HEMA Interpretations: BAD for your Fencing? -

If you want to support me and this channel, check my Patreon page. Lots of exclusive contents awaits you there!
PATREON - / malaguttifederico
Follow me on:
Instagram - / federicomalagutti
Facebook - / malaguttimartialarts
Twitter - / fede_duellist
Wordpress Blog - fedemalablog.wordpress.com/
Tumblr - www.tumblr.com/blog/malagutti...
Camera: / elisetti.art
Hey, do you like HEMA and Animals too, give a look to this HEMAnimals themed merchandise:
www.redbubble.com/people/Elis...
#TheSwordsmanOfTheDale #HEMA #historicalfencing
WARNING: The advice and movements shown in this video are for informational and educational purposes only. Consult a health professional before engaging in any exercise or martial arts program.

[@FedericoMalagutti]

There are more typos in this video than in all the other videos I ever made combined. LoL

[@AndrogynousRatCatcher]

I mostly agree, but there are some things I would add. I wrote a similar comment on a post in HiP Group on Facebook. I think that to many people see the sources as a step-by-step guide to win every fight. Like a recipe, like your example. "The book sais, I should oberhau, then he will do an Ochs and I can mutieren and win. Wait? I didn't work? Guess I will write a reddit essay on how this debunks the old masters" I disagree with that idea. For me they're more something that shows you the possibility of what you can do with a sword (at least the German sources. I don't know enough about the Italian ones to include them here) It would be impossible to write down and think of every possible combination of attacks, parries, counters, etc. In my mind the sources are more like a list of ingredients or a tool to teach you the accords of a guitar. I agree, you need to know how to cook to utilize a list of ingredients, but that's ultimately more efficient than knowing how to cook, but only relying on recipes.

[@FedericoMalagutti]

Yes, I tend to like your view of them, I see my way of utilizing them in your example. At the same time, they also where something different back in the days, they were fitting the social and technological context far more than how they fit now in 2024, because of the reasons I mention above. Sources are lovely, but they are completely out of context too, far more than what we generally think!

[@AndrogynousRatCatcher]

@@FedericoMalagutti yes, I agree. We really have only limited knowledge on the context of the sources and what prior knowledge the old masters expect in a student. However I think that's a different issue and not necessarily that important for the topic of "Do the sources make a modern hemaists worse"

[@gorbalsboy]

I agree ,the old masters were showcasing their art(except Lichtenhauer,he was most certainly aiming for the most effective way of fighting )

[@Scuzzlebutt142]

Your not wrong, I would class them as giving you the toolset the system uses, and gets you into the mindset of how to use it, and a way to train/learn to get your body/mind to move/think in the correct way.

[@HEMA_Fight_Breakdowns]

Thanks for the response I definitely hadn't considered the safety aspect and I think you are correct to point it out

[@FedericoMalagutti]

Than you for making your video, it was interesting!

[@Braindazzled]

Excellent video! "Reading a recipe without knowing how to cook" sums it up perfectly. I have fenced for years and learned from some excellent teachers, and it was crazy to see people with ZERO training trying to resurrect dead arts from a book with no previous training. I also think you are right that the old styles were probably practiced like Koryu.

[@417hemaspringfieldmo]

This is discussion I tried to raise awareness of with local HEMA groups. The manuals usually don t approach the topic of basics and fundamentals of the sword....nor how they trained to get there back in the day. That we all should understand and be clear with. For example the different versions of the Zettel and it s comments (and even Fiore/Vadi )implicitly assume that you have some kind of prior experience/knowledge/training...so it adds upon that with in the case of the Zettel a more or less simple straight to the point application of those fundamentals and a group of well picked techniques......and even when you know didn t have the training, the knowledge of the Zettel can come handy to the un-itiated with minimum training. But the Zettel was meant to be a "trade"secret to outmaneuver what seemed to be the common fencing/combat culture of the time it was created. Nowadays without the "masters" or a living uninterrupted martial tradition to at least give us some light into training and fundamentals....we have to fill the gaps....and for something more complex (than fastening a screw lol...I loved the comparison)like longsword fencing (independently of the application and intent Schulefechten/Ernstfechten) the learning curve can be pretty steep. That s why many (more than I would like) so called historical fencers are not historical fencers...they are just hobby modern fencers swinging a sometimes historically accurate sword replica. Because they lack the focus and/or are completely not interested on what the historical sources have to offer. And I m Ok with that...after all you do need "un-bias"test subjects to put your knowledge and acquired experience by practice of the source material. The other side of the coin is almost as bad. We have so called historical fencers so deluded by what they think is the "right"interpretation of the techniques on the source material that they end up focusing more on interpretation than continuous and regular well planned review...by either straight up testing it ad nauseam , extrapolating responsibly and cross pollinating with like minded individuals and detractors.

[@FedericoMalagutti]

You are correct, both the examples you described actually exists. I personally thing it's unavoidable, also because the "entry level" for understanding sources is so high, and requires so much time spent on them, that nowadays for many people is rarely worth the prices. Sources are kinda becoming what they were meant for in the first place, something for experienced fencers/fighters only, and not necessarely for all of them (because of a variety of reasons), this is precisely because of the process I describe in the video. The best way to help a student in approaching sources is to teach them how to fight and then give them some "reading keys" to go through the manuals more easily and then leave them free to find out what they see in them, in my opinion.

[@417hemaspringfieldmo]

@@FedericoMalagutti An in a way this is one of the things that make the study of the sources and instructing so interesting to me. Sometime I have doubts...but then I go re-evaluate, put it to the test, ask for feedback and compare results. An d to tell you truth, if not for the historical sources I wouldn t be doing any of it. I gave up all practice of Asian modern martial arts to focus myself on HEMA.

[@Davlavi]

Informative thanks.

[@incongruouscat4646]

Entertaining and instructive! An excellent combination. Definitely going to watch this video again.

[@PetrKavan]

I have heard this concept of manuals being biased because of training methods from you before, so there is not much new in here. On the other hand, I find it extremely interesting, and a thing I have never considered before you started talking about it. So I guess it is good to repeat it several times. BTW have you noticed this paradox of martial arts? When you start, you are eager to go forward to learn the most advanced supertechnique, expecting that this will be the key to win all fights. After years of training, you will hopefully start winning the fights ... by the most basic techniques you know since the first lesson. The key was not to learn the best technique, but to gain enough of familiarity with fight situations, you possibilities and opponent's reactions. And there is no shortcut there, no better set of techniques or better martial art. It can be achieved only by a lot of practice and hard work.

[@FedericoMalagutti]

Very, very well said.

[@swiyth]

Thanks for the more balanced view. Admittedly, the HEMA Fight Breakdowns got me shaking with indignation. :P My own opinion is: it depends on what your source material is. If you're a fencer or student in the German tradition, you have less of an excuse in saying that the manuscripts will make your fencing worse. How come? Because there are many glosses, and the glosses offer different perspectives on the techniques. Not to mention, the RDL and Ms3227a offers general advice based on the Zettel; your footwork, how to cut, , etc. It's still true you need a good foundation: and that would just be learning proper distancing by learning how to use your feet, and then the basics of what to do in the bind (whether he cuts around, or stays, etc), which necessitates learning basic attacks and defences. But once your sense of distance, timing, biomechanics, and the flow of the fight becomes more established, the material takes on new life. So I do believe that is one part that HEMA instructors need to take into consideration: if we can't teach our students the basics in a way they can understand, then the good advice given in the manuscripts won't make sense. Totally with you on this. But partly (and this goes back to your video about "real" swords), I think the types of tools we use will influence our understanding and execution of the techniques.

[@FiliiMartis]

Federico, I gave it some more thought, and I'm shifting my position more towards yours. I think you and others seek to improve our collective understanding of fencing in HEMA, while I am simply enjoying what we already have in HEMA. That is the true difference in perspective, and why your approach of building on what we already have (i.e. get a teacher that will inform you of the mistakes now known) is the way to go forward, rather than repeating the same mistakes over and over. I am comfortable with the existing interpretation levels because others have pushed the envelope, but I wouldn't have been ok with HEMA some 20 years ago (I'm basing this on some videos from people reminiscing about the start of HEMA), and conversely, I have nothing to lose with future improvements. Just that, I wanted to share my thoughts on this before I forget, and tell you that you were right. 👍

[@FedericoMalagutti]

You nailed the point, it’s actually about not reinventing the wheel over and over again. I honestly am a pretty “Conservative HEMAist” funny enough, so before deciding for a change it has to really make sense to me by a logical perspective, and their upsides have to be more than the downsides (because there are always downsides for everything). In general I love HEMA as it is, I would simply love to see it becoming a living tradition again and I think that the best way is to put the instructor as the main figure and the source as a tool to improve the instructor and to make all that trainees who are more passionate more knowledgeable and dive into the matter more. In this way will have more people practicing and, funny enough, the number of people reading sources will increase rather than decrease on the long run.

[@malingrant5794]

I agree completely.

[@SirKanti1]

4:50 My club is one that doesn't intentionally go for the hands in sparring, not because we don't think that it not a valid target but simply we don't want to deal with the possible injuries. Everyone has work the next day and to not be able to work because someone wanted some imaginary point is kinda lame.

[@FedericoMalagutti]

That’s why they did it too. To an extent, you can consider your practice “more historically accurate” lol, hehe. ;-)

[@SirKanti1]

@@FedericoMalagutti I believe it's in some of the German fencing tournament rules that if you strike a person's hands during the tournament, you must pay him a weeks wages as they are unable to work, so next time you're at a tournament make sure you get paid :P

[@syys5640]

Pretty weird since modern gloves protect very well against injury.

[@SirKanti1]

@@syys5640 It really depends on the gloves, given that a lot of members particularly beginners use red dragons it's easier to have an agreement rather than spending thousands on Thocks or Black Knights.,

[@alexhunt7810]

@@syys5640Not as well as a lot of bros think they do, hence the number of injuries. Even things like Spes Heavies or Sparring gloves have serious weaknesses.

[@artifact2454]

Hmmmm, very interesting. I did consider picking up some sources around this time. Considering I have been fencing for around a year, and do understand the basics. Do you think I should still avoid reading sources now? I do wonder when, and at what knowledge level you'd recommend to start looking at the sources? Because saying "Learn how to fight first" is very much broad and general

[@FedericoMalagutti]

If you are landing some actions you trained in sparring, and you are aware of certain basic underlying principles such as an placing the correct action against the correct behavior (e.g. Feint against parry, bind and beat against weapon on line, direct attack into invitation etc.) you have enough experience to read a manual. The problem of reading a manual while studying an ancient weapon like the Longsword is the same as trying to make MOF theory fit that weapon. Both are imperfect for the job because of many, many reasons (For the sources, the one I explain in the video, for MOF I’ll expand in another) so you need to know some underlying principles of tactics, then everything makes sense (or not, and then you modify it).

[@MasterOfBaiter]

I think the issue is already reflected in the name. Like let's be honest at this point there are probably more people today that have learned form instructors be it in person or through modernly writen interpretations or even KZbin to the point where we can honestly start considering longsword fencing a living lineage again. We are no longer learning from the historical sources but contemporary ones too and that is naturally curing the flaws of early hema of not trying to understand the sources in context and instead interpret them literally almost like dogma. The same way you scrutinize a random dude's interpretation today you should do the same to the sources. Authors weren't flawless swordsaints and like most instructors were probably tuning their teachings to their students. I will tell a student to be aggressive not cause I generally think you should always be aggressive but cause that student is never aggressive for example. It's really cool to see the reevaluation happen in real time as the sport evolves.

[@kaizen5023]

It depends. 😁

[@heresjonny666]

I think if you take the treatises as books of set pieces then you’re going to fail to learn much from them, but if you take them as books full of biomechanical, tactical and psychological principles that you then look to apply during fighting, filtered through experience, you’ll get a lot from them.

[@Druid_Ignacy]

Your takeaways are very true and important! However - how do you know that they trained without this or that protection? It was entirely possible for them to get a gambescom and blunt sword, or stick / branch, and train at least semi-contact thrusting on partner. Then partner could wear armored gloves and helmet - and you basically have now very good equipment for training, even thou still need to watch out for the face. Do we have some sources regarding that? Illustrations of ppl fighting in clothes only tell us nothing, rapier manuals often show naked ppl and they didn't train nor duel like that. It may be depition of training, or of combat, or simply posing for a nice illustration, or for convenience of showing detail (some medieval sources don't carry much of it, some do, as Durer Fechtbuch). So now what? :D Kenjutsu comparison may be flawed as well - already at Musashi times introduction of bamboo sword and bogu asfaik was made. Training weapons and equipment are not very modern idea. Medieval tournaments were most of the time done in armour and wooden batons (not swords even).

[@FedericoMalagutti]

It’s possible by observing how training in armor and out of armor is treated in technical terms and in their description. Training in armor leaves lesser things to the imagination, safe for certain actions toward the (mainly open) visor. Anyway this is my theory, I don’t call myself 100% right on this. But given my experience in training in many ways and context I feel pretty sure

[@saliwillow8122]

I'll share something from my own personal training; I've been doing kenjutsu(TSKSR for anyone that's interested) for about ten years now. A lot of stuff I'm not as leisure to say/limited to the school, so if it seems a little generic, it's because of that. Some of these systems, and I can imagine it to be the same for European traditions, were made by veritable geniuses of their craft. Just as you cannot understand some highly complex math problems by having a surface-level understanding, so too is it not possible to 'comprehend' certain parts of swordsmanship(or any martial art, but I feel it's especially prevalent here, due to the distance from real-life application) until someone's ready to learn it. Someone with one, two, three, or even five years of experience simply cannot understand certain concepts; it's just too complex. But that's also what makes it interesting. We have an advantage in that we have a largely unbroken lineage to draw from, and though even on our side some things have to be ""reinvented" and we have to draw from our scrolls/manuals, we do have some outstanding teachers that maintain the base standard. Nothing but respect for those HEMA practitioners that manage to re-establish entire styles just by figuring out and studying. I share your conclusion in that.. when someone starts out, they tend to have very rigid mindsets of 'ah, yes, OF COURSE the spear is a battlefield weapon, swords suck!' and 'I ABIDE BY THIS TREATISE, YOU BETTER NOT CORRECT ME' - and eventually, if they keep it up, it sorta mellows out and becomes more of a "Yes, but also, it sorta depends on the circumstance, and if you add this variable EVERYTHING changes, and .. it depends." I think, eventually, we get to a point wherein we perceive these techniques as tools that we can integrate and draw from, and that we can recognize their flaws and their positives.

[@ArizonaTengu]

Modern safety equipment hinders proper development of techniques too. We have the same problems of safety in empty hand styles of fighting. On average, the people who only practice point fighting are worse than the those who practice point fighting, and have actual fights in their belt. Point fighters have all this safety equipment that makes them bolder than they normally would act in a real fight. With the added handicap that they never use the real intention of wanting to maim or kill their opponents. So they make various mistakes on execution. Personally, the best fencers are done by machete duels or battles in places like Latin America. An other example is a friend of mine introduced me to bowie combatives. Where he not only practiced knife combat, but actually got into knife duels when he was homeless in the streets for some years. Personally, I grew up in a knife culture where knife duels were common, a rare thing in America, because it avoided a police response to gang activity unlike gun fire. My farmer karate Master also had tremendous amount of experience compared to those with little to no experience. The point I’m making is training with intention makes a huge difference in results. People can do whatever they want with their time. But I don’t see the point in learning this subject and subjecting themselves to so much risk just for fun. I personally like learning fencing, especially long sword fencing, but it is in light of contributing to my knife and karate training.

[@badrequest5596]

i do think sometimes we tend to get overly fixated on a particular technique and exactly how it is described. or that we get fixated on something we don't quite understand and still try to do it regardless (at least in my case sometimes). my view on this is to use the manuals as a guide, not step by step tutorial, and explore what you can do with it for yourself. some things might make sense to one person to use but not another. i think it depends on the person. if it doesn't make sense, move on to something else that does. and later come back to what didnt make sense before, maybe by then it will make sense to you

[@FedericoMalagutti]

Well said!

[@FiliiMartis]

Federico, I have a related question for you: Do you think that moving forward, tournament events will have a graded exhibition part? Do you see what I mean? People showcasing their ability to perform assaults in accordance with historical sources and be graded by a senior jury (graded on accuracy, complexity, style). Or is the organisation level of HEMA still too underdeveloped to be able to pull that off? I'm asking this in the idea that tournaments are about winning, about getting your fencing to be the best, and not about being faithful to any manuscript or school tradition.

[@FedericoMalagutti]

Do you mean form competitions? Or a judge judging if your action was “correct” during a fight?

[@FiliiMartis]

@@FedericoMalagutti I mean, like a panel of 3 or 5 judges giving you points for a solo drill. Imagine you extract a note from a hat telling you what assault you need to perform from a given source. You get to choose the tradition you want to compete in (Imperial, Bolognese, etc), but not the master itself. You can do a tier system with an ever increased complexity of the assault. So this would promote and reward learning the old masters, without worrying about efficiency of a move during sparring. For example, drawing the sword, like you talked in your last video, could be used here. Japanese sword arts have a similar system for displaying technique, if I am not wrong. This idea is to complement tournaments, maybe for old people that start to heal their injuries slowly 😏, not to replace sparring in any way.

[@koloblican11763]

11:25 The Zwerchau Wars of 2010 I am surprised anyone survived.

[@FedericoMalagutti]

LoL

[@gorbalsboy]

If the training is done with small groups who have grasped the basics the training can still be realistic,in the British army guys are still killed or injured every year during field firing (imagine a hundred guys attacking a position with live ammo)the reason this continues even today is that without it being realistic more would be lost in actual combat,in the context of hema as a hobby(albeit a passionate one)their is no need to go anywhere near this level EXCEPT if agreed upon during private training and as for traing with sharps I believe that to be a waste of time as the emphasis will be on safety rather than effectiveness,great topic big baws ,keep up the good work , All the best from sunny 😎 Troon

[@Zodd83]

I've always suspected that Martin Fabian is a tool. Now I have the ultimate proof! Silly stuff apart, your speech is a sort of TED's contributiona about HEMA. Thanks.

[@FedericoMalagutti]

Thank you ^_^

[@417hemaspringfieldmo]

Actually that thrust to the shoulder I think it wasn t meant to make the technique safer....I think it end up like that by design to not only landing a crippling strike...but also to completely wreck the opponents action and range of motion. When executed properly it stops the opponent on his/her/they tracks and cancels proper arms & sword structure...also it wrecks the whole upper body range of motion. My two cents.

[@FedericoMalagutti]

That's exactly why you can't train it safely in that way if you don't have the right tools, or without the right artifacts. Plus, in our environment yes, it stops the actions and does the things you mentioned above, for sure, but when you are are stop thrusting someone with a sharp sword the weapon goes in like butter while finding soft tissues. Something hard to train as you describe it. I think the execution in training was landed with a cut to make it possible to train. Notice that, in my opinion, writing down a treaty of actions you land in a fight without adding the proper "changes" needed to train it is close to an exercise of style more than to something useful. I personally find many, many artifacts in the greatest majority of medieval books, and (while to a lesser degree sometimes) renaissance ones. This happens in late systems too to be honest, Thibault fencing is an example. It's way of fencing is 100% artificial, but if the concept is grasped, and the actions contextualized, it works pretty well.

[@417hemaspringfieldmo]

@@FedericoMalagutti That s why I try to always to make the distinction between Ernsfechten(with full lethal intent) and Schulefechten(scholastic practice)...done that we just have to tune in on control, right equipment, intensity etc. And it s not for the feint of heart nor for the newcomers to the practice. It takes time and commitment . A casual approach to the study and practice of the sources wont do it.

[@jufrosamurai]

"We have purposely trained him wrong, as a joke"

[@FedericoMalagutti]

lol

[@Manweor]

I'd like to add an advice: unless you have a lot of time to study a source completely on your own, start from a seminar made by some knowledgeable instructor or at least some video. It will give you a working interpretation of the basic feeling and philosophy of a treatise. Otherwise you can get lost fast.

[@retohaner5328]

I think one weird thing is that people in the early days of HEMA perhaps didn't choose the most suitable sources for their time, but of course they didn't have the same breadth of them that we have today. The sources that are most "mainstream" (15thC longsword) are also very difficult ones to interpret when you have no prior skills.

[@FedericoMalagutti]

But they are indeed the coolest probably for the same exact reason! Hehe.

[@retohaner5328]

@@FedericoMalagutti The Bolognese are cooler >:)

[@FedericoMalagutti]

@@retohaner5328 mmmmh! We’ll have to spar to decide who is right! LoL

[@frankheninja1]

@@FedericoMalagutticries in 18th century broadsword.

[@kaizen5023]

For safety, they could have shared helmets and steel gauntlets even if only a couple of ppl had them, but the sources don't show this (as far as I know)... they usually show training without protective gear except maybe a shield or buckler. I seriously doubt they used their good sharp swords for training, so probably used wooden swords or some old swords that had been blunted, until feders were developed. You would definitely not want your buddy to smack your hands and break a finger a few weeks before a real battle, so they must have had some ways of training safely

[@nolancummings9590]

They used purpose made training swords. Federschwerts were mostly only used in Germany and exist so that fencers could fight competitively without being injured too badly. Since by the 16th century the Longsword was largely only used in competitive fencing rather than in any sort of earnest fighting. Whereas In Italy the Era their longsword disciplines come from is when you would train as for actual to the death fighting in self defence of combat. Since they were training to use their longswords for real they didn’t need to have the competition aspect the same way as their competition may have been on the streets and roads of Italy rather than a tournament setting like the later German longsword

[@FedericoMalagutti]

I thought they used some protection once, but now after years I think they trained in armor for armored fighting and with almost nothing for training out of armor. Of course I am generalizing, everyone probably had his method and opinion, but this has been the average approach in my understanding.

[@Specter_1125]

There’s a good possibility that the manuals show people unarmored simply to make the images as clear as possible. Some armored fighting techniques are shown in regular clothes.

[@FedericoMalagutti]

@@Specter_1125 my idea that they were training without armor is not based on drawings, but on how the actions are structured and landed. The examples that I brought you in the video are just a few, most of the actions while landed in the way the manual advocates tend to be “late to the party”, they work well by going slowly with control, or while training without protections and stopping (and do decelerating) the attack at a given point. Nothing new, we see this in most of the eastern martial arts that use weapons, they either use distance or control to add a safety layer.

[@Prancingkiller]

i feel like the fact that the manuals are about a martial art and HEMA being a sport might be one of the reasons of your conclusions

[@FedericoMalagutti]

Well, that’s what we think nowadays. They made manuals about combat, they didn’t knew what a “Martial Art” was.

[@krdietiker]

Ooo, no. I think they knew very well what a "Martial art" was, but as they (earlier masters specifically) were more interested in combat and self-defense, they focused more on the martial than on the art. The Art part that the manuals provided may have been more for tactics and strategies than on technique itself, the techniques being just vehicles to demonstrate the tactics they had in mind, Art being the mastery of the system, martial being the fundamentals. Today, to get back to the points you made in the video, many HEMAists tend to focus too heavily on the technique (the quality of the ingredients) and don't realize that those are just examples used to express the fundamentals (the recipe) and how or when to tactically use them (how to cook). Cheers!

[@Prancingkiller]

@@FedericoMalagutti martial art is just the name we give to it mate, there's a clear difference when you're trying to kill someone that tries to kill you, or when you're both trying to score points, just to be clear, i'm speaking from the point of view of someone who both studies the manuals and practiced HEMA for a long time (i think we must have met in some events too!)

[@FedericoMalagutti]

@@Prancingkiller believe me, if it had been so simple as you put it, I would be happy.

[@Prancingkiller]

@@FedericoMalagutti not sure what is complex about the fact that these manuals werent written for HEMA, without points in mind or double hits regulations etc. So i find it perfectly reasonable that HEMA and the combat described in the manuals differs in some areas, 2 different points of view imho

[@gremlin633]

Learn how to fight first.. certa gente dovrebbe imparare a camminare con la testa sulle spalle prima di fare a schiaffi, poi imparare a impugnare un manico di scopa 😂 parole sante. Ottimo ❤

[@FiliiMartis]

I think I disagree in part... in the absence of manuscripts and the historical part of HEMA, sword fighting is as interesting to me as Olympic fencing, i.e. there's an appeal to it, but not that much. For me, the romantic part FM mentions is crucial. If one's goal is to compete in tournaments and rank in the top 10 in the world, then yes, do what FM says to speed up the growth. He knows better. But if one's goal is to build up their understanding in a more rounded way, then the manuscripts and the struggle shouldn't be avoided, as that opens up an appreciation for living and micro history, old manuscripts and languages, and art. I think there's a charm in discovering things rather than being told things, and you don't want to fell robbed of that aspect of your hobby. I believe that the romantic part is what will make people stick pass the first few fencing lessons, so I think that needs to be cultivated from the start. So for people that see HEMA as a hobby and not a semi-professional endeavour, I would incorporate FM advice in an amended way: start with a simple style that's part of a more complete tradition, learn the basic movements, and grow from there in all aspects of the chosen tradition. You'll soon find out if you want to focus on tournaments or not, but this way you are exposed to the rest as well. Keeping it simple here, I gave it some thought and I think that HEMA is built on four pillars: Scholar (exploring manuscripts and historical sources, reconstructing styles, etc.), Sparring (practising the manuscripts, including weapon types that cannot be used safely with others at full speed, the local school environment, etc.), Sport (tournament fighting to be the best at your weapon rather than style, I would add here cutting tournaments, etc.), Support (kit, trainers, but also sharp reproductions of historic swords and more). My though process for this S4 framework is to makes sense of seemingly contradictory advice and approaches I see when it comes to HEMA, rather than reducing it to tournament focused people vs historical focused people.

[@FedericoMalagutti]

Uhm, as far ad I agree with you on many things, I personally disagree with your initial statement. I honestly feel that now that I know better how to use a sword, compared to, let’s say, ten years ago, Manuals interpretation became far more enjoyable, because other than interesting and romantic is also more useful. I honestly have loved to receive teachings from someone instead of going through years of struggles to figure out many things which now feel so simple. It may for sure be an adventure and I can agree, but when you figure out you could have found the solution with a chat it becomes, well, kind of weird.

[@FiliiMartis]

​@@FedericoMalagutti That's fair, no problem whatsoever. And I can totally relate with what you wrote if I just shift it to my professional life rather than HEMA (which for me is 100% a hobby). It may also be the level one wants to achieve. I think your aim is much higher than mine. For me, HEMA is just a path to walk. I don't want to set goals for it, and that changes the altitude one has quite a lot. Maybe I started to like too much those personal "now I see it" moments. As a caveat, since it may be that we have a different threshold of what it means to struggle in the context of HEMA. Since you have started HEMA much, much earlier than me, the sources and material available to you a decade ago (let alone what was available to people twenty years ago) were probably less than what we can find today (Wiktenauer alone is a joy to have). It's not inconceivable to me that people had to struggled too much in the past. Today, I want to look at the Italian school, so I get Tom Leoni books and have a quick read. And while I know enough Italian to struggle and read the manuscripts myself (and I do it in small parts here and there), I call it quits to recalling my Latin and going through the I.33 manuscript. The first sounds like fun, the second sounds too much like a chore. So yea, even for me there's a limit (and I have no objections whatsoever to people joining schools and learning from an instructor; it would be ridiculous if one would). I know you are referring to fencing in particular. But my point is that learning it accompanied by a manuscript (indirectly, translated and with contextual footnotes) has an appeal do to the resulting broad immersion. The truth is that today, a lot of people can learn historical fencing with zero connection to the past or any care for manuscripts. I don't think that was possible a decade ago. I see people that transitioned from Olympic fencing and their interest in HEMA is simply the sport part (or at least that's how they come across). It may be that this is how HEMA will be taught moving forward, so what you say would not be just an advice, but the natural progression of HEMA. And then my objection about context will be alleviated by a book, that won't focus on technique at all, but only on the footnotes and bibliographic factoids about different traditions. And after all that is settled, the way HEMA is taught will change again... so it's all good! 😏

[@dar_rick_s6615]

Before even talking about the sources I think that many fencers forget that you need an effective support to hold a sword : So a body in good condition, with a minimum of muscle and endurance. The idea that theoretical practice and low-intensity exercise can magically make you good feel like they are living in a manga (and a refusal to face reality). I also think that we forget that in the contextuality of the sources, there was a real lack of competition and simply meeting each others and recording it to decide what is effective or not. We are talking about things which, in essence, have remained very vague and very little put into concrete and well-transcribed practices. Ppl who are so theoricaly obsessed are like thai chi master going for a MMA fight 🙄

[@FedericoMalagutti]

I tend to agree with you. About sources and competitions instead I have to partially disagree. There were many conditions to put into practice fighting both in a sportive and deadly environment. While they were radically different from ours and focused mainly on armored combat for the most part (thus why the armor fighting sections of every manual is more realistic than the others btw) they were a pretty decent field of development!

[@AlexTheSwordGuy]

I think that HEMA Fight Breakdowns purposely uses click-bait titles and makes inflammatory assertions in order to get views. I mostly ignore his channel because the amount of drama he chooses to stir up.

[@alchemistjeff]

If you follow solely historical manuals, you will only end up with something like most modern-day Chinese martial arts - Just for show

[@FedericoMalagutti]

Correct