I love it when ancient wisdom says exactly what I do :)

[Jean Chandler]

Yeah, but that's not much different than a lot of the historical fencing texts that we have

Any author from any time period is going to have a bias, and if you read them coming from a different background, you will probably have some serious problems with it. If we get upset by someone's biases, then we often miss the really interesting things that they actually do have to offer. I'm not trying to say that the Victorians were perfect or anything, but I think that there's a lot of really fascinating material there(even about renaissance and medieval fighting). A lot of these guys were trying to do the same things that we are, and it's really useful sometimes to step back for a minute and see how someone else has approached the material in a completely different way. They were in a completely different culture, they didn't have as many resources available to them as we do, and they also had some pretty different goals about what they are trying to do. It's fascinating to see how those things impacted what they did.

Our approach to this stuff is usually just as biased as there's was. The refreshing thing about the Victorians is that they are completely open about it

I appreciate your thoughtful and well written post, but I really couldn't disagree more. Yes everyone has bias, but no not all eras were equal, any more than all researchers are, and I don't pick up the same intensity of crazy, twisted stupidity in most* of the pre-industrial era fencing manuals I'm familiar with as I do in nearly everything I read from the Victorian era. While I agree that the Victorians have some things we can learn from, I think their bias is extraordinary (if not unique) and there is a huge noise to signal ratio in most of what they left us. Their bullshit was more important to them than finding out the truth of anything. Not to say I don't still use them, but one has to be very careful. Just as if, for example, if you need to read German material which was published between 1933 - 1945, or certain types of research from Spain printed between 1939 - 1975, or anything Russian between 1921 and 1991, especially pre 1956. Yes the Soviet scholars did some good research, but the proper marxist slant on everything was far more important to them than accuracy. You know it is simply going to color nearly everything you read, meaning it's all pretty badly tainted - even apart from the particular nature or objective quality of their particular ideology, so you really have to keep that in mind. I put the Victorians on this same level. I know not everyone does of course...

While I'm pretty critical of modern academia and their blind spots (many if not most of which actually still derive directly from the Victorians), I definitely do not think we are as biased in the HEMA scene today in the 21st Century as they were in the Victorian era. We don't know nearly anything about Medieval Europe, but at least most of us are pretty open about that. That alone is a substantial difference.

J

* with a few notable exceptions like say, Swetnam

[Mike Ruhala]

I definitely do not think we are as biased in the HEMA scene today in the 21st Century as they were in the Victorian era.

The old HACA/ARMA biases run deep, as does baggage from the SCA and world of re-enactment.

[Jean Chandler]

Most of the worst SCA hangups derive from bad Victorian cliches, like most of John Clements politics

J

[Mike Ruhala]

The Clements bias that I feel is most directly damaging to the study of the historical arts is his old "more martial" mantra. Much of it was flat wrong, like no wrestling in post-Renaissance fencing or no use of armor in the 19th century, etc. The worst thing is that "more martial" idea has taken root in people with no martial arts or real world fighting experience so they project their Hollywood/fantasy novel ideas of what a toughguy would do onto the historical arts which in turn causes them to overlook a lot of the subtler aspects that made the arts effective, the result is sloppy fighting and a lot of doubles.

Bad cliches are bad cliches and they should all be refuted and replaced with accurate information no matter the era, like the dusack thing we're apparently still going through. Castle may have been a Victorian but he did know what a dusack was.

[Darijan R.]

Much of it was flat wrong

I see what you did there!

[Mike Cartier]

I have a Lichtenauer and I have to disagree with your statement about its dynamic balance. The only difference between it and what I would use in real life zombie apocalypse is the lack of sharp edges.

Also not sure if I understand you correctly, but if you are saying that there must be a drawing action when cutting with a longsword I will have to strongly disagree.

[Jean Chandler]

I like to demonize a certain ARMA director as much as the next guy, but I don't think you can blame double kills exclusively on John Clements inspired 'tough-guy syndrome'. If I was feeling cynical I could suggest it was caused by sport fencers who thought all they had to do was get a touch without any consideration for preventing the other guy from hitting them a quarter of a second later; or the Martial Arts zen Master who is so hung up on his kata that he goes through the form regardless of what his opponent is doing. And a lot of guys who have never been in a real fight and don't have any sense of timing or distance... or people who are just nervous because they aren't used to tournaments.

Anybody who prevents us from understanding the sources, by monopolizing the right to make interpetations, enforcing their own views by questionable rules, or
trying to shout-down anyone who disagrees with their pet theories, is a problem for me. Luckily, most of these people have been increasingly marginalized in the HEMA world, for a variety of reasons. Most of them are too chickenshit to show up at events outside of their own clubs, let alone compete in tournaments.

The Victorians, unfortunately, are out of reach... but we still have to contend with the drivel they left in the books they wrote, and their cultural residue which is like the remnant of a sewer flood.

J

[Mike Ruhala]

Also not sure if I understand you correctly, but if you are saying that there must be a drawing action when cutting with a longsword I will have to strongly disagree.

Slicing cuts should be done with a push or pull but yeah, longswords are definitely capable of shearing blows and I favor that type of cutting with this weapon.

I like to demonize a certain ARMA director as much as the next guy, but I don't think you can blame double kills exclusively on John Clements inspired 'tough-guy syndrome'.

I didn't and I'm not nearly as concerned about ARMA/Clements as many people on this board. He's just one particular influence.

If I was feeling cynical I could suggest it was caused by sport fencers who thought all they had to do was get a touch without any consideration for preventing the other guy from hitting them a quarter of a second later;

The sport fencing mindset can absolutely lead to problems with the afterblow but I've not actually encountered very many HEMA practitioners with a sport fencing background, they exist but not in the numbers to explain the frequency with which we see the sloppy fighting.

or the Martial Arts zen Master who is so hung up on his kata that he goes through the form regardless of what his opponent is doing.

I know there's at least a few people in the community like this but honestly I haven't encountered many of them either.

And a lot of guys who have never been in a real fight and don't have any sense of timing or distance... or people who are just nervous because they aren't used to tournaments.

These guys seem to be fairly common but almost all beginners in any art start out this way and the problem can be fixed with adequate training and experience.

[Mike Edelson]

I have a Lichtenauer and I have to disagree with your statement about its dynamic balance. The only difference between it and what I would use in real life zombie apocalypse is the lack of sharp edges.

Which sharp sword are you comparing it to? I have five Albion longswords and each of them, though distinctly different from one another, has a certain feel to it that the Liechtenauer does not. I think it has to do with more mass in the Liechtenauer's point, not sure. Yeah, it could be in my head, but I've come to trust my instincts on sword handling.

Also not sure if I understand you correctly, but if you are saying that there must be a drawing action when cutting with a longsword I will have to strongly disagree.

If you extend your arms fully when cutting there is an inherent drawing motion to the cut. If you don't extend your arms when cutting (as in attempting to strike, not countering a cut), you're wrong, which I'm sure you'll agree with, because all arts have lange and masse.

If you're asking should there be a deliberate drawing motion? No, I don't think so, unless you're trying to defeat a 20 layer jack or some such textile armor. The tip should lead in a normal cut. But in order to cut, a sword must have a drawing motion of some sort. I do a demo for new people where I take a sword with an edge that can shave hair off my arm and strike myself in the pants leg, hard, without any drawing motion, and nothing happens. If I hit really hard, it would hack in, sure, but the cut would suck compared to what you'd get with even a tiny drawing motion. You can also see this in action while cutting vegetables for soup or salad.

This may be confusing...to sum up, inherent/natural drawing motion that comes from extending your arms, yes. Artificial/deliberate drawing motion, no (except in special circumstances).

[Joey Nitti]

If you extend your arms fully when cutting there is an inherent drawing motion to the cut. If you don't extend your arms when cutting (as in attempting to strike, not countering a cut), you're wrong, which I'm sure you'll agree with, because all arts have lange and masse.

It's amusing to watch various videos online (can't remember specifics at the moment) where you can see one guy emphatically claim that swords are like knives and must draw or push to slice in order to cut, and then see another guy in another video emphatically claim that swords are not knives, and that they cleave into a target. I think what you just said is the reason for these two completely opposing sides. The answer is that they are both right: to cut with a sword you don't need to do a big slicing sawing motion like with a knife, but there is an inherent draw in swinging it at full extension. Thus, someone can be correct in saying that swords draw to cut, but someone else can also be correct in saying that swords cleave and you don't need to make the conscious effort to draw your blade (if you are swinging properly).

as for sharps vs blunts and how they feel: I havent handled enough different ones to tell for sure, but to me all blunts feel different from each other and all sharps feel different from each other. Different swords made by different people to different designs.