also found in some contemporary artwork portraying battlefields. It is difficult to know how much was transferred, but it would seem odd that the soldiers would use two completely different fighting systems. More likely, in my opinion, is that the manuals show only part of a more complex picture.
Later sources like Joachim Meyer and Paulus Hector Mair describe techniques for fencing schools, fechtschulen, but these techniques are quite similar for the most part to the earlier sources and stem from the same Liechtenauer tradition. Also, times were rough and knowing how to defend yourself was pretty important.
There are actually manuals describing preparation for warfare, just as the various forms of jousting was a preparation and not just for "fun". Take a look at Wallhausen from 1614: http://www.hroarr.com/temp/wallhausen/
Halfswording in armour certainly was used on the battlefield as was wrestling on horse or handling of the crossbow. There is a lot of good information in the manuscripts if you just dig a little. Just take a look at some of the material here www.hroarr.com