protect yer noggin kids

Feck it....I want a helmet. None of this piddly fencing mask shit for me.

Why?

Simple really...I hate concussions, I had a few and I don't want more. As it is I really ought to take better care of my head...and now having done a little research, I'm growing concerned about the risk of "sub-concussive" injury as well.

So I guess the real question is: shall I go medieval...or reinvent the wheel?

Uniforms redux....or maybe a rant/wibble.

Sigh...I should like to go on record as saying that the HEMA/WMA uniform that is widely (though not wholly) adopted, is a really good thing. This "look", if you will, which might be best described as that of the "bad ass fencer" (ie. standard fencing kit...but in black), is the best thing for our little community and its growth. Sport/olympic fencing has a positive and respectable reputation in the minds of the public...and since we are fencers of a sort it only makes sense that we ought to adopt this traditional uniform.

To not do so would seem rather odd to those outside of our art.

However, while this is the uniform I wear...and will continue to do so (quite proudly too...as I cut quite a dashing figure). There are times when I long for some historical kit. What I think I need is something like Sweden's "Living HEMA organization.

Perhaps that super secret UK "living HEMA" group will one day see the light of day...one can but dream.

...so where do you put your hands?

Phew...been a fair spell ain't it? Sorry 'bout that and my apologies to you all.

So I was chatting with StevieT last night and he asks me just that question. At first I thought he was referring to this thread over on the HEMA Alliance, but no, he had an altogether simpler and perplexing question.

In relation to the crossguard/quillions on the hilt of a hand a half sword...where is your dominant hand (although I'd argue that either hand can fill that role in this case)?

Is it cozied up next to the cross? Or is there any space between the two?

Frankly I'd not thought much about this really...however Stevie had indeed done so, and found that he received far less cuts to the hand if he didn't leave it jammed up next to the cross. "Curious" I thought..."makes some sense" I concurred. He then strengthened his theory with the possibility of documentary evidence...so when I have the free time I fully intend to look into that side of thing.

In the mean time let's put this theory to the test. Let's put our "little grey cells" onto this theory and experiment with modifying our grip next time we have a sword in our hands.

you find the oddest things...

Reposted from Mike's Indes IDC blog: There is perhaps something odd happening in Jorg-Wilhalm's Fechtbuch.

The obvious answer is that the images are copies of an earlier work...but just where has this content come from? That is the real question.

a few thoughts on my place in all this...

In thinking about things I realized that I don’t truly consider myself a martial artist, or for that matter a fencer…and I definitely don’t consider myself some modern manifestation of a knight (well, perhaps…but in my opinion the historical form of the armoured man on horseback has about as much in common with our view of knights as does my foot). For myself I am an Experimental Archaeologist or a Combat Archaeologist, and I must be honest it affects how I view HEMA.

What is Experimental Archaeology?

Simply put it is the implementation of a number of different methods, techniques, analyses, and approaches in order to generate and test hypotheses based upon archaeological source material.

Although the construction of objects based on historical evidence, and using only historically accurate technologies is a highly visible aspect of Experimental Archaeology. Ultimately, the true product of experimental archaeology is data, not the constructed item itself.

Living history, historical re-enactment, and primitive technology are occasionally associated with Experimental Archaeology. However, these activities are not necessarily concerned with archaeological or historical evidence, or they are undertaken for the purposes of entertainment rather than for research.

What is Combat Archaeology?

Combat archaeology is a sub-discipline within archaeology focused on the study of inter-group and intra-group conflict. Conflict and violence have had a hand in shaping human societies since the earliest recorded history and quite probably earlier still.

Focusing on the individual combatant, the aim of combat archaeology is to investigate conflict from a practical perspective, with a primary focus on design, manufacture and the modes of use of weaponry. This is approached from a broad range of techniques ranging from 'physical interpretation' using accurate replicas to micro-structural analysis of original weaponry.

The primary objectives of combat archaeology is to shed light on ancient and historical martial arts (along with their social functions), the technological evolution of weaponry, and the experience of the individual warrior or soldier from the perspective of the human body and mind in a combat environment.

....and no this doesn't mean I think we should all be wearing turn shoes.

:^)

what a great way to get hurt...

For the record the evidence on the ground for the use of two equal length blades at the same time prior to the renaissance is scanty...I am aware of this. However, it is bloody good fun:
Cuisinart of Doom!

“Everyone thinks differently from everyone else, so he behaves differently in combat” “For as we are not all of a single nature, so we also cannot have a single style in combat, yet all must nonetheless arise and be derived from a single basis.” ( Meyer 1570)

Thoughts on the behourd

First we must admit that we know little about the behourd and what distinguished from a proper tournament or real combat. For the moment the mists of history hide the exact definition from view. If we assume that the behourd was diminutive and milder form of tournament, and in this form young squires were given the opportunity to pressure test their training in mock combat. Assuming this to be true is it then truly logical to presume that the techniques that they would employ in the behourd would differ radically from those for use in battle, tournament, and personal combat. Would a squire learn how to use a shield aggressively, cut and thrust with accuracy and correct edge alignment, grapple in armour, only to set all that aside to use a completely different set of techniques when one of the purposes of the behourd was to display martial prowess? It certainly is possible that they learned another distinct method for use in the behourd, however it doesn’t scan as correct to me.

Considering that injuries and deaths are noted in relation to the behourd it would seem likely that it was not some special event unrelated to real fighting. The behourd, whatever the rules may have been, was I believe a somewhat less intense and potentially less dangerous form of tournament that allowed young squires an opportunity to test their skills and display their prowess. Sadly all we have is a handful of widely varying descriptions of behourds, with differing rules, required equipment, and objectives, as such there cannot, at this time, be a conclusive description.