Well, there goes my buffer of entries. Unfortunately I've been caught up in something and unable to write/study anything for the past couple of weeks.
Pretend this is something witty and insightful and I'll probably be back on schedule after the New Year.
Wednesday, 21 December 2011
Wednesday, 14 December 2011
Reflections on HEMA
One of the things that I'm unhappy about is the lack of groups across the country.
Whenever I think about the Swetnam interpretation, I have a slight sinking feeling and confusion about being the best person in the country for this (or at least within the top 10). Not because I've got a lack of faith in my skills or anything like that. It's because I consider myself to be fair and competent... Average, if you wish.
As I've said before- and in fact this was the reason I started this blog- HEMA is fantastic. More people should be doing it. It has a lot of different avenues of enjoyment: fighting, interpretation, history, even something for those people who like shouting at movies. It's a hard interest to pin down because of the wide range of appeal. The fact that a sodding huge bit of pointy metal counters a lot of the traditional disadvantages women face in combative things also widens the appeal.
Maybe it's something to do with the broken tradition and the work that is needed to get a newly discovered book into a teachable form, or doing the same for a curio. But I like that ability to connect with the history.
When I'm swearing at Swetnam and smacking my head against the desk, I'm swearing at him. Several hundred years later and I'm looking at his words and saying "what the hell do you mean by that...?" (or variants of). There is a direct and clear link between me and the originator of the style. Surprisingly, that means a lot to me.
HEMA is great, more people should be doing it.
Whenever I think about the Swetnam interpretation, I have a slight sinking feeling and confusion about being the best person in the country for this (or at least within the top 10). Not because I've got a lack of faith in my skills or anything like that. It's because I consider myself to be fair and competent... Average, if you wish.
As I've said before- and in fact this was the reason I started this blog- HEMA is fantastic. More people should be doing it. It has a lot of different avenues of enjoyment: fighting, interpretation, history, even something for those people who like shouting at movies. It's a hard interest to pin down because of the wide range of appeal. The fact that a sodding huge bit of pointy metal counters a lot of the traditional disadvantages women face in combative things also widens the appeal.
Maybe it's something to do with the broken tradition and the work that is needed to get a newly discovered book into a teachable form, or doing the same for a curio. But I like that ability to connect with the history.
When I'm swearing at Swetnam and smacking my head against the desk, I'm swearing at him. Several hundred years later and I'm looking at his words and saying "what the hell do you mean by that...?" (or variants of). There is a direct and clear link between me and the originator of the style. Surprisingly, that means a lot to me.
HEMA is great, more people should be doing it.
Wednesday, 7 December 2011
Advice on Christmas Shopping.
Not much to say this week, unfortunately I've been involved in some quite tedious jiggery pokery.
This is the time when you are likely to be grumpy and fed up with wading through the infinite sea of morons and slack jawed tourists. So, if you find yourself getting stressed and annoyed. Take this advice:
People don't think about London too much, so walk parallel to Oxford Street and only go on to that road when you near the shop you have to visit. Limiting your time on that area is vital to maintaining sanity. If you have to go down Regent's Street then use the back streets between Bond Street and Oxford Circus, leaving the Soho side until you're feeling a lucky.
If you find things getting to you and you're near Selfridges, wander up to the Wallace Collection and bask in the vast array of pointy, stabby, smashy goodness they have there, make yourself an imaginary Christmas list (a challenge for most of you: do not just say "All of them") and then think about how it would ease your tube journey home.
If you're at the other end, you could always relax in the British Museum. It's not quite as satisfying, but it's a good place to regain a little calm.
NEVER and I mean this NEVER visit James Smiths and Son's first. It's a lovely cane shop near Tottenham Court Road, they used to sell sword canes (as shown by their stained glass windows) and they have a passing familiarity with Cunningham, Vichy and Bartitsu. They will be able to supply you with canes that are beautiful, effective and a joy to play with. You do not want to be holding one of these as you walk through the crowds, it could end badly.
This is the time when you are likely to be grumpy and fed up with wading through the infinite sea of morons and slack jawed tourists. So, if you find yourself getting stressed and annoyed. Take this advice:
People don't think about London too much, so walk parallel to Oxford Street and only go on to that road when you near the shop you have to visit. Limiting your time on that area is vital to maintaining sanity. If you have to go down Regent's Street then use the back streets between Bond Street and Oxford Circus, leaving the Soho side until you're feeling a lucky.
If you find things getting to you and you're near Selfridges, wander up to the Wallace Collection and bask in the vast array of pointy, stabby, smashy goodness they have there, make yourself an imaginary Christmas list (a challenge for most of you: do not just say "All of them") and then think about how it would ease your tube journey home.
If you're at the other end, you could always relax in the British Museum. It's not quite as satisfying, but it's a good place to regain a little calm.
NEVER and I mean this NEVER visit James Smiths and Son's first. It's a lovely cane shop near Tottenham Court Road, they used to sell sword canes (as shown by their stained glass windows) and they have a passing familiarity with Cunningham, Vichy and Bartitsu. They will be able to supply you with canes that are beautiful, effective and a joy to play with. You do not want to be holding one of these as you walk through the crowds, it could end badly.
Wednesday, 30 November 2011
From before the invention of editors.
Swetnam needs an editor- someone to highlight inconsistencies and then send the manuscript back to him to explain things. Also maybe a few footnotes, possibly forcing him to write a brief précis of the idea when he first introduces it. Nothing big (Rule of the backesword could just have carrying the blow over your left shoulder or something that could give a clue to a reader... Just in case he didn't write a second book)
One of my complaints about Swetnam is that he is all over the place. There is actually quite a lot of information, but you have to keep on reading to make sure you've not missed any important pieces. He also presents some things as being guard specific when they're not. A clearer transition from True Guard to a bit of a discussion on principles would have been nice. I can't quite remember where it is, but I think it's a line hidden in a paragraph that just says "True Guard is not a perfect ward, but it is a good way for the novice to learn these principles of defence" and then he goes on to explain things which are universal.
Reading around the book (instead of jumping to the description of the guards and plays from those guards) Swetnam shows himself to be a principles based fighter. Something I can assume comes from being in London. I know that can sound arrogant, but at the time London was thriving, it was full of immigrants and foreign traders. This variation of cultures still remains and it is something I love about the city. Some vagueness is needed because everyone was there, claiming that their methods were the best- you would have absolutely no idea what style you would face. In a less diverse culture you could probably take a good guess.
This principles based approach falls apart a little with the layout of the book. Arguably the rapier and dagger section should proceed the sword and dagger section- since they're both the same kinds of weapons (more or less. One is a thrust and cut weapon, the other a cut and thrust weapon) and there is a lot of cross-pollination. The layout he's chosen is to put single rapier and quarterstaff in between the two chapters. I can see why he's done that, a kind of "these are your basic weapons, learn them and I'll build from there" but all the cross referencing and "I'll explain later" bits means that you're constantly flicking between pages and he forgets to put things down.
Index cards have helped a little, being able to juggle the ideas like that means that I've seen patterns forming. So it looks like I may have to recompile the PDF and put it into sections based on his classifications (basic principles, sword and dagger, big stick, single sword) and see if that gives me a more complete foundation for instruction.
One of my complaints about Swetnam is that he is all over the place. There is actually quite a lot of information, but you have to keep on reading to make sure you've not missed any important pieces. He also presents some things as being guard specific when they're not. A clearer transition from True Guard to a bit of a discussion on principles would have been nice. I can't quite remember where it is, but I think it's a line hidden in a paragraph that just says "True Guard is not a perfect ward, but it is a good way for the novice to learn these principles of defence" and then he goes on to explain things which are universal.
Reading around the book (instead of jumping to the description of the guards and plays from those guards) Swetnam shows himself to be a principles based fighter. Something I can assume comes from being in London. I know that can sound arrogant, but at the time London was thriving, it was full of immigrants and foreign traders. This variation of cultures still remains and it is something I love about the city. Some vagueness is needed because everyone was there, claiming that their methods were the best- you would have absolutely no idea what style you would face. In a less diverse culture you could probably take a good guess.
This principles based approach falls apart a little with the layout of the book. Arguably the rapier and dagger section should proceed the sword and dagger section- since they're both the same kinds of weapons (more or less. One is a thrust and cut weapon, the other a cut and thrust weapon) and there is a lot of cross-pollination. The layout he's chosen is to put single rapier and quarterstaff in between the two chapters. I can see why he's done that, a kind of "these are your basic weapons, learn them and I'll build from there" but all the cross referencing and "I'll explain later" bits means that you're constantly flicking between pages and he forgets to put things down.
Index cards have helped a little, being able to juggle the ideas like that means that I've seen patterns forming. So it looks like I may have to recompile the PDF and put it into sections based on his classifications (basic principles, sword and dagger, big stick, single sword) and see if that gives me a more complete foundation for instruction.
Wednesday, 23 November 2011
The Rule of the Backe Sword.
It looks like Swetnam was already planning a sequel while writing his book... Who knows, it might be hidden in a drawer somewhere, waiting to be found. I hope so because I'm a little vexed.
The bugger keeps on mentioning "by the rule of the backe sword (which I shall cover later)" and either I'm skipping over it when he goes off on one. Or he left it out and has put it in his second book, along with a bunch of guards. The rule of the Backe Sword is supposed to be effective against left handers and it turns up once in a while. (sorry, my notes are all over the place at the moment otherwise I'd be a bit more specific).
Brief digression- At some point, I will be working on collecting techniques against left handers. It makes sense considering how many of the sinister gits have infiltrated HEMA, and it's a different set of thoughts to use and your lines are completely different. Actually, now I think about it. Inigo Montoya was not being generous when fighting with his left hand. All the books say that a left handed man has the advantage because he meets many right handed men, whereas a right handed man is unlikely to meet or train against a left handed man.
Anyway. I suspect (with no ready references or practice to back me up) that this rule of the backe sword/backe sword fashion is some kind of hanging guard. I doubt it's Silver's hanging guard- point retracted with a stabby weapon is silly. False-edge work is a possibility, but I think a remote one.
Although... I've just walked through the Silver True Guard with the rapier and... it could work if you step in and thrust at the half-sword (he likes that in another situation). I'm not convinced, but it's best to put the idea down. Just in case that's right.
The bugger keeps on mentioning "by the rule of the backe sword (which I shall cover later)" and either I'm skipping over it when he goes off on one. Or he left it out and has put it in his second book, along with a bunch of guards. The rule of the Backe Sword is supposed to be effective against left handers and it turns up once in a while. (sorry, my notes are all over the place at the moment otherwise I'd be a bit more specific).
Brief digression- At some point, I will be working on collecting techniques against left handers. It makes sense considering how many of the sinister gits have infiltrated HEMA, and it's a different set of thoughts to use and your lines are completely different. Actually, now I think about it. Inigo Montoya was not being generous when fighting with his left hand. All the books say that a left handed man has the advantage because he meets many right handed men, whereas a right handed man is unlikely to meet or train against a left handed man.
Anyway. I suspect (with no ready references or practice to back me up) that this rule of the backe sword/backe sword fashion is some kind of hanging guard. I doubt it's Silver's hanging guard- point retracted with a stabby weapon is silly. False-edge work is a possibility, but I think a remote one.
Although... I've just walked through the Silver True Guard with the rapier and... it could work if you step in and thrust at the half-sword (he likes that in another situation). I'm not convinced, but it's best to put the idea down. Just in case that's right.
Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Subsidary training.
I have a problem. I find running tedious and I don't actually have much of an exercise regime. I walk a lot and that's about it.
This is not good, especially if I'm going to be presenting myself as an example and leading a club. So I will need something to improve certain core skills and maybe provide me with things I can do in warm up/give advice as subsidiary health/flexibility work.
The most obvious one is yoga/pilates. Stuff like that helps with core strength, balance, flexibility and so on. But it's not particularly dynamic. Besides, I'd look bloody silly in a leotard.
But the one that I'm entertaining a bit more seriously is Parkour. You see, it works on things like balance and the flow of movement, improves agility, distance estimation and awareness of surroundings. I assume it also covers things like breakfalls and quick recovery (something terribly useful if I want to dedicate some time to the ninjitsu and wrestling aspects of Bartitsu).
I'll probably lay off the flips and the more preposterous acrobatics. I don't really want to become a parody swashbuckler.
However, the more I think about it, the more Parkour becomes an interesting bedfellow for HEMA.
This is not good, especially if I'm going to be presenting myself as an example and leading a club. So I will need something to improve certain core skills and maybe provide me with things I can do in warm up/give advice as subsidiary health/flexibility work.
The most obvious one is yoga/pilates. Stuff like that helps with core strength, balance, flexibility and so on. But it's not particularly dynamic. Besides, I'd look bloody silly in a leotard.
But the one that I'm entertaining a bit more seriously is Parkour. You see, it works on things like balance and the flow of movement, improves agility, distance estimation and awareness of surroundings. I assume it also covers things like breakfalls and quick recovery (something terribly useful if I want to dedicate some time to the ninjitsu and wrestling aspects of Bartitsu).
I'll probably lay off the flips and the more preposterous acrobatics. I don't really want to become a parody swashbuckler.
However, the more I think about it, the more Parkour becomes an interesting bedfellow for HEMA.
Saturday, 12 November 2011
Fighting is for girls. Part II.
There's a particularly offensive feminist statement: "Women have to be twice as good to be considered equal". I hate this because it tells me that I cannot recognise skill, dedication and ability just because of the shape of their naughty bits.
Kristine Konsmo is not twice as good, she is better than that. I may be wrong, but it looks like she's using I.33, the oldest known European manuscript on fencing and one which has a fighting woman in the illustrations.
http://youtu.be/k7bh9RHfOnI
I could go on about gender stereotyping and use words like grace, agility and so on. But...
I want to fight like a girl.
Kristine Konsmo is not twice as good, she is better than that. I may be wrong, but it looks like she's using I.33, the oldest known European manuscript on fencing and one which has a fighting woman in the illustrations.
http://youtu.be/k7bh9RHfOnI
I could go on about gender stereotyping and use words like grace, agility and so on. But...
I want to fight like a girl.
Friday, 11 November 2011
Thursday, 10 November 2011
The Enormity of it all.
I chose Swetnam because of a few reasons. The fact that it's in English is one of them- I can't speak or read any other languages, so having something in a dialect that I grew up reading (Family and local history... I'm a goth, not a vampire) means I can work on it without breaking my head.
Translations are difficult. The skills required are a peculiar mix of pedantry and bloody mindedness and the words you choose will be dependent on if you want a literal translation or a working interpretation. Some bits may be in slang, which means you're pretty much stuffed when looking at translations unless that slang becomes an enduring part of the common language. So, fortunately, Swetnam is "just" a matter of interpretation.
Don't get me wrong, interpretation is still a pain in the arse and you're shouting at the author for his poor choice of words or vagueness. Wondering what the hell he meant by a phrase.. but it's not wondering if you're trying to understand the technical connotations of a totally different word. The differences can be very subtle at translation level, but the errors can become compounded- especially when some bits can only really be proven by putting it into movement, so when you're struggling with a point, you'd have to go back to the original text, check the exact wording and see what other meanings it could have.
Now, apart from the ease of understanding, I chose Swetnam for his local history and the fact that nobody really looks at his work... This actually puts quite a lot of responsibility upon my shoulders. Even with my current knowledge, it's likely that I'm the expert on Swetnam in a HEMA context and one of the first practitioners in London since he wrote the book.
The long term idea to look at the 3 17th century London renaissance books has the potential to make this even bigger- putting me on a strong footing for being one of the best in the world for a very specific aspect of historical martial arts. I'm going to be open about this and say that it worries me.
I don't feel as if I know enough to legitimately say that I'm amongst the best, especially when there's a REALLY big drop off between me and the likes of Dave Rawlings. But I can't actually find anyone between me and that level of knowledge.
In all, I really love the hobby and respect the effort that goes into bringing these dead arts back to life. Which means I've got a duty to be bloody good with what I'm working on. Especially because I'm doing this on the same streets that Swetnam once walked.
Translations are difficult. The skills required are a peculiar mix of pedantry and bloody mindedness and the words you choose will be dependent on if you want a literal translation or a working interpretation. Some bits may be in slang, which means you're pretty much stuffed when looking at translations unless that slang becomes an enduring part of the common language. So, fortunately, Swetnam is "just" a matter of interpretation.
Don't get me wrong, interpretation is still a pain in the arse and you're shouting at the author for his poor choice of words or vagueness. Wondering what the hell he meant by a phrase.. but it's not wondering if you're trying to understand the technical connotations of a totally different word. The differences can be very subtle at translation level, but the errors can become compounded- especially when some bits can only really be proven by putting it into movement, so when you're struggling with a point, you'd have to go back to the original text, check the exact wording and see what other meanings it could have.
Now, apart from the ease of understanding, I chose Swetnam for his local history and the fact that nobody really looks at his work... This actually puts quite a lot of responsibility upon my shoulders. Even with my current knowledge, it's likely that I'm the expert on Swetnam in a HEMA context and one of the first practitioners in London since he wrote the book.
The long term idea to look at the 3 17th century London renaissance books has the potential to make this even bigger- putting me on a strong footing for being one of the best in the world for a very specific aspect of historical martial arts. I'm going to be open about this and say that it worries me.
I don't feel as if I know enough to legitimately say that I'm amongst the best, especially when there's a REALLY big drop off between me and the likes of Dave Rawlings. But I can't actually find anyone between me and that level of knowledge.
In all, I really love the hobby and respect the effort that goes into bringing these dead arts back to life. Which means I've got a duty to be bloody good with what I'm working on. Especially because I'm doing this on the same streets that Swetnam once walked.
Thursday, 3 November 2011
Look the goodyear blimp.
I remember a tale as I heard out of Germany. Thus it was, the master and usher of a school had upon occasion oppointed the field, and their weapon was each of them a two handed sword, and meeting at the place appointed, said the master that you are not so good as your word. The usher asked him why; marry said he, thou promised to bring no body with thee. And yet look behind you...."
And then the Master smote off his head.
This is one of Swetnam's lessons. Now it is different for us because doing something like this is dangerous, so has no place in sparring or competition. It just opens the door to some serious harm- especially if the back of their mask is not closed.
But it does apply in some ways. You can use body language to suggest you're unready. The Lazy guard with added slouching is a good way to feign that kind of idea, allowing you to break their attack with a bit of surprise. The golden rule is, if you're in wide measure (or thereabouts) then frame a guard, if your opponent appears unprepared, he's probably lying. And don't let yourself get distracted.
I mentioned something like this quite a while ago- when we were first practising in the park. It is very easy to be distracted by pretty, scantily clad women, and that is a guaranteed hit for your opponent.
And then the Master smote off his head.
This is one of Swetnam's lessons. Now it is different for us because doing something like this is dangerous, so has no place in sparring or competition. It just opens the door to some serious harm- especially if the back of their mask is not closed.
But it does apply in some ways. You can use body language to suggest you're unready. The Lazy guard with added slouching is a good way to feign that kind of idea, allowing you to break their attack with a bit of surprise. The golden rule is, if you're in wide measure (or thereabouts) then frame a guard, if your opponent appears unprepared, he's probably lying. And don't let yourself get distracted.
I mentioned something like this quite a while ago- when we were first practising in the park. It is very easy to be distracted by pretty, scantily clad women, and that is a guaranteed hit for your opponent.
Wednesday, 2 November 2011
Sword fighting is for girls.
I'm sure I have talked about this before, but I can't be bothered to go back and check...
Women make good fighters. The differences in height and strength are overcome by technique and traditionally female characteristics like grace and agility. 3 feet of sharpened metal is a great equaliser. And, like it or not, women tend to have an ability for cold-blooded calculated violence. (Rather than the hot blooded moronic type that is characteristically male)?
There is some social conditioning to overcome. Girls aren't supposed to enjoy rough housing and good girls don't hit people... which is, generally, utter bollocks. And although I'm not a poster child for the health and fitness benefits of rapier, I can say that it is a great way to tone up. (I am actually thinking about doing some yoga so I'm flexible enough.. lead by masochistic and slightly absurd example)
Besides. What better way is there to prevent trivial household arguments from escalating than kitting up and duelling to see who gets their way? The physical effects of stress are dissipated through the fight, there is a winner (hopefully unarguable, since you want a fair fight)
So, in short. Women shouldn't dismiss HEMA as a boys activity- besides, learning Swetnam would make the misogynist turn in his grave.
Women make good fighters. The differences in height and strength are overcome by technique and traditionally female characteristics like grace and agility. 3 feet of sharpened metal is a great equaliser. And, like it or not, women tend to have an ability for cold-blooded calculated violence. (Rather than the hot blooded moronic type that is characteristically male)?
There is some social conditioning to overcome. Girls aren't supposed to enjoy rough housing and good girls don't hit people... which is, generally, utter bollocks. And although I'm not a poster child for the health and fitness benefits of rapier, I can say that it is a great way to tone up. (I am actually thinking about doing some yoga so I'm flexible enough.. lead by masochistic and slightly absurd example)
Besides. What better way is there to prevent trivial household arguments from escalating than kitting up and duelling to see who gets their way? The physical effects of stress are dissipated through the fight, there is a winner (hopefully unarguable, since you want a fair fight)
So, in short. Women shouldn't dismiss HEMA as a boys activity- besides, learning Swetnam would make the misogynist turn in his grave.
Wednesday, 26 October 2011
Crosse Guard with the rapier and dagger.
Carry the point of your dagger upright and the hilt so low as your girdle-stead, without putting your thumb against the blade of your dagger, but gripping him fast in your hand, and the point of your rapier under the Dagger hand according to the picture (which, conveniently is not there)
This has required some guesswork- mainly because of the lack of the picture. It's a fairly straight forward stance. The big question is where the point of your sword goes. Obviously it's under your dagger, but do you carry the point near the ground or close to your fist?
Personally, after practice and some of the bits that he says later, I think the point should be carried close to the ground- in a position similar to one of the iron guards. You still have a lot covered by the sword but it looks a bit more open because of the increased space. It also stops you from getting tangled up with yourself.
This guard will make your chest appear open and it helps limit the effectiveness of the opponents dagger.
There is one particularly beautiful move from this position and it comes when you receive a thrust to the chest. It is a simple passing step where you turn the point of your sword up to offend. Providing you keep your dagger arm locked (relative to your body) as you step, you move to behind your dagger and your opponent runs onto your sword.
This looks quite Hollywood and foppish when done- which is a bonus- it feels really satisfying when it works. The hardest thing about the whole manoeuvre is stepping forwards when a sword is coming at you.
Tuesday, 18 October 2011
The Greatest Weapon of them all.
What is it? The bill, the longsword, the rapier.. Well, according to Swetnam it is a fair tongue. For a fair tongue, used with skill will prevent swords from being drawn. Solve fights before they occur and so on.
Which is true. Not getting into a fight is the best method of self defence around. Especially since training is usually done with gentlefolk- the kind of people who won't rip your testicles off, bite your ear and gouge at your eyes. In general, we don't fight too seriously (as I've mentioned when talking about intention).
However, one of the reasons I thought Swetnam would be interesting to study is due to the lewd arraignment of women. Not because I stand by his beliefs- but due to the fact that London women probably haven't changed that much over the past 400 years and anyone who can publish that kind of thing would have learned a lot about how to defend himself.
So there we go- a chapter on being polite and civil to avoid fights and yet he publishes something that is so sexist that it results in satirical plays decrying him as a misogynist.
Which is true. Not getting into a fight is the best method of self defence around. Especially since training is usually done with gentlefolk- the kind of people who won't rip your testicles off, bite your ear and gouge at your eyes. In general, we don't fight too seriously (as I've mentioned when talking about intention).
However, one of the reasons I thought Swetnam would be interesting to study is due to the lewd arraignment of women. Not because I stand by his beliefs- but due to the fact that London women probably haven't changed that much over the past 400 years and anyone who can publish that kind of thing would have learned a lot about how to defend himself.
So there we go- a chapter on being polite and civil to avoid fights and yet he publishes something that is so sexist that it results in satirical plays decrying him as a misogynist.
Wednesday, 12 October 2011
Rapier 2011
I had the good fortune to be able to attend the rather excellent Rapier 2011 event held by the School of the Sword and I'd like to see more events like that. Don't get me wrong- Fightcamp is an excellent event for deciding what you want to look at properly and generally having fun with new concepts, it also runs the risk of decision lock. Where you have so many options you can't choose what to do.
In contrast, Rapier 2011 was a single weapon event with one workshop on at a time. One of the first things that I've learned over that weekend is that I should really do some yoga/core strength and flexibility work. Rapier is a very demanding weapon and being able to hold a 3-4 pound weight at arms length for the entire fight is only the start of it.
I have said before that sword fighting is very simple. Which it is- there are easily grasped rules and body mechanics to it. The beauty is that these simple things build together to create a complex whole. How you apply these rules is largely a matter of preference and then building them into a bigger picture comes with skill and experience.
You could see this in some competition fights. A nice bout of mental chess happening then despite nobody actually attacking, one person loses, retreats out of distance and tries a different approach. It also appeared in the lessons- despite some movements being unusual, people easily grasped the concepts and could see how it works. Nothing was counter intuitive. Although, I am still having difficulty stepping inwards when someone is trying to stab me in the face.
Anyway, comments about the workshops:
There were two recycled from Fightcamp. The School of the Sword's slow-motion flow drill and Dave Rawlings' introduction to Thibault. I have no problem with this, especially because the slow motion flow drill is a brilliant training technique.
The Thibault stuff. Personally I'd have liked a broader sweep of the subject so I could put things into context and see how it all fits in. However, it's clear that Mr Rawlings knows his stuff and is a perfectionist. I suspect he's got this flowchart/decision tree tattooed on the back of his eyelids and he was reading the first few branches.
A nice touch was changing hands all the time. The other arm tends to get neglected and doing 2 hours of holding your sword at shoulder height is knackering. It was an intensely technical lesson and quite mentally tiring. Maybe concentrating on the principle of blade feel would have made it clearer. I'm not entirely sure exactly what I've taken away from that lesson, but I think I got a lot.
Dutch rapier. Now, this was interesting. I've had a question about something Swetnam mentions. I can't be bothered to find the exact text but it is along the lines of turning your knuckles up and stepping in. It appears there's a Dutch analogue and all is now clear. And it also seems to work as a point down/point up parry with rapier and dagger.
Voids, contratempo and work against the blade. I found myself getting quite frustrated during this. Not because it was difficult or boring but because it moved at a very fast pace, so I managed to get it right once or twice but not enough to seal it in my mind. For me the lesson went "Ow. Bollocks, that wasn't right. Ah, I know what I did wrong. Ah-ha!. Yes, I think I have it. What do you mean stop? I've only just got up to speed". It has shown me something about organising lessons which is plan too much, know you're planning too much and then let the students set the pace. If they need more time on it, give them more time. If they get bored, up the conflict. Techniques I've taken away are few- I've improved the void of the head (although, I doubt I'll use it in sparring) and stepping in and striking from off line.
French rapier. The thing that stood out from this was a very neat way to deal with having your sword grabbed. I'm not going to say much about it apart from it's a bit devious. Lots of good things about fight psychology- things that don't appear in sparring, like if you thoroughly stab someone they are "not dead yet" and so have nothing left to lose and can turn into a very dangerous opponent until they finally drop.
The competition: There should be some video of this from the School of the Sword. It's quite hard to comment on that because of the amount of fighting and the tendency for it to blur together after the first hour. Especially when you're wondering about getting back to the hotel and changed for dinner.
There was also a little presentation from an assistant curator of the Wallace Collection. They're doing a very interesting event next spring/summer involving what we do. The Wallace is a hidden treasure of London and I'd recommend going anyway but the addition of the original manuscripts and an exhibition on the evolution of sword arts- it's now a must see rather than a mere "you'll enjoy this".
Thie was written in advance, but for some reason, the scheduling had messed up (probably due to me)
In contrast, Rapier 2011 was a single weapon event with one workshop on at a time. One of the first things that I've learned over that weekend is that I should really do some yoga/core strength and flexibility work. Rapier is a very demanding weapon and being able to hold a 3-4 pound weight at arms length for the entire fight is only the start of it.
I have said before that sword fighting is very simple. Which it is- there are easily grasped rules and body mechanics to it. The beauty is that these simple things build together to create a complex whole. How you apply these rules is largely a matter of preference and then building them into a bigger picture comes with skill and experience.
You could see this in some competition fights. A nice bout of mental chess happening then despite nobody actually attacking, one person loses, retreats out of distance and tries a different approach. It also appeared in the lessons- despite some movements being unusual, people easily grasped the concepts and could see how it works. Nothing was counter intuitive. Although, I am still having difficulty stepping inwards when someone is trying to stab me in the face.
Anyway, comments about the workshops:
There were two recycled from Fightcamp. The School of the Sword's slow-motion flow drill and Dave Rawlings' introduction to Thibault. I have no problem with this, especially because the slow motion flow drill is a brilliant training technique.
The Thibault stuff. Personally I'd have liked a broader sweep of the subject so I could put things into context and see how it all fits in. However, it's clear that Mr Rawlings knows his stuff and is a perfectionist. I suspect he's got this flowchart/decision tree tattooed on the back of his eyelids and he was reading the first few branches.
A nice touch was changing hands all the time. The other arm tends to get neglected and doing 2 hours of holding your sword at shoulder height is knackering. It was an intensely technical lesson and quite mentally tiring. Maybe concentrating on the principle of blade feel would have made it clearer. I'm not entirely sure exactly what I've taken away from that lesson, but I think I got a lot.
Dutch rapier. Now, this was interesting. I've had a question about something Swetnam mentions. I can't be bothered to find the exact text but it is along the lines of turning your knuckles up and stepping in. It appears there's a Dutch analogue and all is now clear. And it also seems to work as a point down/point up parry with rapier and dagger.
Voids, contratempo and work against the blade. I found myself getting quite frustrated during this. Not because it was difficult or boring but because it moved at a very fast pace, so I managed to get it right once or twice but not enough to seal it in my mind. For me the lesson went "Ow. Bollocks, that wasn't right. Ah, I know what I did wrong. Ah-ha!. Yes, I think I have it. What do you mean stop? I've only just got up to speed". It has shown me something about organising lessons which is plan too much, know you're planning too much and then let the students set the pace. If they need more time on it, give them more time. If they get bored, up the conflict. Techniques I've taken away are few- I've improved the void of the head (although, I doubt I'll use it in sparring) and stepping in and striking from off line.
French rapier. The thing that stood out from this was a very neat way to deal with having your sword grabbed. I'm not going to say much about it apart from it's a bit devious. Lots of good things about fight psychology- things that don't appear in sparring, like if you thoroughly stab someone they are "not dead yet" and so have nothing left to lose and can turn into a very dangerous opponent until they finally drop.
The competition: There should be some video of this from the School of the Sword. It's quite hard to comment on that because of the amount of fighting and the tendency for it to blur together after the first hour. Especially when you're wondering about getting back to the hotel and changed for dinner.
There was also a little presentation from an assistant curator of the Wallace Collection. They're doing a very interesting event next spring/summer involving what we do. The Wallace is a hidden treasure of London and I'd recommend going anyway but the addition of the original manuscripts and an exhibition on the evolution of sword arts- it's now a must see rather than a mere "you'll enjoy this".
Thie was written in advance, but for some reason, the scheduling had messed up (probably due to me)
Wednesday, 5 October 2011
Scheduling
In an effort to keep this alive, I wrote a bunch of posts and set up a thrice-weekly schedule. It's now occurred to me (after having a busy and brainfilled weekend of stabbing and then subsequent life stuff) that I'm going to burn out at that pace. However, if I don't hold myself to some kind of update routine- this will fade away yet again.
I like sharing the good things about this hobby and that includes the frustrations of interpretation and.. I've put a fair amount of work into trying to understand the noble art of stabbing people in the face. It's nice to feel as if some of my knowledge is being used by other people. Also, now I'm looking at teaching, putting my notes and ideas up means that I'll get people challenging them and helping me improve.
I think once a week should be sustainable. Especially after I've I taken the final step- get a room to teach in and start my arm of the club.
I like sharing the good things about this hobby and that includes the frustrations of interpretation and.. I've put a fair amount of work into trying to understand the noble art of stabbing people in the face. It's nice to feel as if some of my knowledge is being used by other people. Also, now I'm looking at teaching, putting my notes and ideas up means that I'll get people challenging them and helping me improve.
I think once a week should be sustainable. Especially after I've I taken the final step- get a room to teach in and start my arm of the club.
Monday, 3 October 2011
The myth of Full Intent
Right, I see a lot of complaints about not fighting with full intent and suchlike. Now, let's be honest- nobody fights with full intent. And as the rattling of sabres and general harrumphing starts up, I shall go further and say you should never trust someone who- in this day and age- fights with full intent, for they are a callous fuckwit.
How dare I say this? Well.. We're good people. We don't fight to kill, or even injure our opponents. We have padding and safety measures to enable us to fight with more intent than we could otherwise and we aim for blows that would be fatal in a real fight. But. You would feel awful if you severely injured your opponent. Sometimes your actions are directed by where you know the padding is soundest, sometimes you avoid shots where you know your opponent is unprotected- you do not go for a groin shot he isn't wearing a box. There's a range of disarms that I will not attempt with the rapier unless I know my opponent is holding their blade in a certain way. Not because it's ineffective, but because I don't want to break their fingers.
In reality, the ideal would be to kill or seriously wound your opponent by any means necessary. I don't know about you- but the idea of doing that to someone fills me with horror.
We will (hopefully) never be called upon to use a sword in a duelling context and that fight- where your life is literally in the balance and it is kill or be killed- is going to be different to even the most intense competition fights. I will admit that I don't fight with intent, I commit to the attack and do what I can, following martial principles and suchlike. But at the back of my mind is the fact that I could seriously injure my opponent and I am wary of it. I'm not big on winning or losing, in fact I consider a poor fight as a loss regardless of who got the most hits in.
Obviously, "fair" intent is a moveable feast. My competition head is very different from my freeplay head, which is different from my "let's see if I can do this under fight conditions" head. For me, I think that my intent is related to how pressured I feel- and I suspect that's the same for most people. There are a lot of compromises necessary to keep things safe and as realistic as possible.
Swetnam says something along these lines- Be cautious of calling yourself great simply because you can beat your friends at play, for they are all gentlemen and do not wish to kill you. It may give you an idea of how good you are, but you will never know your real capabilities until you are forced into a live fight.
Although this is a martial art and it is taken seriously by practitioners, there are concepts of "acceptable injury" at play all the time. It's why we wear padding and use foiled swords. We do not want to wound our opponents, let alone hit them with a devastating blow.
With HEMA, there tends to be only two types of people you fight- people you think you want to have a beer with afterwards and people you know you want to have a beer with afterwards.
How dare I say this? Well.. We're good people. We don't fight to kill, or even injure our opponents. We have padding and safety measures to enable us to fight with more intent than we could otherwise and we aim for blows that would be fatal in a real fight. But. You would feel awful if you severely injured your opponent. Sometimes your actions are directed by where you know the padding is soundest, sometimes you avoid shots where you know your opponent is unprotected- you do not go for a groin shot he isn't wearing a box. There's a range of disarms that I will not attempt with the rapier unless I know my opponent is holding their blade in a certain way. Not because it's ineffective, but because I don't want to break their fingers.
In reality, the ideal would be to kill or seriously wound your opponent by any means necessary. I don't know about you- but the idea of doing that to someone fills me with horror.
We will (hopefully) never be called upon to use a sword in a duelling context and that fight- where your life is literally in the balance and it is kill or be killed- is going to be different to even the most intense competition fights. I will admit that I don't fight with intent, I commit to the attack and do what I can, following martial principles and suchlike. But at the back of my mind is the fact that I could seriously injure my opponent and I am wary of it. I'm not big on winning or losing, in fact I consider a poor fight as a loss regardless of who got the most hits in.
Obviously, "fair" intent is a moveable feast. My competition head is very different from my freeplay head, which is different from my "let's see if I can do this under fight conditions" head. For me, I think that my intent is related to how pressured I feel- and I suspect that's the same for most people. There are a lot of compromises necessary to keep things safe and as realistic as possible.
Swetnam says something along these lines- Be cautious of calling yourself great simply because you can beat your friends at play, for they are all gentlemen and do not wish to kill you. It may give you an idea of how good you are, but you will never know your real capabilities until you are forced into a live fight.
Although this is a martial art and it is taken seriously by practitioners, there are concepts of "acceptable injury" at play all the time. It's why we wear padding and use foiled swords. We do not want to wound our opponents, let alone hit them with a devastating blow.
With HEMA, there tends to be only two types of people you fight- people you think you want to have a beer with afterwards and people you know you want to have a beer with afterwards.
Friday, 30 September 2011
Use of the dagger.
I guess this is the strangest part of rapier and dagger- the fact that your off hand can be used to defend and attack. Once you start with it, you realise how bloody obvious it is to have that option.
It brings another dimension to the fight because you have two ways to close the line and allows a lot more defence in general. Anyway...
From True Guard there's two (main) ways to defend with the dagger, turning point up and scooping the blade towards your sword arm or turning point down and pushing towards your dagger side. This should be timed with an attack wherever possible. Getting the combination of defence and attack down into one fluid movement is a bit tricky.
There is also a question about the best way to progress with fighting- Saviolo says rapier first, Swetnam says dagger and rapier first. Fun says bring the dagger in as soon as is sensible.
I started with single rapier (well, I started with botch-job shinai- utterly crap for thrusting and equally bad for blade feel- and didn't get my hands on steel until my first Fightcamp competition. But that's another story). And until I find a cheaper, more sensible way to bring in the dagger- financial matters means that I will have to teach in that order. Newspaper daggers are ok for a little while, but they don't exactly ooze professionalism.
As a teacher I want to bring the dagger in quickly, it highlights the differences between what we do and sport fencing. Putting a dagger in the hand gives another reason for not throwing your arm back as you lunge.
Bringing in the dagger is a discipline in itself and it really helps dispel the girly-car-aerial prejudice that can exist with the more... robust longswordsmen. Breaking it down so it's not too intimidating for the newbie is fairly easy- there is always an ohshitohshitohshitohshit reaction. (If the dagger is in the right place at the beginning and your sword fails to block- wave dagger about while saying ohshitohshit, and you're likely to keep safe)
Changing the beat of "blimey, that worked" into "why am I not dead" into "man, that was cool" to "Oh crap, he's going to hit me again" to that mutual pause and grin before grappling starts and then to beat all of those/go through all of them in the blink of an eye and just see the new opening... that's the challenge.
The dagger is an absolute game changer. If you're looking at longsword against rapier and dagger- The strengths of the longsword are compromised. The speed you can change lines is met with a waiting dagger. A rapier's range is greater, but if your opponent gets close that dagger is coming in.
I'm not confident about being on the receiving end of steel longswords and the nylons (rightfully) don't hold up well against steel. And the whole protection aspect of it all requires different tools. Which is a shame, because I think it would be good playing against the longsword. Especially with the dagger- something that really helps protect one of my weak spots (especially when compared to longsworders who love it). I'm fairly rubbish at grappling, I tend to concentrate on distance control and don't let people get near enough to try it. This is difficult to do with single rapier. Once they're past the point, there's not much you can do apart from run backwards. Bringing the dagger in means that, while they're concentrating on controlling your sword, your dagger hand can do sewing machine impressions.
As I've said before, weapon choices are no longer about what is "better". We're reconstructing an art and the chances of us using swords in anger is remarkably tiny. We can bring some of the skills into a self defence scenario, but the most likely "weapon" is going to be a cane or stick of some sorts.
So on the important aspects of fun, enjoyment and tactics- the dagger brings a lot to the fight. If you enjoy single rapier, I'd highly recommend playing with dagger as well. If you think single rapier is missing something, I'd also recommend playing with the dagger.
It brings another dimension to the fight because you have two ways to close the line and allows a lot more defence in general. Anyway...
From True Guard there's two (main) ways to defend with the dagger, turning point up and scooping the blade towards your sword arm or turning point down and pushing towards your dagger side. This should be timed with an attack wherever possible. Getting the combination of defence and attack down into one fluid movement is a bit tricky.
There is also a question about the best way to progress with fighting- Saviolo says rapier first, Swetnam says dagger and rapier first. Fun says bring the dagger in as soon as is sensible.
I started with single rapier (well, I started with botch-job shinai- utterly crap for thrusting and equally bad for blade feel- and didn't get my hands on steel until my first Fightcamp competition. But that's another story). And until I find a cheaper, more sensible way to bring in the dagger- financial matters means that I will have to teach in that order. Newspaper daggers are ok for a little while, but they don't exactly ooze professionalism.
As a teacher I want to bring the dagger in quickly, it highlights the differences between what we do and sport fencing. Putting a dagger in the hand gives another reason for not throwing your arm back as you lunge.
Bringing in the dagger is a discipline in itself and it really helps dispel the girly-car-aerial prejudice that can exist with the more... robust longswordsmen. Breaking it down so it's not too intimidating for the newbie is fairly easy- there is always an ohshitohshitohshitohshit reaction. (If the dagger is in the right place at the beginning and your sword fails to block- wave dagger about while saying ohshitohshit, and you're likely to keep safe)
Changing the beat of "blimey, that worked" into "why am I not dead" into "man, that was cool" to "Oh crap, he's going to hit me again" to that mutual pause and grin before grappling starts and then to beat all of those/go through all of them in the blink of an eye and just see the new opening... that's the challenge.
The dagger is an absolute game changer. If you're looking at longsword against rapier and dagger- The strengths of the longsword are compromised. The speed you can change lines is met with a waiting dagger. A rapier's range is greater, but if your opponent gets close that dagger is coming in.
I'm not confident about being on the receiving end of steel longswords and the nylons (rightfully) don't hold up well against steel. And the whole protection aspect of it all requires different tools. Which is a shame, because I think it would be good playing against the longsword. Especially with the dagger- something that really helps protect one of my weak spots (especially when compared to longsworders who love it). I'm fairly rubbish at grappling, I tend to concentrate on distance control and don't let people get near enough to try it. This is difficult to do with single rapier. Once they're past the point, there's not much you can do apart from run backwards. Bringing the dagger in means that, while they're concentrating on controlling your sword, your dagger hand can do sewing machine impressions.
As I've said before, weapon choices are no longer about what is "better". We're reconstructing an art and the chances of us using swords in anger is remarkably tiny. We can bring some of the skills into a self defence scenario, but the most likely "weapon" is going to be a cane or stick of some sorts.
So on the important aspects of fun, enjoyment and tactics- the dagger brings a lot to the fight. If you enjoy single rapier, I'd highly recommend playing with dagger as well. If you think single rapier is missing something, I'd also recommend playing with the dagger.
Wednesday, 28 September 2011
Thoughts made solid.
There is a curious phenomenon with an interest that is so physically and mentally intensive as HEMA, and that is the loss of words.
Sometimes I see sword fighting as a language. The idea is to become fluent enough so that you don't stumble and pause before answering your opponent.
You have ideas like exchange, expression, riposte, answer and so-on all floating around the fight and essentially it's a very physical and pointy dialogue. Because of this, you get to learn a lot about someone with the way they hold themselves under pressure, how easy they are to provoke and.. well. It's a difficult thing to explain to non-fighters.
However, after immersion in that kind of environment, it becomes very easy to lose your native tongue for a while. Your thoughts and methods of expression are very physical.. and even with my mastery of English, I'm struggling to find the right words for the process of changing headspace or even what the fighting headspace actually is. It is not to be confused with competition headspace (which is what happens when you have something to lose).
So, as I wind down from a really interesting and useful event. I find myself thinking in postures, positioning and gestures rather than words. I suspect this is a good thing, since it means that I'm internalising what I have been working on.
But it is strange feeling your body want to move in a way that would literally put your point across.
Sometimes I see sword fighting as a language. The idea is to become fluent enough so that you don't stumble and pause before answering your opponent.
You have ideas like exchange, expression, riposte, answer and so-on all floating around the fight and essentially it's a very physical and pointy dialogue. Because of this, you get to learn a lot about someone with the way they hold themselves under pressure, how easy they are to provoke and.. well. It's a difficult thing to explain to non-fighters.
However, after immersion in that kind of environment, it becomes very easy to lose your native tongue for a while. Your thoughts and methods of expression are very physical.. and even with my mastery of English, I'm struggling to find the right words for the process of changing headspace or even what the fighting headspace actually is. It is not to be confused with competition headspace (which is what happens when you have something to lose).
So, as I wind down from a really interesting and useful event. I find myself thinking in postures, positioning and gestures rather than words. I suspect this is a good thing, since it means that I'm internalising what I have been working on.
But it is strange feeling your body want to move in a way that would literally put your point across.
Monday, 26 September 2011
Tells and telegraphing are bad.
Shortly after he describes True Guard, Swetnam goes on about hawks for a bit. This is a long winded and rather pretty digression but it eventually comes to a point. The hawk may be fast, but you get precious seconds to prepare when you see their muscles bunch just before they launch into the air.
Recognising tells and reading your opponent is very important- so is eliminating your own tells. Anything you can do to reduce the window where your opponent can legitimately defend himself is a good thing. Preventing telegraphing is also useful in tricking your opponent into believing that a feint is real.
Blade contact allows you to read intent by feel, this works both ways and your opponent can do the same. If your blades are touching- assume that you're shouting out exactly what you're going to do. You may think this is all bollocks, but contact mind reading has been used as entertainment for at least a century and Derren Brown can find an object hidden in Venice using this skill. You will be able to tell that your opponent is about to disengage, become more sensitive and you'll know a lot more.
However, the majority of the reaction time is controlled by keeping distance and framing a good guard- making sure they have to move more to hit you that you need to move to defend yourself and keeping lines closed.
Everyone regardless of school, weapon or suchlike seems to agree that timing and distance are essential. There's a lot of words spouted about what "good time" is, but distance appears to be universal- The longest reach of the two people, plus one inch. (of course, then you've got to close under guard and stuff when you're short or strike as they recover). Recognising tells helps you maintain this distance, your opponent's posture changes when he thinks you're in their range and you can react accordingly.
Recognising tells and reading your opponent is very important- so is eliminating your own tells. Anything you can do to reduce the window where your opponent can legitimately defend himself is a good thing. Preventing telegraphing is also useful in tricking your opponent into believing that a feint is real.
Blade contact allows you to read intent by feel, this works both ways and your opponent can do the same. If your blades are touching- assume that you're shouting out exactly what you're going to do. You may think this is all bollocks, but contact mind reading has been used as entertainment for at least a century and Derren Brown can find an object hidden in Venice using this skill. You will be able to tell that your opponent is about to disengage, become more sensitive and you'll know a lot more.
However, the majority of the reaction time is controlled by keeping distance and framing a good guard- making sure they have to move more to hit you that you need to move to defend yourself and keeping lines closed.
Everyone regardless of school, weapon or suchlike seems to agree that timing and distance are essential. There's a lot of words spouted about what "good time" is, but distance appears to be universal- The longest reach of the two people, plus one inch. (of course, then you've got to close under guard and stuff when you're short or strike as they recover). Recognising tells helps you maintain this distance, your opponent's posture changes when he thinks you're in their range and you can react accordingly.
Friday, 23 September 2011
True Guard with Rapier and Dagger
Ok. I guess I'll start in the same way as Swetnam, by describing his true guard. This is basically so you can follow what I'm saying. In the book, he describes this as a guard and then most of his principles and explanations appear attached to it. After reading, smacking my head against the table, ordering more beer, smacking my head against the table and so-on. I decided to separate True Guard from the principles and treat it in the way he's treated the other guards. So:
I can see what he means about this being a great beginner's guard. Flinch reactions from this position are effective- you can deflect the attack over your sword shoulder (if you remember to drop the tip of your rapier and thrust) or you can pass to your dagger side. You can have quite a healthy exchange without being hit, even if you start to panic a little.
Also, the position of the dagger means that you're not as vulnerable if you choose to attack a leg. The traditional "pull back your leg and wallop him on the head" doesn't work as well when the dagger is covering that line. It's still not a great idea to go for that as a target, but it's no longer really, really stupid.
True Guard with the Rapier and Dagger:There is a question about the angle of the dagger- he says to have it sloping towards your right shoulder, but in practice that makes the knuckles on the dagger hand far too vulnerable and requires you to keep the rapier back quite a lot to maintain a small distance between points. Pointing the dagger forwards a little means that your knuckles gain a lot more protection and you can extend the rapier hand forward into something closer to what we recognise as third. This question cannot be a matter of closed/open hilt on the dagger as he explicitly talks about this difference elsewhere.
How to hold this guard:
Rapier low- in line with trouser pocket. Hilt of dagger in line with with left cheek, point sloping parallel to the right shoulder. Both arms straight. Tips of blades to be close together. If the gap between the blades is too much- move the rapier hand backwards until the points are near.
Why this guard:
Protects against wrist blows, stops rapier from being tied up by dagger.
It's “True” because it's for beginners rather than being perfect. It allows the beginner to play and discover principles without getting too hurt.
I can see what he means about this being a great beginner's guard. Flinch reactions from this position are effective- you can deflect the attack over your sword shoulder (if you remember to drop the tip of your rapier and thrust) or you can pass to your dagger side. You can have quite a healthy exchange without being hit, even if you start to panic a little.
Also, the position of the dagger means that you're not as vulnerable if you choose to attack a leg. The traditional "pull back your leg and wallop him on the head" doesn't work as well when the dagger is covering that line. It's still not a great idea to go for that as a target, but it's no longer really, really stupid.
Wednesday, 21 September 2011
Assumptions.
I guess this is the place to start- and it's one of the hardest since I'm trying to list the things that I take for granted. I think I'll try to stick to the ones which don't quite come into "being a good fighter. That will be a different topic"
"All cuts are fatal". This isn't meant as in "that nick in your arm will kill you". However the gash will slow you down and make it much easier for a nastier blow to land. Being stabbed/cut hurts and pain is distracting. Therefore- don't get hit.
"If you survive, you don't want to be hanged". I think this is a peculiarly Swetnam trait. Somewhere around then, duelling had been outlawed in the city and this brings a more cautious attitude to the fight. If you did some of the capoferro techniques involving aiming at the right eye- you could be hauled up in front of the beak on a murder charge. So the legality of duelling has shaped the fight.
"Any hole's a goal" there's no point being picky about your target. If you can give a light cut and remain under cover it's as good as stabbing him through the heart. If a leg is exposed then go for it. Predicting exactly where and how you will hit an opponent is pretentious, egotistical tomfoolery and a bit silly, especially when "passing". If you can make a hole without getting hit- do it.
"Englishmen have a tendency to cut" this is another Swetnam specific, and from my experience this is pretty true. It's only fairly recently that longsword simulators have been safe on the thrust (well, not including feders) and so you'll notice a tendency to cut with most weapons. From behind a rapier, a cut still feels nice and I know I still go for them despite the fact that it would be wiser to thrust. This is also probably something to do with distance control and suchlike. But basically although rapier is primarily a thrusting weapon, it still cuts and people tend to use the cut first.
"Feints must be treated as if they were real" You must, at least cover a feint and a feint should be able to be moved into an attack on that line as well as the line you're trying to open up.
"Don't trust the other person to believe these assumptions" Just because you don't want to be up for murder, it doesn't mean your opponent is thinking that far into the future.
"All swords are sharp pointy things designed to cut and to thrust. Some types are better at one than the other, but they still work both ways." The differences between one handed, complex hilt swords are fairly moot. What works well for a rapier will work, just not quite as well, with a backsword and so on. Throwing these techniques away simply because you're not using the perfect sword for them is a stupid idea. You never know what may come in handy.
These assumptions will shape my interpretation in some ways- for example the shoulder becomes a "vital organ" and a thrust there is, in ways, preferable to a stab in the face, lungs or heart.
I may cover the assumptions that make a good fighter, regardless of weapon and school of thought later. It would certainly be helpful for putting lessons into blocks.
"All cuts are fatal". This isn't meant as in "that nick in your arm will kill you". However the gash will slow you down and make it much easier for a nastier blow to land. Being stabbed/cut hurts and pain is distracting. Therefore- don't get hit.
"If you survive, you don't want to be hanged". I think this is a peculiarly Swetnam trait. Somewhere around then, duelling had been outlawed in the city and this brings a more cautious attitude to the fight. If you did some of the capoferro techniques involving aiming at the right eye- you could be hauled up in front of the beak on a murder charge. So the legality of duelling has shaped the fight.
"Any hole's a goal" there's no point being picky about your target. If you can give a light cut and remain under cover it's as good as stabbing him through the heart. If a leg is exposed then go for it. Predicting exactly where and how you will hit an opponent is pretentious, egotistical tomfoolery and a bit silly, especially when "passing". If you can make a hole without getting hit- do it.
"Englishmen have a tendency to cut" this is another Swetnam specific, and from my experience this is pretty true. It's only fairly recently that longsword simulators have been safe on the thrust (well, not including feders) and so you'll notice a tendency to cut with most weapons. From behind a rapier, a cut still feels nice and I know I still go for them despite the fact that it would be wiser to thrust. This is also probably something to do with distance control and suchlike. But basically although rapier is primarily a thrusting weapon, it still cuts and people tend to use the cut first.
"Feints must be treated as if they were real" You must, at least cover a feint and a feint should be able to be moved into an attack on that line as well as the line you're trying to open up.
"Don't trust the other person to believe these assumptions" Just because you don't want to be up for murder, it doesn't mean your opponent is thinking that far into the future.
"All swords are sharp pointy things designed to cut and to thrust. Some types are better at one than the other, but they still work both ways." The differences between one handed, complex hilt swords are fairly moot. What works well for a rapier will work, just not quite as well, with a backsword and so on. Throwing these techniques away simply because you're not using the perfect sword for them is a stupid idea. You never know what may come in handy.
These assumptions will shape my interpretation in some ways- for example the shoulder becomes a "vital organ" and a thrust there is, in ways, preferable to a stab in the face, lungs or heart.
I may cover the assumptions that make a good fighter, regardless of weapon and school of thought later. It would certainly be helpful for putting lessons into blocks.
Monday, 19 September 2011
All this umming and ahhing and false starts:
Well. I have been busy, but invisible. As I've mentioned I'm looking at Swetnam, but it's slightly more widespread and wibbly than that. The joys of the written word from an era before editors and spell check mean that my brain has threatened to seep from my ears at some point. It's also required me to have a look at the context of the whole thing. (And lots of going back and forth between chapters in Swetnam as well)
I can now run a competent lesson or three on Swetnam's rapier and dagger. But that's not good enough for me. You see, I like teaching. I like seeing people build on what I have done and create something much greater. I don't really care if I'm a good fighter or not- but I do care if I'm a bad teacher.
What was going to be a simple "pointy bit goes in the other person" exercise has actually bloomed into something much bigger. Not just because he cross references everywhere, but because of the cultural background that he writes from.
One of the key parts of Swetnam seems to be that everyone has their own methods of fighting and how they hold things and, being quite late, his work is a response to other methods. So, it's a matter of getting the details of what he would have seen and what he takes for granted. I'm not a purist when it comes to "the masters". Fighting does not exist in a bubble, especially European styles where everyone has tried to invade, enslave, conqueror and steal from everyone else.
Swetnam is a bit vague in places, which I think is fair- since precision is developed over time and you can't improve if you're dead (which is his basic reasoning behind the naming of his "true guard", it keeps you alive for long enough to become adequate) But without an idea of the threats he would have faced on the street, I cannot be sure of my interpretation. He was writing in early 17th century London. A city chock-full of random nationalities and foreign masters who said that they were the best and in an area where things were proven very quickly and, sometimes, fatally.
So what does this mean for me? I guess it means that I'm going to be working on how rapier and associated sword play occurred on the streets of my city and that I'm having to look into Saviolo as a counterpoint (and maybe a bit of Silver.. but not much).
It's going to be quite complex and a real pain in the arse in places- but my interpretation is going to be shaped by knowledge of his contemporaries. Ignoring the fact that students of Saviolo and Swetnam (and others.. but one step at a time) were in such close proximity means that I'd miss important points and clues given by context. I also suspect that Swetnam was used to teaching people who knew the longsword.. a situation I've found myself in.
If I want to be a good teacher- I have to know this stuff. And if I get this all down properly, I won't be teaching "Rapier and Dagger as described by Swetnam" but "Early 17th century sword play: Rapier and Dagger as it may have been seen on the streets of London." Which I like- after all, one of the reasons I'm doing HEMA rather than some oriental art is because of the cultural relevancy and the way it can bring some aspects of history to life.
I also believe that fighting is heavily defined by both culture and environment and that it is easy to lose this aspect of our understanding when we fight in gym halls and wide, open fields. Or when we talk about the "best" weapon/master/school/blah blah blah. The best? At least nowadays, is the one you like the most.
For me, the rapier makes much more sense as a weapon if you go into the City of London and explore the alleyways that litter the area. The layout hasn't changed much over a few centuries and if you grew up in a place like that, you would not think of a longsword as a valid weapon to carry. You can't use a powerful cutting weapon in a location where any good swing will take out more brickwork than flesh.
Anyway, I believe I'm starting to digress. I'll be trying to keep this updated a bit more- I'll be putting up things about my notes/interpretations and suchlike once I've translated my them into something that may possibly be understood by someone who isn't me... and I've figured out how to present them.
Once they're up- I will welcome constructive criticism. I know I'm missing bits and there are things that I've not stated because they are obvious to me and me alone. And sometimes I'm probably going to be just plain wrong.
I can now run a competent lesson or three on Swetnam's rapier and dagger. But that's not good enough for me. You see, I like teaching. I like seeing people build on what I have done and create something much greater. I don't really care if I'm a good fighter or not- but I do care if I'm a bad teacher.
What was going to be a simple "pointy bit goes in the other person" exercise has actually bloomed into something much bigger. Not just because he cross references everywhere, but because of the cultural background that he writes from.
One of the key parts of Swetnam seems to be that everyone has their own methods of fighting and how they hold things and, being quite late, his work is a response to other methods. So, it's a matter of getting the details of what he would have seen and what he takes for granted. I'm not a purist when it comes to "the masters". Fighting does not exist in a bubble, especially European styles where everyone has tried to invade, enslave, conqueror and steal from everyone else.
Swetnam is a bit vague in places, which I think is fair- since precision is developed over time and you can't improve if you're dead (which is his basic reasoning behind the naming of his "true guard", it keeps you alive for long enough to become adequate) But without an idea of the threats he would have faced on the street, I cannot be sure of my interpretation. He was writing in early 17th century London. A city chock-full of random nationalities and foreign masters who said that they were the best and in an area where things were proven very quickly and, sometimes, fatally.
So what does this mean for me? I guess it means that I'm going to be working on how rapier and associated sword play occurred on the streets of my city and that I'm having to look into Saviolo as a counterpoint (and maybe a bit of Silver.. but not much).
It's going to be quite complex and a real pain in the arse in places- but my interpretation is going to be shaped by knowledge of his contemporaries. Ignoring the fact that students of Saviolo and Swetnam (and others.. but one step at a time) were in such close proximity means that I'd miss important points and clues given by context. I also suspect that Swetnam was used to teaching people who knew the longsword.. a situation I've found myself in.
If I want to be a good teacher- I have to know this stuff. And if I get this all down properly, I won't be teaching "Rapier and Dagger as described by Swetnam" but "Early 17th century sword play: Rapier and Dagger as it may have been seen on the streets of London." Which I like- after all, one of the reasons I'm doing HEMA rather than some oriental art is because of the cultural relevancy and the way it can bring some aspects of history to life.
I also believe that fighting is heavily defined by both culture and environment and that it is easy to lose this aspect of our understanding when we fight in gym halls and wide, open fields. Or when we talk about the "best" weapon/master/school/blah blah blah. The best? At least nowadays, is the one you like the most.
For me, the rapier makes much more sense as a weapon if you go into the City of London and explore the alleyways that litter the area. The layout hasn't changed much over a few centuries and if you grew up in a place like that, you would not think of a longsword as a valid weapon to carry. You can't use a powerful cutting weapon in a location where any good swing will take out more brickwork than flesh.
Anyway, I believe I'm starting to digress. I'll be trying to keep this updated a bit more- I'll be putting up things about my notes/interpretations and suchlike once I've translated my them into something that may possibly be understood by someone who isn't me... and I've figured out how to present them.
Once they're up- I will welcome constructive criticism. I know I'm missing bits and there are things that I've not stated because they are obvious to me and me alone. And sometimes I'm probably going to be just plain wrong.
Wednesday, 8 June 2011
I seem to have been quiet for too long.
Do not worry, I haven't turned my back on the arte. It's just that I've been working on something and forgetting to share my frustrations and joys here.
Thanks to the recession I am still.. in-between jobs but I have been keeping busy. However, with the help of the lovely Kindle and my expertise at using specific kinds of software, I've been able to carry around a few manuscripts and comfortably read them. Only English ones I'm afraid- my foreign isn't good enough to work on anything else, and besides they're from my history, my culture and my streets (and my pubs, well at least the ones that survived the Fire).
I am getting more faith in my interpretation as time goes on. I think it will always be a little nerve-racking when you first start testing your studies. It's bad enough with the world of academia when it's only your ego that gets bruised when you're shown to be on completely the wrong path. "I think I've got this right, now try to hit me"
Ok, I'm not betting my life on being right, but it can damn well feel like it sometimes.
I am almost at the point where I'm ready to start sharing my version, I will emphasise that this is my understanding and it's fully open to debate and testing. It will also be revised with other aspects. I am doing what I can to look at contemporaries and I will compare, contrast and integrate whatever is useful.
Thanks to the recession I am still.. in-between jobs but I have been keeping busy. However, with the help of the lovely Kindle and my expertise at using specific kinds of software, I've been able to carry around a few manuscripts and comfortably read them. Only English ones I'm afraid- my foreign isn't good enough to work on anything else, and besides they're from my history, my culture and my streets (and my pubs, well at least the ones that survived the Fire).
I am getting more faith in my interpretation as time goes on. I think it will always be a little nerve-racking when you first start testing your studies. It's bad enough with the world of academia when it's only your ego that gets bruised when you're shown to be on completely the wrong path. "I think I've got this right, now try to hit me"
Ok, I'm not betting my life on being right, but it can damn well feel like it sometimes.
I am almost at the point where I'm ready to start sharing my version, I will emphasise that this is my understanding and it's fully open to debate and testing. It will also be revised with other aspects. I am doing what I can to look at contemporaries and I will compare, contrast and integrate whatever is useful.
Sunday, 10 April 2011
The Kindle is Evil
Yes, yet another hibernation. It's a bit difficult trying to write about what is a very physical activity when winter forces you to pay for places to practice or to stay inside. A brief update, which will be expanded on in the future.. probably.. I'm now an instructor. Not qualified yet, but I have now taken my first lesson and it went a lot better than I hoped. I'm feeling a bit Groucho Marx about this- being a good teacher is important to me, and for all my fretting, it was far too easy. I must have been doing something wrong, apart from the obvious.
Anyway... I think I've mentioned it before- the HEMA scene has a high concentration of academics, techy people and bookish geeks. It's a bit of a necessity when you've got to hunt down and translate 700 year old writing that may have been lost in the sofa of time. By nature, it's driven by people who are dedicated to rediscovering a dead language. The information has spread by the net and people have digitised the manuscripts.
And now- this is why the Kindle is evil. It blurs the line between book and computer in a brilliant way. It's the good side of the uncanny valley- something that you need to see to be able to understand. It took me weeks to stop laughing at the fact that I wasn't looking at a piece of paper.
With a particularly obscure hobby and some training in the intricacies of OCR and digital text- I'm now starting to get annoyed. This treatise database is full of pictures of books. They are, by necessity, pictures of books. OCR has never been concerned with things as valuable and as wibblywobblytimeywimy as knowledge.
Especially when you come to computer representations of knowledge. For us a picture of a word is as good as the word itself. For a computer it's not. 16th century English fonts are easy to read- they require a glance and an understanding of the context. For a computer, the difference between ff and ss is a few pixels. The differences between sh and fi are a matter of bad scanning. Computers don't understand the difference between "I helped my uncle Jack off a horse" and "I helped my uncle jack off a horse".
I've already converted my lesson notes and index cards to the the right format. Once I've got a good library of drills, I could share those with anyone who asked. Hell, thanks to the text-to-speech stuff, I could probably run a lesson without turning up.
I'd love to be able to search the original texts on the spur of the moment. A question is asked and you can remember the shape of the book as you open it, you know that it's on a left page and about 3/4 to the back. You even remember a very specific sentence or phrase.
Even if it's in colloquial 13th century Italian- You, personally, need to know the difference, not the computer.
The Kindle is evil because it makes what was once utterly impossible into something that is just out of reach. Really- who wouldn't want to be able to walk the streets with a library that could encompass all of space and time? Ok- then you're just going to have to ask yourself where to start reading.
However it means that people can self publish on a much easier level.
Anyway... I think I've mentioned it before- the HEMA scene has a high concentration of academics, techy people and bookish geeks. It's a bit of a necessity when you've got to hunt down and translate 700 year old writing that may have been lost in the sofa of time. By nature, it's driven by people who are dedicated to rediscovering a dead language. The information has spread by the net and people have digitised the manuscripts.
And now- this is why the Kindle is evil. It blurs the line between book and computer in a brilliant way. It's the good side of the uncanny valley- something that you need to see to be able to understand. It took me weeks to stop laughing at the fact that I wasn't looking at a piece of paper.
With a particularly obscure hobby and some training in the intricacies of OCR and digital text- I'm now starting to get annoyed. This treatise database is full of pictures of books. They are, by necessity, pictures of books. OCR has never been concerned with things as valuable and as wibblywobblytimeywimy as knowledge.
Especially when you come to computer representations of knowledge. For us a picture of a word is as good as the word itself. For a computer it's not. 16th century English fonts are easy to read- they require a glance and an understanding of the context. For a computer, the difference between ff and ss is a few pixels. The differences between sh and fi are a matter of bad scanning. Computers don't understand the difference between "I helped my uncle Jack off a horse" and "I helped my uncle jack off a horse".
I've already converted my lesson notes and index cards to the the right format. Once I've got a good library of drills, I could share those with anyone who asked. Hell, thanks to the text-to-speech stuff, I could probably run a lesson without turning up.
I'd love to be able to search the original texts on the spur of the moment. A question is asked and you can remember the shape of the book as you open it, you know that it's on a left page and about 3/4 to the back. You even remember a very specific sentence or phrase.
Even if it's in colloquial 13th century Italian- You, personally, need to know the difference, not the computer.
The Kindle is evil because it makes what was once utterly impossible into something that is just out of reach. Really- who wouldn't want to be able to walk the streets with a library that could encompass all of space and time? Ok- then you're just going to have to ask yourself where to start reading.
However it means that people can self publish on a much easier level.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)