My introduction to Buckler...

In a way.

One of the things that makes HEMA distinct from fencing is the fact that people use the other hand. It's an easy thing to point at as a difference.  Personally, I find the option of an off-hand weapon to be remarkably sensible and pragmatic. Even if you don't really know what you're doing, it improves your chances of coming out alive and if you're up against brutes who really enjoy closing, it makes them think twice.

Unfortunately, the cost of a safe dagger is prohibitively expensive as club kit. It's a shame and I work around that issue in a variety of ways (including a very drill which means that I can just use one rapier and one dagger for each pair), but it is difficult to build up any kind of solid base.

However, during my reading around I've started to look at offhand weapons in general- to see how the theory matches up and what kinds of threads can be tied in and used to create a solid understanding of a concept that is largely overlooked in modern stuff. Looking at the "new" bits is one of the ways I gain understanding. When I finally get to play with quarterstaff, I'll be concentrating on what to do with the butt and how to protect hands since the long end is not that dissimilar from basic sword work.

I digress... This is supposed to be why rapier/sword and buckler is a good base for offhand weapon use. The big deal is that bucklers can be sourced fairly cheaply. You can get 3-4 of them for the price of a Hanwei dagger.  There's some crossover between use with simple and complex hilts, so the majority of theory and body mechanics is compatible. The distinction is basically made through personal preference and what kind of fight you enjoy.   There are problems with steel vs nylon, but this may be reduced due to the rounded edges of the buckler, it's not something I've investigated yet.   So on the kit and integration side, it's starting to look like a no-brainer.



The later material is a bit sketchy and there's certainly the possibility of some Victorian revisionism sneaking in under the radar. But it's there, with a strong base from simple hilt work and digging through sources and criticisms, it's possible to reconstruct the complex hilt usage. Especially if you include the criticisms and see how those altered later styles and off-hand choices.

As for the fight?

Well, I'm almost ideologically opposed to anything with simple hilts, it just seems a bit silly to have spent so damn long without even a knuckle bow to protect your fingers from being sniped at. The buckler provides the protection of a detachable complex hilt and so removes that reservation. This makes the fight a lot more fun, especially in the modern world where damaged fingers are very inconvenient. Your flinch reactions to an outside cut bring the buckler in line to parry without much in the way of change.  In all it makes it quite clear why bucklers were popular.

They're less fun in complex hilt fights because they're basically a heavier version of a dagger without the stabby bit.  So coming from that direction is a little disappointing, but as a newbie's introduction to the off-hand, it should be rather good- you don't have to worry about orientation in the way you do with a dagger, and it feels more protective (even if it's not really).


In conclusion- I think buckler will be a valuable tool for teaching off-hand stuff, and it's fun.

Explaining lines.

One of the challenges with teaching is learning the language of your students.  Imposing your "language" upon them is actually an obstacle to producing an instinctive response.

When I'm talking about language, it's more learning modes and that filter between thinking and doing. I tend to slip into a kinaesthetic mode when explaining stuff with a sword- turning my language into a directly positional one where I know by feeling what is right.

I feel this works as a multi-modal way of explanation. It can provide a visual model for the student to reconstruct. If you place them into the stance, then they have a physical/feeling model to work from. It's got a weakness with auditory learners which can be overcome by repeating the positions, adding emphasis on the descriptions while you correct positioning.  I'll probably be looking at this a bit more in the future.

But, in short, the idea is that you take the knowledge to them- as the "expert" any information exchange should be weighted in their favour rather than yours. Obfuscation and implied authority by long words is questionable in an academic debate and probably harmful in physical learning.

Open and closed lines are one of those things that are really obvious once you get the concept- the problem is that the concept is translated in so many ways.  I've heard it described as doors (which works really nicely with the analogy of closing lines). Some think of barriers. I do something like a venn diagram, possibly due to both hands in use and manuals describing a "compass" of defence... This seems to be a very personal understanding that people uncover themselves. But there's a moment when it just clicks.

Speeding up the internalisation of this concept- something with so many different ways of making sense- is tricky and a great way to highlight one of the complexities of teaching. There is no wrong answer to the question of how to describe lines as long as the result matches the reality. Insisting on your description is a good way to delay this internalisation as it means the students have to constantly translate into something they understand.

Bruises as Error Messages.

So, yesterday, I had a pretty good day getting stabbity in the park Mostly sparring, a little teaching (and I'm still really chuffed with how the guys look- they won't embarrass themselves in competition and may even get past the first round)

This morning I'm totting up the aches and pains.  There's the usual slight stiffness and there's the core stuff- this core workout is one of the reasons why women have more of an advantage than they think.  All the yoga, pilates and suchlike focuses on muscles they need to use when sparring... there's lots of reasons why duelling is for girls, including the historical precedents but I digress.

Bruises can be seen in several ways.  Badges of honour, killing blows (even in non-vital areas- as the cut can be enough to open defences to a fatal attack), and... how I'm starting to see them... error messages.

I've got 3 bruises. Unfortunately (or fortunately) they're not spectacular, but they feel distinct and will help me explain the concept. 

The thing with a good fight is that you "turn off" your brain. There's nothing more important than the fact that inattention will hurt.  Your world is, basically, reduced to your immediate surroundings. All your processing power is focused on making sure that you don't get hit and exchanges are pretty rapid.  This means that video and external eyes are very, very useful training aids allowing you to see how you went wrong.

Seeing where you went wrong is pretty easy.

I have an isolated bruise just above my left kidney. It's a long line but fairly "soft" as bruises go. With sharps it would probably have been a fatal blow. Eventually. I possibly would have been able to carry on and "win" the duel by dying last.  I know where I got this and I vaguely remember what I was doing. But it's a bit hazy- one of my weak spots is grappling and that level of close range, it's one of the reasons I prefer a dagger in my off hand.  I think I went in to choke up the cut.. but no idea.

I have a bruise on the outside of my left thigh.  Nice, clear line (which means a well controlled hit, fairly decent blade alignment), would have made fighting difficult.. I may have got one or two more hits in but I'd be fighting lame.

I have a bruise on the inside of my right thigh. This is probably the most dangerous one. It's close to a major artery and could have nicked it. Resulting in a high pressure fountain of blood that could have me dead within moments. It's a wider bruise- so blade alignment was off and that clumsiness on my opponent's part is the difference between corpse and combatant.

You can't really tell what happened with the kidney bruise. It could have been a lucky shot, it could be a regular failing of mine, it could have been an inspired adaptation by my opponent...  it could be anything in between.  It's only one hit.

The thigh shots make more sense when looked at together. In a standard guard position, the bruises align, more or less, and come from the same angle of cut. What really distinguishes the two targets is a matter of range. Outside thigh is from the opponent being quite close- voiding wasn't an option and I'd have to charge forward. Inside would have been from me not voiding properly. 


However, both are due to crap defence on that line. I know I need to do a lot more dagger drilling, and now everyone is up to a level where they can work on their own, I can start building in the body mechanics that I've been teaching to others.  Stronger dagger work probably won't help too much, considering that I need to be defending below the waist... but it's worth it for the deterrent and extra chances.

Anyhow. Bruises are just like computer error messages. In isolation they just tell you that you've done "something" wrong.  But if you find clusters of errors and obvious patterns that shows a distinct bug in your technique that needs to be analysed and addressed.