It's not super wild, but the amount of explanation it takes to get some people to understand that HEMA is a martial art is exhausting.
Forgot to add: it's even more exhausting when once I do get them to understand that HEMA is a martial art, I have to disabuse them of the notion that I'm somehow using HEMA for self defence.
There should not be drama in the medieval community, we should just fucking enjoy swords . Thank you for being the first I've seen to have this opinion.
I once told a work colleague I was planning on starting my own Hema group someday.
He told me I was too fat and should get into MMA because nobody would take me seriously until I had an MMA record. He also ask why I, at the height of COVID, was not out looking for kendo schools or traditional fencing clubs to fight against.
At one point I mentioned I worked my way into being able to do a full sideways splits. He said he thought that had to come from a lack of muscle, because muscle and flexibility are inverse to each other. Because we all know Jean-claud Van Damme is known for his weak, scrawny thighs.
Busts through the wall of a kendo club with the plastic montante and starts doing spinny bullshit until they all beat the crap out of me with their sticks
Your work colleague is a bully with some insecurity issues of his own. I'm sorry to hear that. One of the greatest swordsmen I know was Ross Goodfellow, and (I can assure you) had the greatest footwork on the planet and was heavily built, and could easily explain the Art to, well... pretty much anyone. Here's to hoping you find the right Jedi Academy! All the best! You're the greatest!
"It's just KENDO!", summarized (circa 1998) by a martial artist whose professed experience of HEMA consisted of looking at the old HACA website and having seen (but possibly not actually read) a copy of Terry Brown's *English Martial Arts.*
The long and the short of it is Sellsword arts put out a video on YouTube saying that many of the people on social media that cover sword topics don't actually fence, and that their opinions/conclusions can be skewed by popular culture and fantasy. He said that to have a real appreciation for how swords were used, you actually need to fence. Shad being the sensitive little chap that he is, assumed that was an attack against him specifically and by extension sword culture in general. He posted an hour+ long video. Sellsword replied with a short video claiming he was misunderstood. Shad then whined for another 3/4 hours about being but hurt.
I don't know exactly what Shad said since I can't stand him for more than 30s at a time, but he's definitely looking for drama where there is none for clicks or to satisfy his narcissistic nerd rage.
Shad was also cutting together clips of sellsword with our of context quotes to "prove" that Sellsword wasn't a real fencer or some shit, it was disingenuous nonsense
Sellsword Arts made a video about not taking armchair historians as completely valid. Shad felt attacked by this and made a response video distorting what Sellsword said and it snowballed from there to the point where Shad's fans attacked Sellsword in the comments, which is exactly what you'd expect from a guy like Shad.
Yeah he has a second channel, where he and his buddies commentate about popular media and other shit. Its loaded with cringey right-wing, manosphere, anti-social justice, crap. It's why many actual HEMAists like Matt Easton broke off any sort of collaboration or interaction with Shad.
Even without all the toxic rhetoric, who really wants to hear some nerd rant for 90mins about a 30min show he didn't like.
Hey! I happen to LOVE listening to nerds on YouTube explain in detail and for longer than the runtime of a feature film why they didn’t like something.
But, ya know, without the aforementioned toxic bigot shit.
>who really wants to hear some nerd rant for 90mins about a 30min show he didn't like.
Not going to defend Shad, but isnt this like... half of the non-porn-internet? Isnt that the reason reddit and 4chan were founded back then?
YouTube lets you have multiple channels as a creator, and you can sort of link them together. Shad has a second channel that' one of those pop culture review channels where, evidently, he likes to post a lot of bigoted rants.
Tl;dr is David put out a video basically saying know the context of who and what you're watching, and to maybe not use people who don't actually fence as a reference about how swords actually work. Despite not calling out anyone in the video, Shad took offense and replied to the 10 min video with an hour long response taking David super out of context and totally misrepresenting the video.
Shad's response video also seemed *weirdly* obsessed with the part where Sellsword didn't like double ended swords, despite that not being part of the original video in question.
I particularly enjoyed him doing that as a 'see, we do steel in gear too and have the martial background to be trustworthy' and the results of their sparring just proving David's point.
Again, it doesn't matter if Shad took it as being targeted at him. He was stupid enough to assume it was when it clearly wasn't.
Even if it was specifically targeted at Shad without naming him, if he was smart, he would just ignore it, stating that he clearly doesn't fot the criteria.
That there's some kind of inner drive that surpasses all skill and physical ability. I blame anime and/or people wanting to be a viking berserker.
Other than that, the idea that people pick a weapon and create a persona (eg I'm the dane axe guy, or I'm the rapier guy) and they just randomly fight other people who have independently chosen their weapon/persona. Have had a few people get confused when I explain that you usually all learn the same weapons together in a given class and you're not playing a character. Understandable since a lot of people have some passing familiarity with sca, larping, or reenactment.
That being said, I love me some mixed weapons sparring.
Lol that reminds me of the "I'll go all out, just this once" anime trope, like if you haven't ever been challenged, that means you've never needed to learn or improve from day one, and you might as well have never practised at all!
There's definitely some kind of media spurred thing with "I'm the x guy" and a want for uniqueness or specialness, and I suppose you see people looking for it in other areas eg. a professional's boxing style or a football style that stands different from the norm, except in reality that was someone with insane genetics and training, who learned the same path but at some point developed a way that works for them.
If you are the only guy who has the three glaive spinny halberd stapled together in the world, who is going to teach you to use it effectively?
>If you are the only guy who has the three glaive spinny halberd stapled together in the world, who is going to teach you to use it effectively?
Simple, you meditate on it and channel your inner warrior.
The more I thought about this, the more I realise that it actually pretty deeply targets the main issue with media tropes.
Martial arts are about the people, you need to learn from people, train with people, and help elevate other's skill so that your may be elevated, as well as eventually learning to teach/coach others but fantasy tropes never really use this, maybe the writers don't like the fact that if their character learned from someone, that there is someone out there more knowledgeable and arguably better, maybe it is a character streamlining process, I probably don't really know enough to really understand the why, but it produces some cringe lol.
I agree with your points but I want to make a caveat for people with a particular focus on one weapon or weapon set. I think saying "I'm the saber guy" is a bit silly maybe, but "I'm primarily a saberist" is a generally fine statement. it's ok to specialize, and it's even ok to specialize in something unique or weird if that's what you like.
That's kind of what I meant by everyone learning the same weapon in a class. You don't take your saber to a longsword or wrestling class just because it's your chosen weapon.
When I started out, there was a guy who came to my classes who did "Touch only, lightsaber combat" where they used really light boffers.
Spent all his time saying how his fictional weapon was so much lighter and more practical. Ran away after he got tagged. He then tried claiming against the instructor when the day after a sparring session he had a bruise.
There's a saying that Karl from InRangeTV (guns, not swords, but this principle still applies) likes to use: You don't rise to the occasion, you sink to the level of your training.
Not to discredit your point about "chosen weapons" but I highly recommend doing a bit of mixed weapon sparring. It's always a blast and a real learning experience figuring out how to play your weapons game against another's. Longsword vs Dane axe is one of my favorite matches!
There is a real cultural concept in Japan called 'ganbaru' which is basically this. You Gotta Have Wa and The Way of the Runner are two books by Westerners which both address the concept within sports. I am not a huge follower of JSA but I wouldn't be surprised if there was crossover (I seem to remember Lowry's stuff being full of it).
My favorite specific example comes from one of the best HEMA practitioners, scholars, & authors out there: Tom Leoni. On a forum many years ago, Leoni insisted that he couldn't say whether the dagger or the halberd would have the advantage for an unarmored lethal duel between two highly skilled fencers. He indicated that it'd be a coin toss.
I've likewise encountered this agnostic approach to weapon difference on here. I respect the skepticism involved & the emphasis it places on skill, but I nonetheless consider the view erroneous when comes to significant disparities. In practice, I suspect choosing dagger over halberd could get a person killed.
I've likewise repeatedly come across all the common myths over the years, such that medieval European martial arts amounted to crude bashing or that medieval swords were absurdly heavy. Thankfully, those two appear to have mostly faded.
I'm most interested in how some of the narratives come full circle. For instance, over the last couple decades, many of us have attempted to challenge pop culture's valorization of swords by noting how they usually weren't primary military weapons. We've also stressed how swords typically couldn't cut through armor. In the process, a new story emerged: that plate armor made swords nearly useless & that soldiers turned to impact weapons like maces. [Dequitem](https://youtu.be/JY0E7CCslQc?si=X-oYQU1AzJshl5Dn)'s recent claims about how maces "suck" & how the longsword & greatsword are the best options for a duel in full plate harness serve as a useful counter to the above narrative. I believe Dequitem goes too far in praising swords for armored fighting, but I'm optimistic the tensions will move us all closer to a more accurate understanding.
A misconception we've thankfully move through was ARMA's notion that one should never (or at least rarely) parry with the edge of a sword. As someone who started out with George Silver's system as taught by Stephen Hand, I was lucky enough to avoid that one. Trying to fence Silver's "short sword" without edge parries would be a mess.
I really appreciated Dequitems input, but I wonder how much modern equipment played into his stance. For instance, he talks about the powerful blows he can give with a longsword. Would they have been as comfortable making those strikes against armour with the swords they had available to them at the time? I know he specially talked about duelling, but the damage to the edge, let alone the chance of a sword breaking, seems pretty substantial.
>For instance, he talks about the powerful blows he can give with a longsword.
Why he does talk about using some strikes with the blade of the longsword in [this video](https://youtu.be/gk1dpe3ey00?si=AM1gJjzdn_L5DZR6), he notes that thrusting is more effective & that one should use strikes primarily to set up a thrusts. It's true that the average 15th/16th-century sharp ordinary longsword used by a duelist in full harness would be more likely to break in a strike against plate than the blunt modern blades Dequitem & company wield. I don't see that a major part of his technique, but I do wonder about how easy it'd be to halfsword & perform murder-strokes with a fully sharpened ordinary longsword. Many (though not all) sources for murder-strokes involve specialized armored-dueling longsword or at least longswords that could be specialized dueling longswords. Fiore de'i Liberi & Philippo Vadi both described specialized longswords for fighting in armor that were only sharpened near the tip. Having a mostly blunt blade makes halfswording, murder-strokes, & other techniques that require gripping the blade more convenient. It also means you can strike with most of the edge against plate with less fear of damage because it's not sharp, though this isn't a big deal as period sources almost never say to do this.
The existence of such specialized longswords for fighting in armor indicates that various period folks at least believed ordinary longswords suboptimal for the purpose. & the fact that specialized longsword resembled pollaxes suggests they considered the pollaxe superior to the longsword.
I don't know that they had a name. [Fiore de'i Liberi](https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Fiore_de%27i_Liberi) wrote:
>This sword can be used as a sword or a poleaxe, and should not be sharpened from the guard down to one hand’s-width from the point. The point should be sharp and the sharp edge should be about a hand’s-width in length. The roundel below the hilt should be able to slide down the blade to a hand’s-width from the point and no further. The hilt needs to be strongly made with a heavy pommel with well-tempered spikes. The spikes should be well-tempered and sharp. The front of the sword should be as heavy as the back, and the weight should be from three and a half to five and a half pounds, depending on how big and strong the man is and how he chooses to be armed.
[Philippo di Vadi](https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Philippo_di_Vadi) called it the "sword for fighting in armour." [Joachim Meyer](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yn14eCU7EfRb1EZLZIm8PDwt5i29k25n/view) called it an "advantageous, artificial" sword & described it as follows:
>a sword which should be thus: above the pommel it should have four tacks next to the fifth at the top. They shouldn’t be long, rather short, so that it can cause harm in an emergency. Ittem the cross should be like a mason’s hammer, the point and blade angular and that should all be cast from solid iron and the point should be steeled. It should also be made finely supple so that one may fully choose the length at his pleasure
Mike from hard2hurt, an MMA and self defense channel which is generally very above-board and mostly has good advice, once said he thinks an average MMA guy with no HEMA experience would easily beat an average HEMA guy if you gave each of them a sword and buckler. which, uh, obviously not? obviously if you haven't practiced with something, someone who has is going to easily beat you, perceptions about general athleticism aside? it made me stop watching his channel for a while because it was so dumb lol. I still don't really go back often unless I have specific topics to watch for.
Notably, Sensei Seth tried HEMA longsword & didn't exactly dominate. He did well but still got hit a fair amount. Mike was just talking trash with that claim. It's akin to Joseph Swetnam writing that the short sword & dagger are of little more use than a tobacco pipe against the long rapier & dagger.
The thing he said that was probably true is that a HEMA fighter wouldn't be as much of a "problem" for an MMA fighter in a fight without swords as an MMA fighter would be for a HEMA fighter with them. Unfortunately he then extrapolates from this that MMA fighters are better overall. What he's missing is why what he said is true; it's not a difference in training, but in weapons. Weapons make anyone, including someone with no training into a potential "problem." It's hard to inflict serious damage on an opponent with your bare hands unless you've had some training, but it's difficult to *avoid* damage from someone with a (sharp) sword unless you're pretty well trained.
this is a really good point, I don't really have anything to add but I felt like I wanted to give you more than just one (1) meaningless internet point
That is probably true though lmao, people always want to brush off athleticism but unless your as fit as the top fencers in Poland, you’ll prolly lose to anyone who actually trains MMA. Even if the skills are different and athleticism is the same, most MMA practitioners still have a different mentality that is more aggressive and centered around taking risk that alot of HEMA I’ve met so far. This seems like it’s starting to change tho
being more aggressive and relying on strength might get you some doubles, but ultimately, someone who knows how to actually defend themselves with the weapons is going to be better off. you can't be as aggressive in a sword fight as you can in a fist fight, so being aggressive is a bad strategy to begin with, compound the fact that the MMA fighter literally doesn't know what they're doing.
I will never understand this line of thinking. of course someone who does practice something will be better at it than someone who doesn't practice that thing and never has, what kind of gymnastics do you have to do to think the opposite? most serious HEMA fighters are just as athletic as most serious MMA fighters anyway, but even if that weren't the case and MMA fighters had some magical physical advantage, they'd still lose because they don't know what a parry is.
One of my HEMA students is a pro MMA fighter with a background in BJJ and Muy Thai, not just someone who trains MMA. It took a few months to retrain some of his actions to fit using a weapon. His general cardio was slightly better than mine but he didn't have the context-specific adaptations.
This may well be true for armored fencing, given how Pietro Monte stressed the importance of strength when fighting in full harness, but I don't see it for unarmored sword & buckler. I guess it really depends on the characteristics the average HEMA guy & average MMA guy. You find folks of all skill & fitness levels in both practices. An MMA guy with no experience in armed martial arts but good fundamentals & intuition could certainly win. I'm skeptical that would be the main outcome. I'm sure an aggressive MMA guy could force doubles a lot of the time, but that's not what you want to be doing at sword & buckler.
I haven't sparred in many years, but back in the day with Lancelot Chan's RSW simulating single-handed swords I was struck by how I held my own against physically superior sparring partners who had some experience with unarmed martial arts. None of us was very good at anything by any means, but they were definitely better at striking & grappling than I was. Most of the time, this didn't much matter with sword simulators. I could still do a wrist grab & cut after a parry. They tended to crush me in other grappling actions, but those didn't come up too often.
Someone with an MMA/other combat sport background coming into HEMA and fencing other beginners will likely have an advantage in conditioning and the mental game, but if they're too aggressive more experienced fencers will pick them apart.
One HEMA-specific misconception is the variation of "might makes right": that if someone has an interpretation that he makes work better in modern sparring, then he has a better understanding of the source. The two may work together, arguably a basis of physical ability and experience is needed to understand some aspects of the sources, but it's never as straightforward as that.
Most dangerous is the line of thinking that intentionally removing safety measures gets you closer in spirit and mechanics to a real fight. Thankfully this seems to lose ground, but the appeal of the idea is such that each generation has to come to terms with it. Of course the converse "protective gear is on therefore I strike as hard as I can" is pretty dangerous too!
In many discussion there is a need for nuance instead of black and white positions, and this is often hard to reach. The example I meet most often these days is the attitude towards the notion of 'real fights'. In the early days HEMA was all about it, then it switched and nowadays it is almost a naughty word. But that notion cannot be neglected in many treatises, and neither can you suppose 'real fights' were happening every day at every street corner. Well except in 16th century France maybe :)
> One HEMA-specific misconception is the variation of "might makes right": that if someone has an interpretation that he makes work better in modern sparring, then he has a better understanding of the source. The two may work together, arguably a basis of physical ability and experience is needed to understand some aspects of the sources, but it's never as straightforward as that.
Yeah that ignores a bunch of stuff, including cross training/other martial arts experience, the psychological impact of not fighting with sharps in modern gear, and in a tournament context people adjusting their style to try and game the meta/ruleset.
The idea that pre-16th century systems are inherently more martial/lethal/"manly" then everything that came after. The sort of people who say stuff like "Meyer isn't real sword fighting", "rapier/smallsword is for sissies", and "swords were only decoration after guns became widespread".
It's not super wild, but the amount of explanation it takes to get some people to understand that HEMA is a martial art is exhausting. Forgot to add: it's even more exhausting when once I do get them to understand that HEMA is a martial art, I have to disabuse them of the notion that I'm somehow using HEMA for self defence.
Real, people think I do longsword fencing for self defence
I never run into that issue. I just encounter people thinking I would wield Katanas (I am from Europe)
I am so ready for this stupid youtube drama to be over.
Same. It'd be nice to talk about something else, like... Swords maybe?
There should not be drama in the medieval community, we should just fucking enjoy swords . Thank you for being the first I've seen to have this opinion.
I once told a work colleague I was planning on starting my own Hema group someday. He told me I was too fat and should get into MMA because nobody would take me seriously until I had an MMA record. He also ask why I, at the height of COVID, was not out looking for kendo schools or traditional fencing clubs to fight against. At one point I mentioned I worked my way into being able to do a full sideways splits. He said he thought that had to come from a lack of muscle, because muscle and flexibility are inverse to each other. Because we all know Jean-claud Van Damme is known for his weak, scrawny thighs.
I'm sorry but the idea that you're prowling around town with a longsword challenging epee fencers is very funny
Busts through the wall of a kendo club with the plastic montante and starts doing spinny bullshit until they all beat the crap out of me with their sticks
Nah, he thought the only way to be serious about it was sharp steel. Plastic is for toys, apparently.
If you are talking about historical context, you should get as close to the real thing. But for fun and practice plastic is fine
Many kendo clubs have already got a rando stumbling in and challenging sensei to a duel so it wouldn't be completly unexpected
I'd watch this anime.
Your work colleague is a bully with some insecurity issues of his own. I'm sorry to hear that. One of the greatest swordsmen I know was Ross Goodfellow, and (I can assure you) had the greatest footwork on the planet and was heavily built, and could easily explain the Art to, well... pretty much anyone. Here's to hoping you find the right Jedi Academy! All the best! You're the greatest!
"It's just KENDO!", summarized (circa 1998) by a martial artist whose professed experience of HEMA consisted of looking at the old HACA website and having seen (but possibly not actually read) a copy of Terry Brown's *English Martial Arts.*
I haven't heard Terry's name in ages. And his favourite acolyte Frank Doherty!
Everything Shad said in 'response' to Sellsword Arts
I stopped watching Shad quite a while ago, what drama has he manufactured now?
The long and the short of it is Sellsword arts put out a video on YouTube saying that many of the people on social media that cover sword topics don't actually fence, and that their opinions/conclusions can be skewed by popular culture and fantasy. He said that to have a real appreciation for how swords were used, you actually need to fence. Shad being the sensitive little chap that he is, assumed that was an attack against him specifically and by extension sword culture in general. He posted an hour+ long video. Sellsword replied with a short video claiming he was misunderstood. Shad then whined for another 3/4 hours about being but hurt. I don't know exactly what Shad said since I can't stand him for more than 30s at a time, but he's definitely looking for drama where there is none for clicks or to satisfy his narcissistic nerd rage.
Shad was also cutting together clips of sellsword with our of context quotes to "prove" that Sellsword wasn't a real fencer or some shit, it was disingenuous nonsense
Having been trounced by David on more than one occasion I can assure the community that he is; 1. a fencer and 2. quite real.
That seems about on brand for Shad.
Sellsword Arts made a video about not taking armchair historians as completely valid. Shad felt attacked by this and made a response video distorting what Sellsword said and it snowballed from there to the point where Shad's fans attacked Sellsword in the comments, which is exactly what you'd expect from a guy like Shad.
Just to add to everyone, David’s video was like… 9 minutes and then an 8 minute follow up, each has garnered a 45+ minute response from Shad.
Lives rent free in Shad's tiny brain. Brilliant ROI tbh.
Typical Shad
Ive always hated that guy, just gave prickish vibes . Incredibly validating that I was right
but wait, there's more! on his second channel, he constantly complains about feminists, "SJWs," "wokeness," and gay people
Second channel?
Yeah he has a second channel, where he and his buddies commentate about popular media and other shit. Its loaded with cringey right-wing, manosphere, anti-social justice, crap. It's why many actual HEMAists like Matt Easton broke off any sort of collaboration or interaction with Shad. Even without all the toxic rhetoric, who really wants to hear some nerd rant for 90mins about a 30min show he didn't like.
Hot damn! That's remarkably shitty and pitiful.
Hey! I happen to LOVE listening to nerds on YouTube explain in detail and for longer than the runtime of a feature film why they didn’t like something. But, ya know, without the aforementioned toxic bigot shit.
>who really wants to hear some nerd rant for 90mins about a 30min show he didn't like. Not going to defend Shad, but isnt this like... half of the non-porn-internet? Isnt that the reason reddit and 4chan were founded back then?
We've had first channel yes, but what about second channel? fr though it's only a disappointment
YouTube lets you have multiple channels as a creator, and you can sort of link them together. Shad has a second channel that' one of those pop culture review channels where, evidently, he likes to post a lot of bigoted rants.
Tl;dr is David put out a video basically saying know the context of who and what you're watching, and to maybe not use people who don't actually fence as a reference about how swords actually work. Despite not calling out anyone in the video, Shad took offense and replied to the 10 min video with an hour long response taking David super out of context and totally misrepresenting the video.
Shad's response video also seemed *weirdly* obsessed with the part where Sellsword didn't like double ended swords, despite that not being part of the original video in question.
I particularly enjoyed him doing that as a 'see, we do steel in gear too and have the martial background to be trustworthy' and the results of their sparring just proving David's point.
Shad was taking clips out of context
[удалено]
No, Sellsword Arts released an entirely target-less video on media analysis. Shad took that as an insult and attacked Sellsword Arts.
[удалено]
I didn't think of Shad, and I've known Shad for 7 years.
[удалено]
Considering the thousands of comments confirming that thought in the comments. Its a minimum of 1000 and 1
[удалено]
Again, it doesn't matter if Shad took it as being targeted at him. He was stupid enough to assume it was when it clearly wasn't. Even if it was specifically targeted at Shad without naming him, if he was smart, he would just ignore it, stating that he clearly doesn't fot the criteria.
And really everything he says in general.
That there's some kind of inner drive that surpasses all skill and physical ability. I blame anime and/or people wanting to be a viking berserker. Other than that, the idea that people pick a weapon and create a persona (eg I'm the dane axe guy, or I'm the rapier guy) and they just randomly fight other people who have independently chosen their weapon/persona. Have had a few people get confused when I explain that you usually all learn the same weapons together in a given class and you're not playing a character. Understandable since a lot of people have some passing familiarity with sca, larping, or reenactment. That being said, I love me some mixed weapons sparring.
Lol that reminds me of the "I'll go all out, just this once" anime trope, like if you haven't ever been challenged, that means you've never needed to learn or improve from day one, and you might as well have never practised at all! There's definitely some kind of media spurred thing with "I'm the x guy" and a want for uniqueness or specialness, and I suppose you see people looking for it in other areas eg. a professional's boxing style or a football style that stands different from the norm, except in reality that was someone with insane genetics and training, who learned the same path but at some point developed a way that works for them. If you are the only guy who has the three glaive spinny halberd stapled together in the world, who is going to teach you to use it effectively?
>If you are the only guy who has the three glaive spinny halberd stapled together in the world, who is going to teach you to use it effectively? Simple, you meditate on it and channel your inner warrior.
The more I thought about this, the more I realise that it actually pretty deeply targets the main issue with media tropes. Martial arts are about the people, you need to learn from people, train with people, and help elevate other's skill so that your may be elevated, as well as eventually learning to teach/coach others but fantasy tropes never really use this, maybe the writers don't like the fact that if their character learned from someone, that there is someone out there more knowledgeable and arguably better, maybe it is a character streamlining process, I probably don't really know enough to really understand the why, but it produces some cringe lol.
Yeah, for sure! It's a ridiculous trope indeed.
I agree with your points but I want to make a caveat for people with a particular focus on one weapon or weapon set. I think saying "I'm the saber guy" is a bit silly maybe, but "I'm primarily a saberist" is a generally fine statement. it's ok to specialize, and it's even ok to specialize in something unique or weird if that's what you like.
That's kind of what I meant by everyone learning the same weapon in a class. You don't take your saber to a longsword or wrestling class just because it's your chosen weapon.
When I started out, there was a guy who came to my classes who did "Touch only, lightsaber combat" where they used really light boffers. Spent all his time saying how his fictional weapon was so much lighter and more practical. Ran away after he got tagged. He then tried claiming against the instructor when the day after a sparring session he had a bruise.
There's a saying that Karl from InRangeTV (guns, not swords, but this principle still applies) likes to use: You don't rise to the occasion, you sink to the level of your training.
Two days late but hell yeah Karl/InRange reference in the wild.
Not to discredit your point about "chosen weapons" but I highly recommend doing a bit of mixed weapon sparring. It's always a blast and a real learning experience figuring out how to play your weapons game against another's. Longsword vs Dane axe is one of my favorite matches!
>always a blast and a real learning experience Oh, I agree. Hence the last line of my comment.
There is a real cultural concept in Japan called 'ganbaru' which is basically this. You Gotta Have Wa and The Way of the Runner are two books by Westerners which both address the concept within sports. I am not a huge follower of JSA but I wouldn't be surprised if there was crossover (I seem to remember Lowry's stuff being full of it).
We're LARPers
This one gets my goat, and why I push back so hard against people like Shad who try to claim what they do is HEMA.
Better LARP than the 'real deadly longsword' fans!
You know, a katana…
Anything by Shad, quite frankly.
My favorite specific example comes from one of the best HEMA practitioners, scholars, & authors out there: Tom Leoni. On a forum many years ago, Leoni insisted that he couldn't say whether the dagger or the halberd would have the advantage for an unarmored lethal duel between two highly skilled fencers. He indicated that it'd be a coin toss. I've likewise encountered this agnostic approach to weapon difference on here. I respect the skepticism involved & the emphasis it places on skill, but I nonetheless consider the view erroneous when comes to significant disparities. In practice, I suspect choosing dagger over halberd could get a person killed. I've likewise repeatedly come across all the common myths over the years, such that medieval European martial arts amounted to crude bashing or that medieval swords were absurdly heavy. Thankfully, those two appear to have mostly faded. I'm most interested in how some of the narratives come full circle. For instance, over the last couple decades, many of us have attempted to challenge pop culture's valorization of swords by noting how they usually weren't primary military weapons. We've also stressed how swords typically couldn't cut through armor. In the process, a new story emerged: that plate armor made swords nearly useless & that soldiers turned to impact weapons like maces. [Dequitem](https://youtu.be/JY0E7CCslQc?si=X-oYQU1AzJshl5Dn)'s recent claims about how maces "suck" & how the longsword & greatsword are the best options for a duel in full plate harness serve as a useful counter to the above narrative. I believe Dequitem goes too far in praising swords for armored fighting, but I'm optimistic the tensions will move us all closer to a more accurate understanding. A misconception we've thankfully move through was ARMA's notion that one should never (or at least rarely) parry with the edge of a sword. As someone who started out with George Silver's system as taught by Stephen Hand, I was lucky enough to avoid that one. Trying to fence Silver's "short sword" without edge parries would be a mess.
Lmao a halberdier has like five chances to kill a dagger user before the dagger user gets close
I really appreciated Dequitems input, but I wonder how much modern equipment played into his stance. For instance, he talks about the powerful blows he can give with a longsword. Would they have been as comfortable making those strikes against armour with the swords they had available to them at the time? I know he specially talked about duelling, but the damage to the edge, let alone the chance of a sword breaking, seems pretty substantial.
>For instance, he talks about the powerful blows he can give with a longsword. Why he does talk about using some strikes with the blade of the longsword in [this video](https://youtu.be/gk1dpe3ey00?si=AM1gJjzdn_L5DZR6), he notes that thrusting is more effective & that one should use strikes primarily to set up a thrusts. It's true that the average 15th/16th-century sharp ordinary longsword used by a duelist in full harness would be more likely to break in a strike against plate than the blunt modern blades Dequitem & company wield. I don't see that a major part of his technique, but I do wonder about how easy it'd be to halfsword & perform murder-strokes with a fully sharpened ordinary longsword. Many (though not all) sources for murder-strokes involve specialized armored-dueling longsword or at least longswords that could be specialized dueling longswords. Fiore de'i Liberi & Philippo Vadi both described specialized longswords for fighting in armor that were only sharpened near the tip. Having a mostly blunt blade makes halfswording, murder-strokes, & other techniques that require gripping the blade more convenient. It also means you can strike with most of the edge against plate with less fear of damage because it's not sharp, though this isn't a big deal as period sources almost never say to do this. The existence of such specialized longswords for fighting in armor indicates that various period folks at least believed ordinary longswords suboptimal for the purpose. & the fact that specialized longsword resembled pollaxes suggests they considered the pollaxe superior to the longsword.
What was the name of that specialized longsword type? I've seen them on Pinterest, but never tagged or named.
I don't know that they had a name. [Fiore de'i Liberi](https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Fiore_de%27i_Liberi) wrote: >This sword can be used as a sword or a poleaxe, and should not be sharpened from the guard down to one hand’s-width from the point. The point should be sharp and the sharp edge should be about a hand’s-width in length. The roundel below the hilt should be able to slide down the blade to a hand’s-width from the point and no further. The hilt needs to be strongly made with a heavy pommel with well-tempered spikes. The spikes should be well-tempered and sharp. The front of the sword should be as heavy as the back, and the weight should be from three and a half to five and a half pounds, depending on how big and strong the man is and how he chooses to be armed. [Philippo di Vadi](https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Philippo_di_Vadi) called it the "sword for fighting in armour." [Joachim Meyer](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yn14eCU7EfRb1EZLZIm8PDwt5i29k25n/view) called it an "advantageous, artificial" sword & described it as follows: >a sword which should be thus: above the pommel it should have four tacks next to the fifth at the top. They shouldn’t be long, rather short, so that it can cause harm in an emergency. Ittem the cross should be like a mason’s hammer, the point and blade angular and that should all be cast from solid iron and the point should be steeled. It should also be made finely supple so that one may fully choose the length at his pleasure
Mike from hard2hurt, an MMA and self defense channel which is generally very above-board and mostly has good advice, once said he thinks an average MMA guy with no HEMA experience would easily beat an average HEMA guy if you gave each of them a sword and buckler. which, uh, obviously not? obviously if you haven't practiced with something, someone who has is going to easily beat you, perceptions about general athleticism aside? it made me stop watching his channel for a while because it was so dumb lol. I still don't really go back often unless I have specific topics to watch for.
Notably, Sensei Seth tried HEMA longsword & didn't exactly dominate. He did well but still got hit a fair amount. Mike was just talking trash with that claim. It's akin to Joseph Swetnam writing that the short sword & dagger are of little more use than a tobacco pipe against the long rapier & dagger.
The thing he said that was probably true is that a HEMA fighter wouldn't be as much of a "problem" for an MMA fighter in a fight without swords as an MMA fighter would be for a HEMA fighter with them. Unfortunately he then extrapolates from this that MMA fighters are better overall. What he's missing is why what he said is true; it's not a difference in training, but in weapons. Weapons make anyone, including someone with no training into a potential "problem." It's hard to inflict serious damage on an opponent with your bare hands unless you've had some training, but it's difficult to *avoid* damage from someone with a (sharp) sword unless you're pretty well trained.
this is a really good point, I don't really have anything to add but I felt like I wanted to give you more than just one (1) meaningless internet point
Awww, thanks!
>Awww, thanks! You're welcome!
That is probably true though lmao, people always want to brush off athleticism but unless your as fit as the top fencers in Poland, you’ll prolly lose to anyone who actually trains MMA. Even if the skills are different and athleticism is the same, most MMA practitioners still have a different mentality that is more aggressive and centered around taking risk that alot of HEMA I’ve met so far. This seems like it’s starting to change tho
being more aggressive and relying on strength might get you some doubles, but ultimately, someone who knows how to actually defend themselves with the weapons is going to be better off. you can't be as aggressive in a sword fight as you can in a fist fight, so being aggressive is a bad strategy to begin with, compound the fact that the MMA fighter literally doesn't know what they're doing. I will never understand this line of thinking. of course someone who does practice something will be better at it than someone who doesn't practice that thing and never has, what kind of gymnastics do you have to do to think the opposite? most serious HEMA fighters are just as athletic as most serious MMA fighters anyway, but even if that weren't the case and MMA fighters had some magical physical advantage, they'd still lose because they don't know what a parry is.
One of my HEMA students is a pro MMA fighter with a background in BJJ and Muy Thai, not just someone who trains MMA. It took a few months to retrain some of his actions to fit using a weapon. His general cardio was slightly better than mine but he didn't have the context-specific adaptations.
This may well be true for armored fencing, given how Pietro Monte stressed the importance of strength when fighting in full harness, but I don't see it for unarmored sword & buckler. I guess it really depends on the characteristics the average HEMA guy & average MMA guy. You find folks of all skill & fitness levels in both practices. An MMA guy with no experience in armed martial arts but good fundamentals & intuition could certainly win. I'm skeptical that would be the main outcome. I'm sure an aggressive MMA guy could force doubles a lot of the time, but that's not what you want to be doing at sword & buckler. I haven't sparred in many years, but back in the day with Lancelot Chan's RSW simulating single-handed swords I was struck by how I held my own against physically superior sparring partners who had some experience with unarmed martial arts. None of us was very good at anything by any means, but they were definitely better at striking & grappling than I was. Most of the time, this didn't much matter with sword simulators. I could still do a wrist grab & cut after a parry. They tended to crush me in other grappling actions, but those didn't come up too often.
Someone with an MMA/other combat sport background coming into HEMA and fencing other beginners will likely have an advantage in conditioning and the mental game, but if they're too aggressive more experienced fencers will pick them apart.
One HEMA-specific misconception is the variation of "might makes right": that if someone has an interpretation that he makes work better in modern sparring, then he has a better understanding of the source. The two may work together, arguably a basis of physical ability and experience is needed to understand some aspects of the sources, but it's never as straightforward as that. Most dangerous is the line of thinking that intentionally removing safety measures gets you closer in spirit and mechanics to a real fight. Thankfully this seems to lose ground, but the appeal of the idea is such that each generation has to come to terms with it. Of course the converse "protective gear is on therefore I strike as hard as I can" is pretty dangerous too! In many discussion there is a need for nuance instead of black and white positions, and this is often hard to reach. The example I meet most often these days is the attitude towards the notion of 'real fights'. In the early days HEMA was all about it, then it switched and nowadays it is almost a naughty word. But that notion cannot be neglected in many treatises, and neither can you suppose 'real fights' were happening every day at every street corner. Well except in 16th century France maybe :)
> One HEMA-specific misconception is the variation of "might makes right": that if someone has an interpretation that he makes work better in modern sparring, then he has a better understanding of the source. The two may work together, arguably a basis of physical ability and experience is needed to understand some aspects of the sources, but it's never as straightforward as that. Yeah that ignores a bunch of stuff, including cross training/other martial arts experience, the psychological impact of not fighting with sharps in modern gear, and in a tournament context people adjusting their style to try and game the meta/ruleset.
I've had a few people somehow think I fenced with sharp swords.
The idea that pre-16th century systems are inherently more martial/lethal/"manly" then everything that came after. The sort of people who say stuff like "Meyer isn't real sword fighting", "rapier/smallsword is for sissies", and "swords were only decoration after guns became widespread".