HEMA or Historical European Martial Arts has become very synonymous with sword fighting or swordplay but in regards to sword fighting, HEMA might not be perfect.
There are. There's also SCA in Japan, China, Indonesia, and Korea. We all like swords as a species for some damned reason. Give two kids sticks and eventually they sword fight even if they haven't seen it before. Humans...
I'm half Japanese, half English so I did kendo, but didn't particularly like it as it was so simplified. So I looked for kenjutsu and HEMA as it was more realistic but found that there wasn't a single kenjutsu club anywhere near my area. Then I looked to HEMA as I wanted to try longsword or halberd. Then I found out you had to be eighteen to participate so I gave up and now have to wait a few years.
@@miniweeddeerz1820 yeah bro its the same for me. but even if you cant join a club get really physically conditioned so when you join a club you are already at a head start since most martial arts usually just do mainly conditioning for the first few months. do grip strength training and calisthenics. a good grip is pretty much useful in every martial art
that depends. yes to a degree, but "historical" can mean different things, not exclusively personal self defense techniques to stay alive, but military disciplines used to win battles and wars, keeping yourself, and the people to each of your sides alive. being able to follow orders, stay in formation, and fight in unison with your allies is more important for winning a battle and war, at least at times, than merely staying alive. historical martial arts were not as pragmatic as they are today, wrapped up in myth, religion, spiritualism, and ritual.
I realize this is an old video but I want to say this: You shouldn’t try the take what works for you approach if you are a beginner. You might be discarding perfectly valid techniques simply because you aren’t good at them yet or because you are applying them at the wrong time. Only once you have become very proficient at a style can you properly decide where it can be improved. The example you give about low guards highlights this flaw. You say that you don’t need them because slipping the leg works better for you. The reality is that slipping the leg is already in many sources. The purpose of low guards isn’t to defend the legs (though they can do that) but rather to set up an attack from a below. From a low guard I can throw a windthau or a krumphau that will displace my opponents strike with a lot of force and allow me to strike in the opening it creates. It can also be an invitation. You think I’m wide open and I’m planning a rising cut, but instead I rotate and come from above and counter your hasty attack to the head. You are discarding a perfectly valid position because you decided it was bad before knowing what it can do.
Came to say more or less the same thing. Nearly every martial art with a proper martial background has stances and techniques and so on that seem clumsy and inefficient to the beginner. Certain schools of Italian rapier are a perfect example. They look goofy as hell and it doesn't feel natural at first, especially coming from other disciplines. Once you get into it and realize that these goofy-ass stances are designed to make the most efficient use of the whole body rather than just a part of it, and that the goofy-ass walk keeps your head and your sword arm perfectly level while readying the lower body for explosive movement, you start to realize that maybe there's a method to the madness. Most of this stuff wasn't made by dorks with more free time than sense, it was developed by people who knew how to fight and how to stay alive. Just because a style feels different and unintuitive to someone familiar with other styles doesn't make it bad, but judging without learning the reasoning behind it is.
@@gatling216 Exactly. I assume you are talking about Fabris? That's a good example. Those stances don't come natural and will quickly tire out a beginner and make him fence worse. But once you train your body to them then suddenly you are in the perfect position to attack with almost zero setup or defend with minimal openings. It's like a gun that's already cocked and ready to fire.
@@mysticmarbles That's the one. Couldn't remember the name to save my life. Kicked my ass up one end and down the other when I tried to learn it, and I'm still not there yet. But I've seen how well it can work, especially against the more lunge-heavy styles. If I gave it up because it felt wrong at first, I'd have missed out on a ton of valuable experience.
It's actually a legitimate stance in fencing, he's just doing it a little differently. And if you want to look at it from a historical standpoint, it's a technique that comes later on in the history of sword fighting but with much lighter swords. So I don't know whether or not to say that he's being historically inaccurate.
@@Nate-bn5kk You aren't getting what I'm referring to. The stance is fine. What I take issue with is him disregarding low guards because he "doesn't need to block low." That's not what they are for. They are for setting up attacks that come from below. Shad completely missed that and dismissed them because he jumped to conclusions before learning what they are actually for.
"The best techniques are passed on by the survivors." - Gaiden Shinji In other words, if it works for you and lets you survive and win, then it is a legitimate technique or style.
THIS.. Everyone in the comment above this is arguing about tradition vs adaptation, but not realizing that martial arts is about killing your opponent before he kills you first and foremost.
Coming from a primarily pistol focused study over most of my life I would offer this: Out of WWII there were a fair number of men who lived because of their use of firearms. They killed and saw men die regularly in combat. Out of those experiences came training techniques that turned into 1950's and 1960's military and law enforcement training. Current pistolcraft smokes those techniques. Demonstrably in competition and law enforcement shooting. 2000 years from now there may be some group of men reconstructing the "ancient" art of combat pistol from a surviving 1959 FBI instructors manual, completely unaware that far superior techniques were in use a mere 60 years later. If your goal is lethality, the manual shouldn't be your limits. If your goal is recreation of the manuals historical techniques, then the manual is the bible, and a hard limit.
Here's my opinion as a HEMA instructor (And former JKD enthusiast lol), where it coincides or does not... (very long) I think the JKD approach is perfect for a person's personal journey to become a better martial artist or swordsman, regardless of whether your main interest of study is HEMA or something else. However the issue (and I say "issue" not "problem" because it isn't really a "problem" so much as something to consider) with applying it to HEMA is that HEMA is as much a revival as it is a martial art. To borrow a page from Jurassic Park... If we add that frog DNA to our dinosaurs, they might roar and run and bite, but are they really dinosaurs, or are they very vicious frogs? To the person who just cares about being a good swordsman / martial artist, it doesn't matter. A vicious frog will eat a lawyer off the toilet just as well as a historical T-Rex. It functions, it's good. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with vicious frogs. I've known and loved and fought quite a few of them over the years, they keep us on our toes. But for someone who is seeking to become, not just a good swordsman, but a good HEMAist, (distinct in itself) a vicious frog is never going to be good enough for that persons personal journey. I can not, as a HEMA instructor, put anyone's personal journey above the purpose of the class, and that purpose in most HEMA classes, is revival. For the HEMAist it's important to understand the very JKD philosophy that humans fight and always have fought with the same bio-mechanics. (Unless we grow extra limbs I think is how Lee put it.) So if there is an answer to counter a technique, there is a 99.9% chance that one of the Fightbook authors had already implemented it. The chance that Joe Blowchtenaur in 2016 would wow the authors with something they hadn't thought of, it's pretty slim... They didn't just live for it, like we do, they were sometimes alive because of it. (Not saying you were trying to do that Shad , just giving example. There are a few examples of your leg shift in the sources.) The issue becomes one, not of "Did they know?" but rather "Did they bother to write it down?, and if they did, did it survive?" I'm not JUST teaching people to be swordsmen & women, I'm giving them the tools to bring something back to life, until we can all as a community go "That's it, that's enough, HEMA is revived now." Those tools have to be part of that, as much as they can, as often as they can. While, as a martial arts instructor, it would be wrong to shelter HEMA from outside and modern influences... As a caretaker of a revival, I have to think about how those influences react to the revival aspect as a whole, how they might function in one way, but hinder the functionality of something closer to the source material in another way that would ultimately achieve the same end. Yes, you CAN do a jump-spinning-back-kick to counter your opponent in my class... It was probably pretty awesome if it worked and maybe due to your past experiences it came more naturally to you than the counter we were studying, maybe you'd like to incorporate that into your swordsmanship skills, and that's cool. Maybe you want to use that when you're sparring with equals... But does that mean it fits into the umbrella of HEMA because it works for you? Should I arrange my curriculum accordingly to account for it? Does HEMA have a problem because it didn't account for it? Nah... In instances like this, the revival aspect, for now, takes precedence, at least in my class... But I sure as hell will applaud and then buy you a beer while we find what from the manuals might have worked instead. Ultimately if someone wants to use a technique in my class that isn't in the manuals... That's fine, I'm not going to stop them from hopping like that lawyer chomping vicious frog... But I'm also going to go "Class??? See what this guy is doing? Lets deconstruct this and see how it works in the context of the manuals." So the process becomes... 1. Does it exist in the source material? (Usually yes.) 2. If it does, use it. 3. If it doesn't, and still works, look deeper into the source material because it's probably there. 4. If it isn't there, is there something else there that will achieve the same ends? 5. Try to use that instead. 6. If nothing at all like the thing exists in the manuals... OK.. Lets put that bit of frog DNA in there, but if a new essay comes out that addresses a new source that's similar, we're going to compare and contrast it with that because while vicious frogs are welcome, "dinosaur" is the ultimate goal that we're shooting for here. The distinction I think is ultimately whether you want to study HEMA to revive it, or you want to study HEMA to enrich your swordsmanship, both are perfectly respectable goals.
I totally agree with what you said and I think that there's a distinction in wanting to learn and master a specific martial art, be it HEMA, taekwondo, karate, etc. or wanting to become a master fighter/warrior. If you want to master a specific martial art then you need to follow the rules of that art and do only what is in the manual, no improvising or borrowing from other arts. However, if your goal is to become a master warrior then by all means use whatever works and mix and match to your heart's content but don't call yourself a master of any particular art/style then. Another thing worth noting is that almost all martial arts are, to one degree or another, a sport and as such have codified rules of what you can and can't do when facing an opponent of the same art. This is even true of MMA which originally started as a mixed martial art with practitioners of different arts would face off against each other but has now evolved into an art/style of its own. This is, I would say, the distinction between being a HEMA practitioner and a general swordsman; a HEMA practitioner is trying to adhere to what's known about historical swordsmanship while a general swordsman is trying is just trying to learn hot to wield a sword as best they can using whatever works whether it's historical or not. I don't know how organized HEMA is globally but as it grows I think that it needs to establish a council of sorts that codifies everything that's being taught and defines what makes HEMA HEMA and what is allowed and what isn't. I know that in taewkondo there are 2 governing bodies that oversee the art worldwide and they set the standard for what is and isn't allowed in tkd. The same is needed in HEMA, in my opinion, and as it continues to grow I feel that it needs to branch out more and develop distinct styles like the Asian martial arts. By that I mean that instead of teaching just specific weapons, instructors should, if it's possible, start to develop and teach say English style longsword which would be different from German longsword which would in turn be different from Italian longsword.
Totally agree with you. I kinda have the feeling that while it's very good that HEMA is expanding at a high speed rate, the kinds of arguments that is exposing Shad in his video will occure more and more. And that's an issue imho, because, even if we can "diplomaticaly" say that everyone is free to do his own HEMA, the fact is, as you said, HEMA's goal IS revival. Furthermore I think that it's credibility as a "traditional" martial art is tide to that fact. I think that it is very important to master and revive the historical technics before we start to improvise things on top of it. Of course, as you said, sometimes we have to add a bit of frog DNA to fill a hole, after all, we may fight with people that might use things that come from outside HEMA and we have to deal with it, but let's not make a rule out of it. And if you HAVE to find a solution to a certain situation, that isn't presented in the style you're studying, as a HEMAist you should, imho, first, look at the principles exposed by the masters and then try to understand how it might have been done. But I think what we defenetly shouldn't do is throwing away the way a technique is pictured in a manual, and replace it by our own "style" because we find it works better for us. That's not the point of HEMA (plus if the master did it that way, there must be a reason you might not know yet). Maybe when we reach a point where we have enough knowledge about a particular style or master. But I think HEMA is, atleast, too young to start making up/replacing technics just yet ... It's kind of puting the cart before the horse in a sense. We must try to bring the """traditional way""" back to life. So we have something to rely on, before thinking about creating new ways to develop those european historical martial arts. I disagree with Shad point of view. Because HEMA is not about becoming the best swordfighter you can be and nothing more, it's about becoming the best martial artist (as HEMA is not only fencing) that masters the ancient european ways to do it, accordingly to the sources we have access to. Or, as Fabrice Cognot said in the documentary "Back to the source", you might aswel drop the H and, even the E, of HEMA. Just call it Swordfight martial art or whatever. But if you consider that the source and the revival part is optional, it's not HEMA anymore. It's just Swordfighting.
Very well said. I think the problem is that people think that JKD can be taught (even self taught) and it cannot. The principal reason Bruce Lee closed his schools was that he realized that students expected to come and learn how to practice JKD. Or how to apply JKD to their own style. This is impossible, read the words of the man himself. JKD is a philosophy not an Art. JKD cannot be learned, taught, or practiced, it is a journey that a person can choose to embrace as a part of their own experience and personal expression. There is a tendency among all people, including myself to assume that we have absolute power over our ability to decide what to incorporate into our own style. We want to have it our way without first allowing ourselves to discover our way organically. And in order to discover we must first practice and build experience. We are not the divine creator of our own perfect personal style. We do not, and will never have the required knowledge to accomplish this. In fact even if that impossibility were true, it would not be true to ourselves as it removes the mind from the body. One part cannot have dominion over the other.
I was going to say ... but I think you summarized perfectly. I DO believe in improvization, and many shools and clubs accept it. But as a recreation, there is deffinitely no room for improvization. might as well pull out a gun -thats improv.
Convergence is the term you're looking for. In short: every time I thought I was improving on a technique, I would soon discover that the improvement was in fact a historical variant from another manual (or style) and had been invented long ago. In thousands of years of active sword use, people have come up with and tested pretty much every trick we can think of. The chance that you can actually "improve" on a technique, "create" something new is extremely slim. You'd have to be a prodigy, a sword genius. And I don't think we'll see any of those until history turns a full circle and we have to kill our fellow humans with blades again.
The whole premise of the video is that we have ALL the historic manuals, teachers NEVER taught anything that wasn't in a manual, and for some reason, no swordsman ever used something that wasn't in the manual - that premise is wrong.
+The Sword's Path Hi mate. It's awesome to see you here as I'm a big fan of your work. I've been subscribed to you for a while now. You're so right, anything we think of or figure out probably has been already. It makes me wonder how many techniques weren't written down.
+Maxawe Some That wasn't the premise at all. Nowhere did I say or imply this. I actually implied the opposite when I said this at 12:07 Truly sir what video did you watch?
At first I was watching "game of thrones how realistic is it" and now I'm stuck in this medieval warfare community and I'm starting to think I'm a closet nerd.
@@vihurah9554 hahah I watch the odd video here and there but not binge watching anymore. To be honest there’s not enough hours in the day anymore. A lot happens in 3 years.
I think there’s a time and place so to speak. When you’re in class learning a specific technique, you’re there to learn that technique. When you’re sparring or competing, that’s the time to figure out and use what works for you. And above all, have fun
Also, moving the legs back and "voiding" the leg strike is probably the very best defense in that situation. Remember, if it looks stupid, but it works, it ain't stupid.
Matthew Brown from what I have seen the move legs back is an actual thing. From what I have seen in gems you step back and then throw a cut into there now open upper body. It is why I personally don't view legs as a good target because of that easy counter option for leg strikes.
It's definitely a thing that was done historically google 'the advantage of shifting the leg' it's from 'Hungarian & Highland Broadsword - by Henry Angelo and Son (1799) ' -people fencing masters in their time.
Which texts have you read? Ringeck describes überlauffen specifically as hitting the upper openings when the opponent attacks low because the upper attack has better reach.
And just because we haven't seen it in a treatise doesen't mean that it was never in one, books aren't exactly made to survive trough hundreds of years you know..
There's also the fact that many treatises tend to also describe concepts,not only particular techniques(albeit that can be a wider discussion on what is a technique and what is a concept). If you accept that it's quite easy to see that it may be likely to find some technique that is not explicitly defined within the manuals we currently know of,but might fit the tactical approach that some treatise does talk about.At that point-yes you're doing guesswork. We're all however doing guesswork,it's just a question on how much and what amount and what kind of info we're using for that.
totally agree - its in the fricking name even :D - HISTORICAL EUROPEAN MARTIAL ART - if it was about learning and developing swordfighting in modern era, it would not be called HISTORICAL - in the first place
@@valtenLbOz1495 The problem is that traditions practiced for traditions sake get further and further from the effective kill as time goes on. Just think of the example of the black belts in the video. The tradition, within the historical contest, was to develop swordsmanship to make it better for combat. HEMA isn't about making swordsmanship more refined and better with new techniques but preserving what is there from generations past. It is less about the kill for its no longer being used or developed to kill others.
Also a thing that was done historically elsewhere,for example google 'the advantage of shifting the leg' it's from 'Hungarian & Highland Broadsword - by Henry Angelo and Son (1799) ' -people fencing masters in their time.
Also in longsword; it's often recommended to use the Scheitler there, though extending into long point also works. Shad is great but sometimes he needs to do a bit more research.
In addition, this attack is in nearly all the saber / broadsword manuals too. The counter to a leg attack is to slip the lead leg back while striking at the head. It's part of the standard military drill used to teach new recruits the different cuts and parries. You don't see longsword attacks to the leg much in HEMA, because you learn that two handed leg attacks are actually short range attacks; aka, the reach difference between an attack to the knee and attack to the neck is almost a foot difference in reach. The only leg attack you see in HEMA longsword tournaments is a one handed attack to the knee from a lunge, using the pommel hand. It's the only way to get an extra 8" or so of extra reach, so the attacker is only at a slight reach disadvantage, which allows them time to retreat or block the counter hit.
The bit about the best swordsman being beatable reminds me of a favorite saying of mine:" "No matter how good you are at something, there's always an 8-year-old Chinese kid that's better than you."
As someone who enjoys taking part in brawls and fights, not really. A sloppy attack that hits can potentially hurt you, BADLY. Like give you an injury in your middle knuckle giving you the ability to flex your knuckle despite it being a bone and not a muscle, but also being in great pain while doing so. My left knuckle is NEVER going to fully heal from that, when I was an extreme amature bimbo. At the very least an attach that misses only gives your opponent a window letting them beat you down, instead of you looking like an absolute idiot while also making the other guy look MUCH more badass with you breaking your knuckle on them.
@@redactedoktor Well the saying is more about style doesn't matter if you hit and end the fight. The goal is to avoid your opponent beating you down because one miss can end even worse then an injury you inflict on yourself landing the hit. Don't give your opponent openings. Even if you come out with permanent relatively minor injuries, it's better than severely injured or worse, dead. Also if you win and the other guy looks more badass since you broke a knuckle on him then that just makes YOU look even more badass for winning the fight despite that
Love you Shad, but I gotta disagree with you on this one. Your experience doesn't seem to match my own at all... Makes me curious about who you train with dude? I've met a lot of instructors, and I can only think of one of them that had a closed off view to what he practiced... Others in the community didn't take him to seriously cos of it. It's funny I actually find HEMA to be the least closed off and most open martial art I've ever experienced. Weird story, but when I started I would always rest my thumb on my blade, some people would be like you can do that, others would demand I stop... Until a renowned longsword fencer simply said to me "of course you can do it, it would just increase the chances of you losing a thumb... If it helps you hit the other guy though, that won't be a problem. That was when I realized my personal preferences didn't have to be dismissed, just adapted. obviously there are fundamentals one shouldn't ignore, but you get my point. XD Much love mate.
Hey mate, great to see you and thanks for sharing your thoughts! I totally get what you're saying and my video doesn't apply to all hema schools nor yours as it appears, which is what I say at 11:47 The unfortunate thing is that I have come across certain schools of hema that either don't allow, or look down upon, or prefer historical techniques, over none-historical techniques that might be perfectly legitimate and it is to that, that this video criticises. Don't get me wrong, if they're doing Hema for the historical side of things that's fine, but if people are in it to become the best swordmen they can be, then this practice (which I know isn't present in all hema) is counterproductive. I send my love back mate and I can't wait for your next video!
I'm curious as to what HEMA schools you've encountered that had this close minded approach you keep talking about. Especially since you've said you haven't practiced HEMA before?
It's original purpose(judo) has been forgotten, it is meant to be a fighting style to counter armored adversaries(which could not be struck(punched and kicked) but were vulnerable to throwdowns)
Yep I practised Judo for awhile and completely trashed those that were completely focused on the moves. I had one kid (I was like 9) come up to me and try all different kinds of throwdowns, but I simply stood still and let her try and then countered when she was getting tired. It worked, and she would have jumped over the one move I knew if I used it sooner.
+Shadiversity The technique you showcase at 8:05 is basically a scheitelhau (parting strike / crown cut). It's commonly used in German longsword fencing. The only difference is that you would take a full passing step backward, rather than placing your feet together.
Fellow Taekwondo guy here! I will say that from my years in TKD and achieving 2nd degree black belt that those who trained in other martial arts always had an edge because they learned new angles instead of being stuck in a single viewpoint. I personally had trained in a few different martial arts before I did TKD and then after I stopped I started HEMA. Also for the the record your slide back with your leg and strike with the sword is seen in a manual for a Highlander Officer using a Scottish Basket hilt. He is seen voiding a French officer using an infantry saber and then stabbing the Frenchman in the face. I also learned that technique from my teachers at my HEMA club as I have really long legs (helped for TKD) and so our club leaders helped me better defend my feet. It could be in another treatise but I haven't seen the move. I think it is important to realize when it comes to adding or removing moves that the reasoning is not only sound (ie, move doesn't work or isn't practical so away with it) but what the goal is. I have met many martial artists from various backgrounds who refuse to change anything from the way it was taught simply because it preserves the tradition. Which raises the question: Why do we train? To preserve a tradition and so must keep it locked in time to better reflect the age it came from? Or do we train learn how to fight/exercise? I feel that HEMA is an art that has a need to do both. There is a historical aspect that we should preserve, but at the same time look at what the masters did. They kept the art of sword fighting evolving and flowing. In this modern age we all interacted with so much more than just one culture and so bringing those lessons to HEMA I feel is furthering the cause. I understand the need to preserve many of the old techniques. However, I also see the need to keep the art evolving. Many of the HEMA moves have withstood the test of time and are practical. I see no harm in introducing new moves. Love your videos by the way. Really nice to listen to while doing work or schoolwork and learn some great stuff!
Kind of like painting. There are tons of "historicists" ie people that does things using materials only available in a certain period yet they apply modern theories of perspective! Amazing
I feel like there's value in both, as long as you recognize that they are distinct. I think it's good to be able to preserve the traditions exactly as they are in history, with the acknowledgement that it doesn't necessarily make you the most effective sword wielder. And it's also very good to be able to explore and develop the best style for you.
I have no swordfighting expertise, but I think the major issue with stepping back (dodging) the way you demonstrated, with your feet close together and holding the sword in front, is that it makes your point of balance weak, takes power out of any a strong strike with the sword and leaves your head forward in a vulnerable position.
it is the price to pay to dodge the attack. and generally, the one who miss his attack is also not in a ideal position, and can not benefit of this weak balance. (if you can force your opponent to dodge, and still follow up with a good attack, you are better than your opponent) most of the time, after something like this, the 2 will reposition correctly with one step back.
This reminds me of how people that are not used to dealing with leg kicks, e.g. those practicing taekwondo, often try to dodge them. I'd still say it's not a particularly good technique to cultivate.
That criticism is a function of his technique being absolutely horrendous. I have serious doubts this man has actually studied most of the things he says he has.
Correct. There are tons of people, myself included, who actually don't care about becoming the "best swordsman we can be". We care about trying to understand a part of history. I'm a Medievalist first and foremost.
Aren't those two goals inseparable to some extent? If one is trying to understand people from the past, and those people were trying to be the best possible sword fighters (in their specific context), then one's (in the present) goal would also be - being the best possible sword fighter. Of course, I would say that "sword fighting" meant different things for different people in the past (different periods, classes, weapons, rules etc.). In that sense, I don't think modern HEMA practitioners should claim monopoly over any specific definition of "the best sword fighter/fighting stile".
petra123987 Nope; I don't care about being the best possible sword fighter, I'm just interested in getting an insight into their world. It doesn't require me to emulate their specific mentality. As a Medievalist I don't need to perfectly emulate historical persons; to do so would be a fool's errand because my living context is completely divorced from their own.
Not necessarily. The techniques taught in the manuals may not be objectively "the best" for a given situation, but they were taught and reflect a mindset that we may not have considered. The weapons and armors evolved around certain techniques; the techniques evolved with the arms and armor. Because we are so far removed from those things, we may miss some of the intricacies of how their thoughts reflected and were influenced by the outside world. Just look at the viking sword (sverd, I believe it is called now lol). Why was the handle designed so short, and the pommel so wide? Many HEMA practitioners have had the handles elongated so you can fit your hand comfortably inside it, and sometimes have the pommel shaped a little differently to allow more agility. But after a lot of research (I'm referring to Roland Warzecha and ThegnThrand here primarily), it turns out that the sword may have intentionally been designed small. If you shift your grip from what is traditionally done on a longsword, you get a different blade dynamic. The pommel may be as wide as the guard so you can reinforce your shield with your main hand more effectively. These aren't things we would have discovered without learning to think as the ancients did. Because we aren't trying to kill each other, we use massive padded gloves, which makes using a Viking sword incredibly difficult without modifying its design. But if you use the sword and shield in a certain way, not only do you get the above-stated advantages, you don't even need hand protection, because the shield protects your sword hand. Something we wouldn't have understood easily. Long-winded explanation aside, diving more into how the ancients thought and refraining from interjecting how we think it should be done may open up more advantageous techniques and skills than we could have invented. It's their time, their technology, their mastery. We can still learn from them.
Which is why HEMA practitioners will never be as good as fighters in the past were. You HAD to practise to be the the very best in the world, or you were dead!
There is a perception problem here: HEMA is _not_ the same thing as trying to be the best possible swordsman. If all you want is to fight with a sword and you want to take stuff from different sources with the Bruce Lee approach there's nothing wrong or inferior about that, but by definition, it's not HEMA. We do have a term for that already - Western Martial Arts, or WMA. Lots of people want to take this approach (Josh Parise of Broken Plow and Destroyermodz is one of the most influential members of this school of thinking) and win tournaments and competitions etc etc and that's fine. However lots of people in HEMA do it because they are interested in history, not just competition or self defense. These people, like myself, want to stick strictly to discreet historical systems because we want to experience training and fighting as close as possible to the way people in the past experienced it. Two different disciplines, two different goals. Clearly there is some overlap, but it's quite straightforward - if you are learning an art from one manual or school, it's HEMA. If you are using techniques from different periods or schools, it is a modern, syncretic martial art: WMA. Ask yourself: do you want to learn to fight using a longsword, or do you want to learn to fight like a 15th Century German longswordsman? Do you want to hit your opponent with a broadsword for points, or do you want to get inside the head of an 18th century Scottish clansman for whatever insights into the past that might offer? Some other points: The leg thing is historical, it's called a slip. Very common in British martial traditions, but is also present with somewhat less emphasis in most continental European and even Asian fencing lineages. Nobody in HEMA says people today can't be as good with a sword as historical person; this is a misunderstanding. Nobody today can have the same depth and breadth of understanding of a historical fencing system as is was practiced as someone who actually trained in it while it was being taught. That's because we are reconstructing things from clues and educated guesswork rather than directly from the original creators of those systems. That doesn't mean a modern persona couldn't beat them in a fight, just that they can't replicate the same system with the same degree of accuracy. Students who think they know better because something doesn't feel natural or it doesn't mesh with the principles of an unrelated system are the hardest and most frustrating to teach. I remember one student who outright refused to lead with the correct foot during linear footwork because he just didn't like it that way, but guess what? The systems make sense. Once engaged with an opponent he couldn't retreat from a rapid advance because his feet got in each others' way and he ended up getting caught literally flat footed again and again, but it was like talking to a brick wall getting him to change. The systems work when taken as a whole, they hang together. If one thing doesn't seem to make sense to you as a student it's only because you haven't leaned the part that makes it work yet. If your instructor tells you your posture isn't right or your footwork is messed up, it's for a reason. There is a caveat to Bruce Lee's words - you have to actually know enough to be able to evaluate what is useful and what isn't. There's a theory that incompetent people overestimate their abilities because they don't have the level of competency needed to assess them. You have to achieve a certain level of knowledge and ability in a given system before you know enough to start making sensible changes, otherwise you risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater or missing something entirely that you might have added to your arsenal had you stuck with the earlier thing that made it possible. You need to do more training and get a better knowledge of what HEMA is and what the "meta" issues around HEMA actually are before you can start picking them apart. (apologies for any typos, it's 4 am as I'm writing this)
Regarding your comment - There is a caveat to Bruce Lee's words - you have to actually know enough to be able to evaluate what is useful and what isn't. - Bruce was VERY aware of this. That's why JKD was considered for advanced students and not a place to begin. It was a new level of training. By advanced students, Bruce meant someone who had "mastered" and understood their system enough to earn the ability and right to teach. He wanted to create a new level of exploration and inclusion o techniques to improve one's fighting and one's person. Not create a wish-mash of half studied things like most MMA stuff is or "American Karate/Kung Fu". Americans don't like to dedicate the time, energy, effort, failure and correction which is necessary to truly LEARN something. We have a fire and forget approach to so much in our world that we think training is like a Rocky montage and you come out with mastery. Weight Gyms LIVE and THRIVE on this mentality. We confuse memorization with learning and comprehension. It's a flaw. We need to fix it.
Low guards (such as Fiore's Dente di Zenchiaro) are not primarily for defending the legs. Your lack of awareness of their purpose does not invalidate their usefulness. The technique you describe to defend your legs is referred to as a "slip" in English. In German longsword it's called Überlauffen ("overrunning"). Fiore has it, too, but he doesn't name it. As a matter of fact, virtually all sword manuals include it. What I find (as an experienced HEMA instructor) is that virtually everything that is effective for weapons that are well-documented (longsword, rapier, etc.) can already be found in the manuals. I have _never_ seen an effective longsword or rapier technique that was not found in the treatises either explicitly or implicitly (the latter being an important part of interpretation for earlier weapons in particular).
I will add that often new students may fail to understand why a technique is effective or ineffective because they lack the framework to see where they may be putting themselves in danger, or because their opponents lack the skill or knowledge to exploit their weakness. Additionally, certain techniques are not found in the manuals because the nature of the weapon makes it disadvantageous to use such techniques. The rapier and broadsword both are double-edged and could conceivably cut with the false edge, but when is it a good idea to cut with the false edge of either? An inexperienced fencer might come up with scenarios where it may seem like a good idea to use a false edge cut with either weapon, but the experienced student of the Art understands why there are (presumably) always better options.
Definitely agree with the above. It's very similar to newbies in a competitive gaming scene will denounce the use of a particular skill/technique without understanding why it's good. A lot of times things aren't obvious and are very counter-intuitive and until you reach a fairly high level of skill you won't be able to see how to apply certain techniques. It doesn't make them bad, and yeah, a lot of times they are niche, but they definitely play a role. Also, I bet a lot of the places you encountered are McDojos and should be avoided.
There is no harm to study Fiore or Talhoffer, but lots of techniques from manuscripts are to complex and in realistic combat just to complicated. Real life and death combat is real life and death combat and it does not matter which period of time we are looking for. Mental aspect is ALWAYS first. HEMA is missing this aspect focusing only on complicated techniques. Physical aspect (strength, stamina, precision, timing) in full speed combat is second, then we can consider third aspect which is technique. Has to be simple and effective so you can put to death your opponent within 30 sec.
My answer was exactly, the same as yours. You did not process what I have wrote. You just got upset cause I criticize HEMA and you responded in defensive way. But that is OK.
Shad, you made me happy. I wrestled in high school (and was very good). A good friend of mine had a few SCA ( essentially, medieval swords fighters) members over and ran through a practice session. I was allowed to practice with them. Even though I was not at all experienced with swords, my ability to gauge and react to body movements allowed me to often get the drop on the others. Also, moving in circles gave the fencers in the group fits since they were not used to change of direction of opponents. My friend was good enough to adjust, but he used me as an example to the others that they would have to be able to adjust their styles. It was fun.
I’ve always subscribed to the JKD philosophy. In my limited formal martial arts training, our instructor was quite strict on the forms and practicing the techniques properly during class. Then when it came to sparing, he allowed whatever worked for the individual. (I often spared using a hands down style). He would look for us using proper techniques and implementing them, but as long as we scored the points within the striking restrictions, he didn’t care. He would also open the floor after class for open sparing without pads. Light contact only. No take downs without a mat. If we were off the mat, no limits on movement. But otherwise anything goes. Often I found myself surrounded, fighting multiple people at a time... something that was not taught or practiced in class. My instructor thought it was funny that the lower belts would gang up on me and he would encourage them to jump in randomly. During these sessions, I quickly learned that anyone still in uniform within 10 feet of me was a potential threat. Including the instructor. Lol. Overall, it was a nice mix of traditional training and personal journey.
I think that beginners really do need a solid grounding in an established system as a starting point. I also think it's naive to think that individual techniques didn't crop up with a great degree of regularity. As the man said: In order to be unconventional you have to be conventional first.
The low guards in longsword aren't about protecting the legs. They deal with angles of attack and starting and ending positions of attacks. The act of bringing the lead leg back to avoid a strike to said leg while countering up high is dealt with extensively in longsword as well. It's actually fairly common as well. I'm not sure where you came up with these conclusions about HEMA.
Yup. You see that in Kenjutsu a lot. In the end, it's all about footwork distance, timing, and learning how to combine these into closing and retreat tactics to get one's strike in. Too many dismiss striking to the hands and forearms, for instance, but those strikes are amazingly effective. And if you're not out for a kill, they make disengaging from a defeated opponent who can still live but is unable to fight on... a lot easier. Plus, you can win faster. Same in empty hand fighting... footwork, distance, set up, timing, enter/retreat, differential targeting... drill, drill, drill and free fight and you start to see it. But that takes time, focus, willingness to fail, and an openness to accept truth which might work against one's ego.
of course you don't consider kendo authentic sword fighting it's the japanese equivalent to fencing (that thing people do in the olympic games), it's a sport, not a fighting style. You might have mistaken it with KenJUTSU, which were the techniques used during the Sengoku (the japanese "middle age")
by the way, my personal opnion: any fighting style need to update. If you come in contact with another fighting style and refuse to adapt, you will just lose any confrontation were they use techniques you are not good against. Of course, there can be some "limitations", for example: "no guns", because you want to train a melee style, not something to use on today's battlefields, but if 2 fighting styles within the same limitation (no weapons; melee only; no guns; only individual weaponary; everything goes) meet, they must update their techniques based on what they found. Or, at least, that's what the most sucessful duelists and generals anywhere, anywhen in the world say in common. From Patton to Myamoto Musashi, they all claim that you should adapt your techniques according to what you find. The Kenjutsu dojo I pratice on, for example, still develop techniques to this day. Of course, the students must still follow an order of techniques, learn the basics before the advanced, but the master develops his own techniques with time and is always paying attention to the 3 or so highest graduations fights, specially in tournments, to see if they come up with anything new and useful/interesting. This is also one of the reasons students are insetivated into going to tournments, to fight against other people, instead of those they always fight in the dojo, so their sucess will be out of skill, not of memorizing the weakspots of the other pratitioners and pratice only that. Now, about the katas: they are meant to have you turn the movements instinctive. I can't talk about every fighting style you ever found, but at least the ones I have to pratice are all appliable in combat... if you don't need to think about doing them, being capable of performing it by instinct instead. And attention to this point: no kata, in any fighting style, is intended to be followed step by step in a duel/fight/whatever you call it, you should be able to enter a kata useful for the situation at any moment at any step of the kata, even if it is to perform that single move you believe will be usefull at this exact moment. It's like praticing specific chess movement, sure, if you duel another chess player you might never sucessfuly emply a "priest check", but you might, at any point in the game, find the pieces perfectly positioned for one side to perform said technique. I've won and lost a few times to said techniques when I played chess, never were they performed from the start like in a manual, but always when the oponent least expected them. I find the same with katas, atempting to start any fight with them, specially against someone who also praticed it, will rearely go your way, but being able to use them in the midle of the combat, when your oponent least expect, sure gives an advantage, all the more if you don't have to "oh, look at the position he is in, maybe I can perform that kata, what was it again? that had 2 oponents in this exact same position...", and instead just do it. Now, I wish to share with you a special "kata" (not really) I was victim of in one of my trainings: in a moment of seriousness and focus, during a fight, my oponent came with his shinai near my face (I dodged the attack), and that's when I noticed it, his weapon was made of smoked bamboo... which smells just like bacon. If you ever studied the principles of comedy you will know the contrast of such a situation would have being enough to drive any victim into laughing, even if for only a second. but of course, in a fight, that's all the oponent needs. The next second I was stroke down, during my lapse of focus because of the "bacon-sword" secret technique. Passed the following couple minutes trying to recover from the memories of Tom&Jerry fighting each other with food as swords, brought back from my days as a kid by the scent of my oponent's blade.
Here I go. I've studied several martial arts in my life. Never have I managed to achieve mastery in any one style, but I have mastered the fundamentals of each style I studied (so basically I would consider myself proficient, maybe even skilled). Given that my primary foundation is grappling (Wrestling, Judo, traditional Ju Jutsu) and Striking (Karate, Kenpo, Muay Thai, and Wing Chun) as secondary, I have plenty of experience with sparring. From that free sparring, I can tell you that nothing ever went according to the book. You can read and practice and build that muscle memory all you want, but once the adrenaline dumps, your fine motor control is shot. So your body doesn't respond the same way. Finely honed techniques will get sloppy and the result is good enough. The point of training is to make your technique better so that when it gets sloppy it's still good. Like with pistol shooting, if you can shoot quarter sized groups at 15 meters, great! But can you hit a human torso at 5 meters when it matters? The human body can only move so many ways, I think that in the 10,000 years we've had civilization, we have pretty much figured out how the body can move. There are many throws from Ju Jutsu that are reminiscent of throws from Pankration, which existed millennia before, and half a world away. It's not unreasonable to think that every variation, every improvisation has been done before. What gets codified is what is proven to work. Because one improvisation can work once, but maybe not twice.
I agree with you on most points. But I personally think that if a historical technique is found and is saying something else than what you have found practical, the first thing you should do is ask: "Why is this? Are we sure we got it the right way? And will it work better for us after more practice?" Martial arts were to protect your life and often created by people with a lifelong experience of fighting, therefore it would be weird if they didn't work that well.
Also: If as you said a teacher tells you that you are doing something wrong without telling you why the historical technique is better, I think it is only because of a bad teacher. It's like teaching someone a new language; you should not just tell them the phrases, but also the individual words in each phrase. Otherwise that person will have a really hard time using what is learned in new and perhaps unexpected situations.
On the other hand, how good were they at explaining that skill at fighting? Also, a lot of manuals are just to explain key points, most of the teaching was done from what the teacher knew, not from the 'book'. Still, it is mindbending how good a skill at swords a dedicated practitioner can achieve with hard work and ancient manuals!
I have a fundamental disagreement with the premise of the argument: I don't think it's possible for a modern person who does HEMA as a hobby to invent a way to use a sword that is effective without being historical. Hear me out. There are only so many ways to use a sword. If you look at the guards in HEMA for, say, longsword, and the guards used in Japanese swordsmanship with the Katana, you will see they aren't really that different. They're not completely the same and there is variance from practitioner to practitioner in both traditions, but they have a lot in common. Likewise, David Rawlings says (and I agree) that the guards in I:33 for sword and buckler are meant to describe the 7 ways that, broadly speaking, pretty much anyone will hold a sword and buckler. There was so much written about swordsmanship in the Middle Ages, the early modern period, and the modern period, that the odds are anything you come up with yourself is in there somewhere. I've "invented" two or three techniques, and been very pleased with myself, only to start reading a page of some manuscript I hadn't gotten to that beat me to it by 600 years. The example Shad gives is particularly relevant since it perfectly illustrates Uberlaufen from the Liechtenauer lineage; If your opponent attacks to your legs he is shortening his reach, and therefore you should take advantage of that to get your legs out of the way and strike long to your opponent's arms, head or body. I've never seen a historical source that recommended blocking to the legs, which is probably because it's a terrible idea. Broadly, if you think you've invented a new way to use a sword that's actually effective, you probably just haven't read enough of the historical sources. Or else the thing you came up with only works as a result of modern rule sets, safety equipment, etc., which is actually pretty common. Even the Bruce Lee philosophy can be found in treatises; I think it's Von Danzig (it might be a different master) who outlines his system and goes on to say "The market will teach you well". I take this to mean that the system he is teaching is a good starting point, but the way to become a good swordsman is to go out and fight, learning from the experience what works for you and what doesn't. If anyone thinks it is possible to come up with a technique that isn't in the historical sources, I'm all ears. Please tell.
MisdirectedSasha that might also depend on your system too let’s say you applied foot work from British military Saber or a Chinese Martial Art that Teaches you how to fight with a Jian. Your HEMA instructor may not like the way the way you are moving in his class because it isn’t done that way in his system. Quite frankly all that matters is do you actually win the match, basically come out alive and the other guy is now dead in a historical context.
So I rapier fence through the SCA, and I am not involved with HEMA. I don't fully disagree with you, but I feel your statements have some flaws. It has been pointed out to me that there are a finite number of ways that you can move a sword, particularly efficiently. Therefore it would be reasonable to assume that throughout the roughly 700 years of recorded HEMA information, someone somewhere has described anything you will try in a book. Then the problem is less with HEMA, and more with the research of the participant. I also think that some things that we see people do that may seem like good ideas, but are flawed in some way. For example, there is a local fencer who is tall and strong and young and he does things that only work because of his qualities that are bad ideas. I think for the Bruce Lee philosophy to work, you must cultivate an understanding of the pros and cons of what you are doing in order to make an informed decision. Studying can only help if done right. That being said, I still think that sparing as many different people as possible is the best method to getting better.
I'm not a martial artist, just a casually interested RU-vid viewer, but I'd like to offer a counter point. It's quite possible that the level of swordfighting in the past when a given treatise was written was higher than the level of most hema practitioners now. Maybe a technique that you develop yourself that is not in a treatise is effective against bad swordsmanship but easily countered by a far better fighter. It might be a bad habit and poor practice for future progression.
for the average fighter, the historical sword fighters would be better than the modern sword fighters out of necessity. how ever as threats and weapons changed so did styles to the point that what has become hema was dropped in favor of more effective techniques for the times
That's quite possible, but you could also say that if the skill level of most HEMA practitioners now is X, as opposed to the skill level of the past practitioners is X^3, then you should work towards being capable of beating X, as opposed to X^3, at least if your goal is to be as widely efficient as possible in the modern era. If you can beat the vast majority of them, then you've succeeded in your goal. You may not be able to beat the absolute best, but you're still better than most. But if the only way to beat the absolute best would be to give up the only thing that keeps you safe in most other duels, because said thing is a glaring weakness that the absolute best can easily use against you, that probably won't help your goal.
I think the point is not to focus on specific techniques, but rather on "concepts" that explain why certain techniques can be useful. That way you can improve your own style deliberately. Furthermore the experience that allows someone to be better in any fighting has to do more with proper judgement of distance, timing and the intentions of the opponent, than any fancy and sophisticated techniques.
I have a counter point to your counter point: maybe a technique he devolps now is not in the treatise because, since warriors at the time all had some previous experience, they all were expected to already know such basic movements, just like if you pick a gun-techniques treati now days it will not tell you how to use cover, because that's in the basics, and will instead tell you how to better group a burst (like in the Mocambique's groupment, 2 shots to the cheast, 1 to the head, it doesn't even tell you how to hold the gun) so he is actually performing a technique that was fairly used in times past, but they were so commong that no one felt the need to register them.
Totally agree. For me HEMA means that you train with a historical (European) weapon with some historical context and that's it. Martial arts and art of war is all about effectiveness, rivalry, improvements. And if someone says "this is the best way to do this, because people did it this way in the past", omg, that is so stupid, because with that thinking someone just negates any progress in technology, science and arts. People constantly try and have tried new things. The second mistake is thinking that the treaties were quality manuals with only working techniques, based on real fight to the death experiences, created by real masters. Really I suppose that many of the old manuals can be useless crap full of techniques that not works and nobody used them, because people made mistakes and people like to pretend that they have secret skills. But I can understand that someone wants to be a reconstructor of some strictly defined historical art with no intention to develop anything new. But for me it is really useless. HEMA is enough useless without that XD. And this is the paradox, because that people in the past they wanted to develop better things, but their impersonators don't want.
People don't really try to kill each other anymore, so any "advancements" made are actually regressions by charlatans. And the few dick-head peoples who do still murder each other use guns, not martial arts.
Strategiusz Is this really what you think? Have you read any manuals or is this a conclusion you came to before reading any? I mean you're correct in the sense that these manuals might not be fmade by the best fighters of the time, or they might not show the best fighting. But there is a reason why the people who come out top in HEMA competitions (where the rules don't restrict what martial art you use) also practice and study from the manuals. These manuals just work. They are written by people who have studied from a tradition going back a few hundred years whilst today we have no tradition to be taught from. We could try work it out ourselves but we will likely come up against the same problems and challenges as they did in the past but it takes longer to work out the answer (or answers) than find them in a manual. Back to Shad's thing his retreat "attack" is found in manuals. Even if there is stuff not covered in the manuals surely you might as well learn everything in them first before expanding because it would be quicker than working it out yourself? There are HEMA practitioners that want to expand the art beyond the manuals as just a longsword martial art but they still use the manuals and techniques first because they are such good systems!
I am not saying "ignore manuals, discover all by yourself" just "be skeptical and be ready that you can find some bullshit in the manuals or in someone teaching or anywhere, because people make mistakes and sometime they are lying". This is the universal advise that anybody agrees, but when it comes to discuss about history then people forget it. Something is in the manual but it is useless? Then I would ignore that thing instead of forcing myself to use it scared that I will be not enough historical if I will ignore something from some manual.
***** Fair enough. However this comes at the risk of dismissing without properly learning. Sometimes something is counter-intuitive, sometimes it is just hard to learn. But with proper work you may find actually: "This works, and it's way better than I would instinctively have done in this situation, so now I should train it to be a reflex." With the mentality of "be prepared for bullshit" it's easy to dismiss before reaching that point. And unfortunately understanding which is which only comes from experience. Something in the manual is useless? Learn it, leave it out of your sparring (choose how YOU want to fight.) and then you know when someone does use the technique you dislike against you what "useless" part to take advantage of. Besides all of this. The last thing going through my mind in sparring is "am I historical?" and more "shit he's gonna hit me!!" My fighting is "historical" only because I've learnt historical principles and techniques and they are becoming my reflexive response. It seems a straw man has been made of a finicky hema-ist that only cares for exact historical accuracy, and not for actual sword fighting.
Kata and kung fu forms were initially developed to teach a group of people the use of weapons. Later weapons were removed because of laws but the forms remained then weapons were reintroduced but the original forms were somewhat corrupted.
Another important point to make here is it is very likely that the manuscripts for how people fought are likely not all encompassing. I would not be surprised if those act as an introduction to becoming a good swordsman and then as swordsman participate in combat their techniques are further developed beyond what they were taught in training.
My thoughts aren't about HEMA, but about part of BL's quote. This phrase: "If something is useless, then get rid of it." But, how do you know it's useless? Many things in martial arts require a higher level of understanding before you could really see for yourself that, hey, whaddayaknow, it truly works. A simple example is Miyagi and the original Karate Kid. The blocks being taught to the kid exist on their own, but in a normal karate class, they're taught as is, without any loading of the muscles. This way, students learn the proper form first, and later, when they're experienced enough, students will begin loading up. For a beginner in karate who's just learned the move, though, the block is useless if implemented in a street fight. If you just learned it yesterday and tried it in a fight today, you're probably gonna get thrashed. But, if you stick around with it for years and see how far you could make it work, then probably you'd be surprised by a thing or two. It might work, or it might not. I'm just saying that if we want to use that phrase, be sure to add in the disclaimer: "But, take the time to verify that what you want to throw out is really useless." Then again, this is just my opinion. I started learning silat more than twenty years ago, and I have come to realize just how much nuance is packaged even into the fundamental moves. If I had dismissed them even five years after learning the moves, I would have missed out on so many things.
Being a student of Iaido and Jodo, I can second this. Some people practice weapon arts, believing they could 'refine' the techniques, getting rid of the useless ones and adopting and improving the good ones. But look, who do they think they are? It's like an elementary grade kid erasing calculus from the curriculum because they don't get it and they think it's useless. The proper way to learn martial arts traditionally is to listen to and obey your Sensei. Somethings might not make sense now, but someday you'll realize why suchs things are like that, why some things that seem idiosyncracies are passed on. To 'tap into the mind of the past masters', people who really did refine their arts and their philosophies through real battles and turbulent times. It's like a 'time machine'. Reach into the past, and they'll teach you their art. But of course, the vital problem is finding such a true authentic teacher. RARE. Way too may fakes around.
I'm not sure if I'm just making conclusions on this but, what if "If something is useless, then get rid of it." is actually meant to trigger someone to think about the usefulness of the technique. Maybe, just maybe, it is supposed to prompt you to think "how do you know it's useless?" instead of just dismissing it or to think above "it seemed like a good idea at the time" I mean, it's really easy to see and accept something being useful once you see an advantage. And it's also very easy to see something being useless once you see a mistake. That's a very human thing. Thinking is not really in the minds of most people, and if it is, there is not much effort done into thinking widely and further into or above the original thought. Edward De Bono mentions in one of his book is something along the lines of (i'm basing off memory so it may not be 100% true) The hardest part about thinking of an alternative is having to think that you need to look for the alternatives. Therefore, I think "Absorb what is useful, reject what is useless" is actually something which tries to prompt you to start thinking beyond but starting from the 'pros and cons' of something, and then come above the question to realize the truth, and a truth that works best for you. "We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them." And then here I stop and think whether what I've posted is true or not, but modern society style of living gives 0 shit about giving you time to actually think about stuff.
if you are at a HEMA club to learn historical martial arts I don't give a shit what works for you. You do as you are taught or you can leave. However when it comes to tournaments or competitive sparring, do whatever works to win. But disregarding teachings because they feel awkward or something else feels better is most likely lack of understanding and or practice. That's my thoughts on it. Try to learn the "right way" for increased understanding and don't disregard knowledge, but when it counts use whatever works best for you.
Yup. There's the disconnect between the historical context which hema is really about, and adapting such things for whatever context you find yourself using them in. I don't really see them as modern day combat arts, as the context of use is so completely different as to be generally harmful to that goal; they were for particular goals at that particular time in particular contexts then, which is what you're there to learn about. There ought to be a different type of club or organization for modern sword fighting/ usage/ combat theory.
I totally agree, and my HEMA coaches have said the exact same thing. They emphasize following the manuals and trying to replicate what the masters taught, within the bounds of safety. However, they also say that you do whatever it takes to win in a tournament situation, within the rules, of course. It sounds like they have the same philosophy that you have and it's almost certainly the correct one.
Shad, ultimately I think you're misunderstanding the goal of most HEMA practitioners. For a lot of people the aim isn't to be the best swordfighter ever, the aim is to reconstruct a specific historical system of fence. If you're trying to reconstruct a specific system from a specific period from a specific master, it makes little sense to conflate techniques from elsewhere. If the aim is reconstruction, then we look for the answers inside the system. The system doesn't have to be perfect! If it turns out that your system is unable to deal with a specific attack, then so be it. But it takes a lot of hubris to reach that conclusion, your interpretation is unlikely to be perfect and complete, and you probably haven't found the answer within the system yet. This doesn't mean everyone disregards outside techniques. If I learn a technique from a different system which works really well for me, I might use it to gain a different perspective on the system I study, or I might use it in sparring or competition when I just want to win, or I might use it because I enjoy other systems too, but ultimately my goal is to understand why my system doesn't include that technique, and to find an equivalent answer within the system. So in many ways, what works best for me is only relevant if my goal is to be the best at "hitting other people with blunt sword-like objects 2016", which is at some points my goal, but when I'm in a class learning about one specific system, then my goal is to expand my knowledge of that system. "This technique is too hard for my particular physiology so I just won't bother understanding it" does not help that goal. And finally, bear in mind that you'll be hard pressed to come up with a working technique that isn't found in some historical text, somewhere. The leg voiding you talked about in your video is shown in lots and lots of manuals
I don't think so. Most people join HEMA clubs to "learn how to swordfight" and gain appreciation for the academic side of things later, if at all. The thing is, adhering to source material is about learning stuff that you know works for sure, because, if you're a beginner, you might do stuff that you feel is right, but isn't, at that may muddle your understanding of fundamentals and help you acquire bad habits. The whole "HEMA relies too much on manuscripts" thing is news to me. Certain instructors do (e.g. Ilkka Hartikainen, who seems to be focused more on learning Bolognese fencing and keeping it strictly Bolognese in style), but others constantly teach dirty tricks and show their own approaches to certain techniques when they teach.
Ranziel1 None of this contradicts anything I said except your very first statement. To that, I would reply that there is a difference between the goals of people getting into HEMA, and the goals of HEMA practitioners.
Just watched this for the first time, and I agree with your philosophy. If it works use it, if it doesn't get rid of it. We in the English method use that philosophy, we take all English arts from modern boxing right back to Silver and further back. and we take what is useful from all those English systems and disregard what wouldn't work, like all Maisters would have from as far back as you can remember. These modern Hema re enactors who think they are teaching pure arts couldn't be further from the truth, the warriors of old travelled and picked up many other martial techniques and philosophy's which added to the arts they fought with and taught. Whenever someone tells you they teach just German, Spanish, French Hema, they are living in cloud cuckoo land. the same goes for us English MA practitioners.
Believe it or not, the leg void you do IS in the historical treatises. The Bolognese system mentions it with a thrust as a counter to attacks to the lead leg
I have to disagree. While you could possibly reach a point where the treatises limit your progression as a swordsman, there are very few of us out there that have gotten to that point. No one I've ever spoken to or corresponded with has said they've plumbed the depths of everything out there. In the German and Italian schools of fencing, there are several hundred years worth of treatise and material. In the German school especially, most later treatises build on the work of earlier ones, adding new interpretations and further refining the style. For my part, the more I learn, the more I see similarities across styles, both Western and Eastern. There are really only so many ways to effectively wound someone while keeping yourself safe with a longsword. It's possible to be largely self taught and fight well with a longsword, I'm not denying that. I've been fighting in the SCA off and on for 20 years and have only just started in a formal HEMA class. Recently I won an open nylon longsword tournament, using mostly what I learned by trial and error in the SCA. Was I doing HEMA? Only in that the stances I learned and copied from other self taught SCA fighters look like some longsword guards. I certainly didn't end anyone rightly. BTW, your leg defense is seen in Mair and in later backsword treatises. So while you may think it's a whatever works move, it's still HEMA. I
2:10 - This is where it goes wrong. HEMA has the word Historical in it for a reason. It really is about historical European martial arts, and not about about being the best swordsman you can be.
a good swordsman emphasizes tradition, knows techniques inside and out, and idolizes the heroes of the past. the best swordsmen know those heroes are dead
RE: Moving your feet backward. I do believe I've seen that in a treatise somewhere, actually, and I've also used the move myself several times. I have, however, found it to have one significant disadvantage: When stepping back like that, you are momentarily out of balance, and if you do not hit with your counter, a good fighter will be able to capitalize on that. Admittedly, I can't remember having had the problem when doing swordplay. I believe I first discovered the weakness after taking up FMA, and going up against someone who fought aggressively and liked to get up close.
Thanks for this. I always recognized that the historical manuals are starting points. Not definitive conclusions. They are like a soldier's basic training. Good to get started but survival will depend on building those skills. So far I have not seen the attitude you discuss but when I do I intend to ignore it.
I think I'm largely in agreement with you here. HEMA being strictly historical is fine, since it's (arguably) the study and preservation of historical techniques. Which of course means there is no room for improvement, since that wouldn't be historical. Anybody who says "No, you shouldn't do something better or different" in general is being overly conservative, but saying "No, you shouldn't do something new and revolutionary in HEMA" is perfectly understandable. If you're repairing antique clocks, you don't swap out the movements for modern ones, but that doesn't mean you can't also make new clocks. There's a time and place for everything. tl;dr HEMA wont make you the best, most efficient, pinnacle of swordsmanship, but that's mostly because it's not really meant to.
We're not saying this mindset is exclusive to HEMA, nor that it's wholly embraced by practitioners. But it is a widespread belief that HEMA should be purely about learning the historical techniques, a form of preservation of history, while others believe that HEMA, being a martial art, it should be adapted and improved to give maximum survivability and practicality. Both groups exist, as well as those of us who walk the line between them. And Shad never claimed to expertise in this video - in fact, he said that there are no HEMA clubs near him to learn from, or he would jump at the chance. But from what he has learned, doing that stepping-back technique is improper. His point is, he doesn't care. He'll do what's most advantageous to him. If every manual contradicted him, he'd do it anyway unless the manuals gave a specific reason why the "proper way" is advantageous. That wasn't him not doing research, but illustrating a point. And illustrations generally are not intended to stand up to close scrutiny.
I honestly don't think we could do anything new in HEMA that would be effective. It was life or death back then so I guarantee, if it works, someone thought of it already. What you might think is new and revolutionary, could just be stupid, but you don't have an opponent experienced enough to exploit it, and thus you think it's brilliant. It could also already be a historic technique.
+Lord Benjamin Salt Then HEMA, like most martial arts, misses the point. There is a reason that UFC is taking the world by storm and MMA is displacing traditional martial arts. If HEMA is just as unwilling to adapt, it too will be swept under the rug for a more interesting and effective style. I'm sorry, but in competition, people don't want to see the very best our limited and flawed historical understandings had, they want to see the very best that we can currently offer.
I think your fighting style is a very unorthodox similar to my soon to be one. This is why I use you as a really good reference point for my own sword and unarmed fighting style. Thx Shad!
I 100% agree, there's too much focus on the historical part. What mainly bugs me is that they frown upon the more physical part of combat. Like kicking someone in the gonads or headbutting someone in a bind, stamping on someones foot just as you swing, that sort of stuff. A lot of HEMA is just pretend fencing which i think is a shame.
But there's none of that... like, at all. If something works, nobody is going to discourage you. If you're doing something that you think works, but actually doesn't, a good instructor will show you why. Medieval treatises are full of dirty tricks. Fucking Fiore used to put poison powder into a head of his specially designed poleaxe. I really don't get where this discussion has appeared from. When HEMA instructors tell you how to do stuff and correcting you when you do it differently, they're just trying to keep some perspective. In the end you can fence by doing a handstand while having a sword taped to your left heel, but most of the time your crazy off the wall move you thought up in an infternoon and practiced against thin air for 5 minutes isn't going to work.
I just think Shad hates routine. For his benefit, the training would have to be very mixed up yet go through all the required moves and motions many times. A different ordering than for most people. So, for that, you wouldn't punch a bag 1000 times, instead you would create a big set of what is essentially kata. Not practice one kata 1000 times, but go through many in series, then repeat. These exercises would obviously have some overlap. Maybe not hit air, but actual targets. Later could be expanded to have this being hit a blocking person. (switching it up so he is a blocking person in different positions) This puts a higher strain on the teacher who has to monitor it, but it gets easier with modern recording equipment to spot and correct repeated errors. Preferably also correct them immediately. The final step requires people who have reasonable training. In my personal practice at 3 other skills (which aren't martial arts - I practiced kinetics of combat but not an integrated art per se), the rule is, you add something new or change it, you get to practice the original and the new both. Then *after* you really know both, you can discuss their merits.
Please, find me any martial art tournament scene where groin attacks and knee stomps are valid moves. Should we allow eye gouging and hidden knives too?
well... that technique where you pull your leg is actually described a lot in bolognese style martial arts. everybody from manciolino to dall'agocchie describe that
so if we practice HEMA but are open to adaptations are we not allowed to call what we do HEMA anymore? Bullshit. Some clubs take the conservative approach and go strictly after the books, some clubs are open to slight adaptations. It's still all HEMA.
I agree with you. The main problem keeping me out of HEMA is my interest in Halberds. Polearms are not as popular for reasons such as the fact that they are pretty scary and dangerous to spar with, and so on. Another, bigger problem is that there are really no treatises on them, and if you do find them, they aren't covered in as much detail and lack variety. Yes, there's Meyer and a couple others, but they only show us how to fight other polearms most of the time and are limited on the use of them. I feel that there isn't enough to go on in HEMA for Halberds. Most of it would have to be mixed and so on in order to accommodate for the lacking variety of uses and methods of dealing with other types of weapons. That's just my take.
A friend of mine was an experienced tennis player. On the other hand, I had never played tennis. One nice summer day he took me to a public tennis court so we could play. It was the last time we ever played together. Why? Because I did everything the wrong way...and beat him every game! What he had not counted on was that I grew up playing table tennis and played paddle ball in college. I did not play tennis the way he did. I chocked up on the racket (You don't hold a tennis racket that way!) and used side and top spins on the ball mercilessly. I did what worked. I've found that philosophy to work in many activities I've enjoyed, one of them was fencing in college so I find your videos particularly interesting . Thanks for the good work. Be well.
Two points: 1. People that trained with swords in history.... trained this because they have to use this sword!^^ And if you know, that you have to use it, I think you train a lot harder! So we have a group of people today, from all living aspects and a group of people from history, and they are probably soldiers or in a miltia(in a town etc). If we compare thouse two groups, I think, that the group from history will fucking kill the group from today. Can you follow? ( I don't know how understandable my english is) 2. I have a problem with the argument: " If it works it is better" Normaly it is good. But swords are normally sharp. So if you don't fight with sharp swords, you can't know if it works better. If something works better, than you know that this work better with blunt swords. You can't produce things like a "sword bite in a sword" with blunt swords. With blunt swords you can make 100 completely new techniques "that work" , wich don't work with sharp swords. The Question is: What is Swordfighting? Is it with any thing that looks like a sowrd, or is it just with sharp swords?
Trenin Bayless No, not at all. It's thin but still round. I wonder how hard you go in a fight, that this blade can produce "a bit" bite^^ At least no compare to a sharp one. ;)
He wasn't saying he created it, he was using it as an example for his style that he discovered on his own. I don't know much about HEMA, however I still think he has a point here as he mentions that there are sword placements that are lower.
The main problem of HEMA is that it's wants to be all: 1. Historical research 2. Realistic sword fighting 3. A competitive sport These three things are mutually exclusive (put most practitioners will refuse to admit this).
Nothing contradictory about those things at all. They break down to: 1. How did people in the past fight. 2. Practising those techniques. 3. Safety considerations for competition. Some people will be interested in all three, others in one or two of them.
Well most times when things want to become competitive sports they have to dumb down the realistic/historical part. Just look at Taekwondo, traditional taekwondo is amazing and beautifull but the taekwondo at the olympics is bland and basically useless.
First off, Great video. If you don't mind I'd like to make a suggestion for your low line evasions. Instead of bringing both legs together, pass the forward leg back behind your rear leg without straightening your knees. If you need more distance then take a half step with your rear leg before passing back. This will allow you to remain in balance and be able to move after the action. bringing your feet together will and standing up will leave you vulnerable to a remise and prevent you from following up with an attack as quickly.
You don't, you sort of can, with a Shidlehau, basically a long sword, being about 1.5 meters long, allows you to move your lower body back and perform a cut from above your head to below. It can have quite a lot of power, but is generally only useful if some idiot tries to go for your legs.
I think hopping back doesn't make sense. However, we can throw a cut while passing back (I mean, we place the front foot behind the rear foot, as in walking backwards). Thus we also rotate the hip in the strike. Do you do anything similar in Kenjutsu or what's your art?
James Mccloskey and aleksandar ristic just posted some images: p2.la-img.com/1061/22666/7931521_1_l.jpg art.famsf.org/sites/default/files/artwork/rowlandson/4159201101740056.jpg From my small experience I can say it is very effective. Btw. why should you strike "powerfully"? In most cases it is bad idea. Better just lightly cut his wrist so he will drop his sword then kill him or just get point and win fight :D
Absolutely love Shad and his content! I have the distinct impression that if he ever got into a serious swordfight, he'd keep interrupting his opponent to give advice. "No no, if you're going to cleave someone in twain, you *must* keep edge alignment correct! Now sew me up and let's try again..."
I agree that there is a limitation in HEMA, but at the same time if you do your own thing you are not doing HEMA. Its quite simple like that. A HEMA club shouldn't discard stuff that doesn't work for them, and teach their own style.. because that is not HEMA. For that you have to find another club, like say SCA. To explain it differently.. if i go to learn Karate i am expecting them to teach me Karate and not Hapkido. And when i want to learn MMA then i am joining an MMA club and not a Karate Club.
And BTW, what you are criticising about HEMA could apply to any formalised fighting system. There is a way to punch in boxing, and a way to throw in judo. And what "works for you" as a beginner is irrelevant. So all in all, I am afraid that your criticism, while raising some valid points, is tainted by the fact that you likely haven't evolved beyond noob level in any combat form. Where I agree with you, though, is that the interpretation of renaissance era texts can hardly be sold as "the right" method, because it is unproven. Unlike boxing punches and judo throws, which would leave no beginner with the illusion that some improvised technique "works for them".
Um... it may have been proven. Quite well and quite thoroughly, multiple times, over a number of years. The designer, if a warrior, survived with those techniques. However, one must fight. This is a reason for my support of, and involvement in, SCA. You can fight any style against everything from maulers/brawlers to serious martial students/teachers, to folks re-creating and rebuilding, to sports folk (kendo, fencing, etc). You can test your skill and polish and improve it against many types approaches. Ito Ittosai, Musashi Miyamoto, the Demon Tetsu, Yagyu Munenori, etc all said "Fight to learn and learn to fight".
True for an experienced practitioner of a martial arts, but for a beginner I don't fully agree that she should start trying to find individual ways of doing things going against whatever the art includes. Why? Simply because when you are a beginner you can't really tell what is going to be effective down the line. Something that might feel extremely awkward to you might be a core move of the entire fighting system and sometimes you just need to train your body to do what feels weird. Compare it to something like Fly fishing (something I know, there are other similar activities like golf). A beginner grabbing a fly rod and doing what feels natural to them will fail spectacularly. You actively have to train to make your body accept what initially feels strange and wrong. And even when you get to the stage where you don't fail but still aren't very good you need to make sure you do things exactly right since if you have a "casting defect" and keep doing it you will develop muscle memory which will hinder you down the line. Sure, once you are really good you can tweak things to play into your individual strengths, but for a beginner there is a lot of point in doing things in the exact, repetitive manner many many times to develop muscle memory. Fighting, more than anything relies on training yourself to the point where you react instinctively without thinking since you simply don't have time. If something feels weird and awkward that's generally a sign you need to train that very technique more, to the point where it's a natural part of your movement pattern. I spent the first part of my MA "career" in traditional Asian arts (Judo, Karate, Tae Kwon Do) and the other part in MMA, and I found Kata-like patterns to be an effective tool for training novices in MMA as well. So yea, it's generally a bad idea to limit a sport out of tradition, a common fault in many traditional MA's, but there are certainly non-traditional uses in repetitive training with focus on precision and detail.
Hi Shad, I have subscribed and love your content. I have seen you sword fight and with all due respect, you have some way to go before I would call you an accomplished sword fighter. No disrespect intended. A great martial artist will master all the forms and techniques exactly as his teacher has shown them. With practice, even the most awkward technique can be mastered to the point it becomes 2nd nature. Later, when the student has become master of the particular "Style" then and only then, is he/she truly qualified to change and add new or amended techniques, to add his/her personal expertise. I seriously doubt that a modern sword fighter using a Historical Sword could come up with something that has not already been tried and tested as it counts hundreds of years ago, there is only so much one can do with a particular sword after all. Humans have been killing each other for a very, very long time and have become exceptionally good at it. I would not discount a strict HEMA instructor too quickly, not a good one anyway. Learn their way, master it and then adapt it to suit you. I have instructed martial arts for years and never have I told off a talented student for amending or changing a particular way of doing things when it works for them. When a newcomer with little skill and experience comes in and tells me his way is better, I encourage it and proceed to prove them wrong, the hard way ( for them) so the lesson sticks. Stay with the tried and tested until you have nothing more to learn, then create your own style and do what works for you. You will find that in essence it will be almost identical to what you were originally taught ( or someone else is teaching ) with only slight variations in stance, posture, guard etc.....When practicing a move or technique the instructor will insist you stick to the correct forms so you learn it properly, when using that same technique you learned in a match or life and death combat, the strict forms will give way to whatever is expedient. But always return to the true form when training. Even my childhood hero, Bruce Lee could never have created his particular ( awesome ) style without first mastering several others.
I just started going to a local HEMA club. And the trainer, rather young fella said: 'There is no one way to do swordfighting. Some of you may like to have more aggressive style, some of you may prefer the defensive, mobile, or whatever works for you. But what we all need to know are fundamentals'. So the guy was introducing to fundamentals, but he also told that, there is no one way to do it, and that swordsfighting is more personalised... and I feel that in history, people would be just like now. Some are very strict on the techniques and styles. And some, who think that the best swordfighter is the one that has a more personalized style, that resonates with the fighter. I guess a good fighter is the one, that takes what works for him, and discards what does not. Mind-opening thoughts, Shad. Great show!✨
That pulling-the-leg-back-while-striking-above -maneuver you are describing as something you made up, and that you say you have never seen in historical sources. Well, the reason you haven't seen it is, obviously, that you haven't got the slightest clue what sort of historical sources for swordsmanship there are, and what manner of material they include. Because it's there. Slipping the leg while striking above can be found in _nearly every_ historical european fencing source there is. It is prominently featured in, e.g., Fiore de'i Liberi's work (pictured very clearly here: wiktenauer.com/images/3/34/Pisani-Dossi_MS_20b-a.png), in the Liechtenauer tradition (the Hauptstucke of Überlaufen), in Bolognese sidesword fencing, in backsword, in military saber, etc. etc. So, you know, before criticizing something it might be worthwhile to familiarize yourself with the subject at least on a surface level. Lest you come across as an utter moron.
Thank you Shad. I have rarely send a message to you, but I really love this. I am so glad to see this, because I am a man who has trained in many martial arts, in which in I was always curious of how I should approach Martial Arts. You see, I did not like watching Bruce Lee when I was younger, but I did not understand philosophy as well. The more I trained, the more I wanted to combine different styles, and to adapt. I started to do this, not realizing this philosophy was already out there, and the more I realized this, I absolutely was blown away/supremely humbled by Bruce Lee's thoughts. Honestly, this type of thought can be applied to so many things, truly only the individual takes the time, and patience to learn, and than expand the mind, the body, and the spirit fluidly. Now I am picking up knife and sword techniques! Anyways, love your content, love the channel, and I can not wait to see more my man. Have a good day.
5:19 funnily enough, I actually had the same observations. While Katas do help you get familiarized with the body's movement, and train your muscle memory quite well, they really are just a waste of time for the most part. Also the point about the belt system, yeah, I totally agree with. When I was a brown belt for Tae Kwon Do, which I practiced for three years, in the Master Yoo's Martial Arts club in Summit, NJ, when we had sparring classes, most of the black belts I faced weren't very skilled. There was one guy who I destroyed 10/11. The first fight we had went more or less as a draw. I was trying to maintain distance because he was at least two feet taller than me, and my strikes weren't very powerful at the time. But the other 10 fights we had, all ended up as slams for me. Each of those ten times, I destroyed him. In one of them, I scored four kicks to the area around his shoulder blade within 8 seconds. I was able to block his side kicks with my arm guard no problem, and several times, i kicked him so hard he collapsed on the mat like a hay sack. And there were others whom I destroyed, as well. After 3 years of Tae Kwon Do, I switched to Karate, but abandoned it before 9th grade, because of Covid. There, we also spent a ridiculous amount of time on Katas, when instead we should have practiced actual self defense. There, sparring was even LESS common than in Tae Kwon Do. So yeah
@@dominic6634 i did wrestling for 2 months as my winter season athletics for after school. There, all of the other wrestlers were more experienced, most were taller, heavier and much stronger. But i still put a few on their backs a few times.
I'm sorry but you're kind of wrong, HEMA doesn't look down on "modern techniques" (depending on what you want to achieve with your hema) we fully know that the treatise aren't complete. We learn the techniques in the treatise however we also focus on main principles and if your self taught technique follows that principles or "works" as you call it, it is generally correct. And I personally believe that it would be very very very hard to be as good as the historical fighters since they do it a lot more and a from a very young age. In Meyers time guild members were so controlled they could deliver their opponent (a fellow guild brother) a small bleeding headwound during a fight without injuring him (which was the goal in guilds)
we should also note that techniques that might work in a tournament or in sparring might not be so viable in real life. your example technique is also something to counter a bad action by your opponent leaving your head so vulnerable just to go for the legs is stupid. Which is why it 's not in the treatise
8:34 Shad Stance evaluation (from a noob). The first impression of the stance is that Shad has overextended a sword thrust, and so the validity could be called into question. However, if we are speaking in game terms, Shad has reduced his hitbox by almost two thirds and while he might not draw as much power as someone with a centered stance, he appears to be striking the lower part of his opponents sword. This is important as a pivot produces the most force at the end, so essentially Shad is stun locking his opponent. Therefore the opponent would be inclined to move closer to deal damage, which is advantageous to Shad as his opponent is drawn into his sword range. Yet this could be a disadvantage as if they draw close, Shad's head could be targeted. But this stance has a solution to that as well, Shad would just have to pivot his right foot back behind his left and he has protected his legs again. In addition if any heavy chops or shoulder bashes (likely with a shield) were to made he could pivot out of the way in case of a chop or in a braced position for the bash. However this stance has some major flaws. A. Shad would be vulnerable to concussive blows as his head is exposed forward. B. disarming techniques would be more effective as he would not have the stance to resist it. C. A sword breaker, either one, would likely be able to make him stumble or yield. D. Heavy blows would over power him. E. Reaction speed, if he is slow in withdrawing his stance he can be struck and is left open. F. Terrain, the less tension the harder it is for him to move and or pivot and when he does, it might be slower or with more hesitance. G. Long weapons like spears. H. Concise Spear strikes towards his chest and head with minimum spread would likely hit him. And the one Shad won't be able to argue against, a body bash from a kite shield, such a body bash would cause him to fall, if it was down diagonally, Shad might be able to resist a frontal body bash from a Kite shield to an extent, with this stance. So in conclusion, this is a stance that can be used against swordsmen who hesitate to use wide heavy blows, but less flexible against longer weapons. However, Shad is most likely aware of this and as Obi wan said, "Only Siths deal in absolutes Aniken!" And Shad is not a sith... or is he? Hope Shad sees this, as he likes informing people about errors or gaps in knowledge especially when it is on a subject he is familiar with. Love your Videos, although my historical comments are usually sidelined ☹.
Hello! Hopefully, I'm not too late for you to read this comment. :) First off, I want to say that your conversation with Dave has been a wonderful and unexpected example of gentlemanly values, for which I both thank and laud you. Secondly, I want to touch on some points you've mentioned as an explanation. Firstly, the "if it works, it works" mindset and why so many HEMAists resent it. Personally, I agree, but in a way that is quite different from yours. I've been an HEMAist for 8 years, and an instructor for 3, and here are the main two reasons I dislike this mindset: a.) it makes you skip steps. Some things work well for beginners against beginners, but should absolutely not be taught because either they are too easily countered or will result in long-term injuries. Also, such solutions often end up bein over-used by the student and hinder their progress. A nice example of this would be going into langort when defending. It works at the start, and it might even work later on, but it keeps you from developing proper defense. If it's a move that circumvents training for large short-term success but hinders long-term development, it's bad. You become the best swordsman you can be by polishing off the basics as much as you possibly can - and those aren't flashy, and they aren't special, but they are done for a reason. The other problem is that the HEMA instructor might not be experienced enough to pinpoint why exactly something is wrong - they just know it goes against how one should move with a sword, and it frustrates them knowing it's wrong but not being able to define it, thus they get angry. b.) you mention in your response to Dave that you see hema as legitimate as other martial arts. That's great, but the fact of the matter is we're not. We're only just getting there. Other arts had centuries of unbroken lines of masters passing their knowledge on, holding tournaments, exchangin info. HEMA didn't have that luxury - we had to reconstruct from (often very vaguely) written manuals - for example, I'm only the 2nd generation of HEMA in my country. You also correctly pointed out that makes us much more defensive. By saying "if it works, use it" you are oversimplifying a very complex system, and since HEMA itself isn't developed itself, the response isn't "you are technically right, but it's much more complex", but the defensive "you're not wrong, you're just an asshole." I understand you meant no disrespect, but you are a beginner in HEMA (and I don't mean that derogatively), and you saying "if it works just use it" is misinterpreted as "you're idiots for not seeing how easy this is." Anyway, thank you for a very civil discussion on the topic, and I hope this gives some insight on why folks got so defensive. Stay awesome!
Sounds like its the same as historically accurate vs historically plausible if you're doing it for historical purposes as opposed to the sheer pleasure of shearing a man in half.
Just wanted to point out, you can afford to make mistakes and learn from them, because you are not using real swords against people who really want to kill. the masters who wrote the fighting manuscripts, wrote them for people who would use them in a situation of a real fight, duels to the death, were people have sharp sword that can really cut you. maybe you should trust the manuals? these people had real experiences with real combat.
1.Not all of them. 2. Best fencers died in duels, before they even could try to write manual 3. They didn't had modern protective equipment, they couldn't try all techniques so sometimes they just learned by heart and it is not always optimal.
“On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.” Sometimes it is just matter of luck and double hits. You can't win all duels. Not in the long run.
Shad: I’m a martial artist Life: you’re too powerful we’re going to fatten you up. With delicious cooking. Shad:(transitions into hema and various sword martial arts. )Am I a fucking joke to you!
They only do 1 hit taps, that's the problem. It's becoming like modern rapier fencing. At least 3 to 5 hit combos sure strikes, to make it more interesting.
@@spartan2593 HEMA is becoming more sjw each year. The rules seem to protect the weak and pathethic frail losers. Just wear full platd armor, for christ sake! It'll allow synthetic longsword medium power strikes! God! Why do HEMA gym owners have to make people wear weak HEMA gear? I rather spar with someone in full plate armor, with a synthetic or feder. With light to medium hits. It just looks so sad and pathetic, when I see HEMA practitioners hit each other like they're just playing around. I don't mean be mean and super aggressive like a lunatic, I mean just at least show your different HEMA combo techniques. It'll make HEMA far more interesting and attractive. I grow tired of seeing 1 hit taps, I won. 1 hit taps, you win. Gosh! Ugh! Gah! 🤢🤮😎😤
I absolutely hear your points Shad, although I simply (luckily) can't confirm them with my personal experience training HEMA. When I started off, my instructors would all show us the way it's taught in the treatises and ask us to do it the way it was taught (in regards to footwork, body stance, etc). HOWEVER, they always added in the end, once we have more experience, we can adapt all of the stances and details we've learned in the ways that suit us best. They always stressed that they themselves had their own quirks and things they changed about the model techniques. All they asked was for us to do it they way it's taught in the beginning, until we have enough experience to consider our personal preferences. This open attitude was not something I found in other martial arts, especially Kendo I found to be very strict and narrow in regards to how techniques ought to be done.
Shadiversity I agree. I was just portraying an overzealous HEMA fan. Anybody who automatically claims superiority of a thing just because it's old tick me off. Being "ancient" doesn't automatically make it better
I guess it just comes down to who you trust more when it comes to sword fighting: masters from the period in which that weapon was used practically, who lived and worked as professional fighters and soldiers, and who were paid large sums in order to train the wealthy to defend themselves prior to judicial duels; or yourself, cause how hard could it be?
That move is called a slip it is in allot of fighting manuals.
8 лет назад
listning to this you sund like one of those "i May not have a phd, But i read a lot of bloggs so i think i have The right to critizise this science stuff" The dunning krueger effect
The thing I think most often gets misrepresented about "martial arts" in general is that, at it's core, it's really just a way to learn specific control of your body and build perseverance/resilience. Sure, there are specific motions and mechanics to the various types of martial arts. But it specifically imparts a level of control through disciplined practice.
I believe you have made some very good points in this video, particularly when it comes to jeet kun do. However, I am not sure I agree in certain aspects and would like some clarification if possible: 1. The phrase 'it works for me' is ok for a time but, in my opinion, it can lead to very dangerous implications. The very fact that most swordsmanship nowadays is not mutually inclusive with death or self defence, 'what works for' can often be based on shaky ground. 2. I am not sure how a modern sword instructor compares against a sword master 'back in the day'. Having battle and self defence experience changes the playing field hugely in my opinion. Someone sparring with you and someone actually trying to kill you are starkly different in my opinion; similar in some aspects, but different. It would be like comparing a guy who has done boxing sparring and a guy who has done boxing sparring and been in street fights for more than a decade. I am not saying sword instructors know nothing, far from it; I do believe, however, that modern sword masters should not and cannot be compared to a sword master from the day. They are, at the basis, worlds apart. 3. In my opinion, at the end of the day. There are only so many ways one can fight with a piece of well forged, sharp, and guarded metal. No matter who you and no matter what works 'for you', stepping away from a sword strike means that if it continues on its current course it won't hit you; this is an objective fact that applies to everyone and everything living under the laws of physics and basic existence. 4. If you try out a technique and don't like it, how do you know you are doing the technique correctly? 5. Define 'what works', as the term is very ambiguous. Does it mean 'not being hit', 'effectively not being hit'? No hate here, I would just like to hear your opinion on these matters 🙂
It's also used in Highland Broadsword fencing manuals it's called shifting the leg. I believe it is also shown in Fiore's book, not in exactly the same stance as what Shad showed but it is historical.
I beleive most treatys has that move, and i would bet that all of the one handed weapins has it. to protect your legs you most likely must turn your sword upside down and there fore parry with the weak half of your sword with a rotated wrist.
