Interpretation and academia.

No translation or interpretation exists in isolation- translating a piece of work is not easy and can be prone to subjective errors. Errors creep in through slang, unfamiliar/obsolete/changed words, or simple translators bias.

The same thing happens with interpretation. Errors creep in because it's what you feel is right, or you skip over something because it doesn't make sense.  You may have even misunderstood an important paragraph or term.  This is obvious in English manuals of the time where it is common to misuse/abuse Italian fencing terms- so you struggle a little trying to figure out if he means the Italian term or his bastardised explanation, or somewhere in between.

The Wikteneur has  done a lot to improve this, and it is a step in the direction I want to investigate. But the thing that's missing is an immediate relationship to the original texts. Wouldn't it be nice to highlight bits of the text and then leave comments- describing what you think it means, possibly linking to video explanations. Creating threads on contentious or difficult passages so you can debate with others and try to find out the real meaning?

I've found something that may be useful for this.  It's designed to share lesson notes and create discussions about them- which is pretty much what I want to do, but focused on the original texts as much as possible.  I'm going to test this out with a few people to see how easy it is to understand and if it works for us.

If it really helps cultivate discussion around the manuals and help those who want to get into this aspect of HEMA get started- as well as improving my understanding.  I'd be very happy indeed.

Cage rattled...

I've been wrestling with this for a while.  There's a concrete point where 'misunderstanding', 'different goals'... and all sorts of stuff becomes "taking the piss".  Often these people hide behind the rules- don't hate the player, hate the game type people. For me, the dispute about a venue isn't about the venue- It's about extracting urine, we can all get along if we're honest.

The latest starts with me recognising my abilities and doing that with the appropriate amount of ego. When I say that somebody is a better teacher than me, I'm not putting myself down, it is because they are a better teacher than me. I respect them because they have earned that respect and some of them are the best in the world at what they do. Last week, we had someone being very apologetic while we insisted they went to Dave. That's what we like- 'sorry you're not for me, can you recommend a better teacher?'.

This is the very core of sportsmanship and gentlemanly behaviour, especially in HEMA. You get hit, you acknowledge it. A fair and well placed hit... is fair and well placed.

I've been half-teaching over the past 8 months or so. I stepped back because someone could do it better. I was ok with giving up my part of teaching because of this, I have a few grumbles thanks to lack of warning when things go tits up- but in general I am happy with the situation because of the skills in place.

So, the friction- we've worked hard to be inclusive and have a little place of our own. We have been happy to invite people in, share our knowledge..  shit like that. And a group has started to abuse out hospitality. What was a sparring group started to become a class and took some of our lot... became.

Backstabbing.  That's about the best way to describe it.  There was one 'person' who learnt under my better and when it was time for international competition, he coached opponents. Abused the trust and the kindness of tuition (we actually do this at cost to ourselves) and used that to score cheap points.

I can deal with a lot of differences of opinion. There's even room for libel born from testosterone poisoning and proving your worth by stating that you can wrestle a sad old clown that's twice your age.  (he can, and he'd do a lot of damage to the clown- but that proves nothing) The misunderstanding about the difference between a charity and a bunch of weirdos with swords- that can be explained away. Not cleanly, but close enough.

You turn up, you pay less than cost, borrow swords, and then you coach people to embarrass the person who took time out to teach you?  The explanation for that behaviour is one I 'd love to hear.

Another perspective on the Judging debate.

Yes, I know it's been a long time.  Shit happens, and it's been a lot less shit recently so I am able to concentrate on the fun things.

Thanks to the upturn in my circumstances, I am now in possession of a Canon Powershot SX270 HS.  The HS stands for "high speed" capable of 240 FPS at QCIF  size.  Or 120 FPS at SD/VGA resolutions.  There are limitations, it can only take 30 seconds at any one time, the shutter lag is... inconvenient. And the film speed is so fast that I capture the fluctuations in fluorescent lighting ... I've handed this camera to people and said "it only records 30 seconds at a time. Reset at each exchange"  It's not a complicated instruction to follow, but they still get it wrong. 

TL;DR  I've been watching a lot of videos of slow motion sparring. Those 30 seconds take 2 minutes to play back.

What can I tell you from all those videos I've gone through? 

1. My hanwei is really floppy, but the Danellis have their moments as well.
2. Any good fight has an awful lot of waiting and faffing about before a hit is attempted. Then it's just a flurry of....stuff.
3. The only time anyone can expect to know the difference between a flat and edge hit is if you're  using sharps.
4. The really cool exchanges will be missed because people are human.
5. If you think you can do this reliably without technological help, you're an idiot.

Swing analysis is considered high end for golf tuition.  But that's nothing more than slow mo video and identifying the breaks in body mechanics.  90% of the time you don't need to say a word. Bringing that kind of camera into what we do demonstrates so much more. You can even show the difference in form under several pressure levels.



Under £200 for this functionality? It's a no-brainer.

On art and fencing.

 This came up in my feeds of  things from interesting people and I thought it would make a good starting point.

It often happens that a fencer is graceful and clean with sword in hand, but is nevertheless ineffectual. Facing another who is very unaesthetic with sword in hand, as soon as they exchange blows, the unaesthetic fencer takes the upper hand.

This occurs because the ugly fencer cares only about effectiveness. He does not care much for beauty, only utility, leaving pomposity aside. The fencer who is clean with sword in hand delights in crispness without taking care of utility.

However when any fencer faces another, he should assess how he behaves. Whether his play is effective, or whether he is ostentatious with sword in hand, and does not attend to the utility of his play.

You must have good judgement in this, because on infinite occasions people say of a clean and graceful fencer: “oh doesn't he fence well”, but nevertheless his play is ineffectual. Likewise a fencer might seem very unaesthetic, so people say he does not know how to hold a sword, and his fencing is poor. But when put to the test he beats the beautiful fencer.

Anonimo Bolognese – Early 16th Century

The English schools tend to put more emphasis on the martial part of the art and has substantially fewer triangles, engravings and peculiarly specific targets in the texts.  Poncy boasts like being able to stab any button are to be treated with mild scorn. So, with a brawler's charter, I'm prone to agree with this as a matter of principle. Good fencing is when the pointy bit goes in the other person and you leave untouched.

One of the problems with really good fencing is that, although you can fight with grace, you should be doing it without really letting people know what's going on. You'll take the shortest possible line into your opponent and if you can see what's going on you can see the elegance in it's simplicity.  Note that simplicity can be unaesthetic, there's no frills and you don't get to gasp in admiration as some kind of stage-play happens.  It can be simply going from guard to stab to recovery before anyone realises what's going on.

There's a trick to telling the difference between ugly-bad fencing and ugly-good and it's all about the lines. Somehow ugly-good shows this ability to always be in just the right place to miss getting hit. You don't quite know how because the wild cuts are still wild, the parries are much wider than needs be and it's more like an explosion in a sword factory than the noble art of fencing.

Sure, if you can be graceful and stay intact, this should be encouraged..  but stay intact first, otherwise you're not going to develop the chance to become graceful.

Back to the myth of edge-on-edge

Inspired by the constantly raised question about edge-parries, I thought I'd go and have a look at ARMA to see what they had to say about the matter.

"In his 1617 backsword and rapier fencing text swordsman Joseph Swetnam also makes no mention of the word “block” or “parry”, but only talks of defending and receiving blows.  In Chapter XII of his, Schoole of the Noble and Worthy Science of Defence he  “Showeth of seven principal rules whereon true defence is grounded” which states succinctly the principal of counter-striking over blocking: “thou must defend and seeke to offend all at once, for thou must not suffer thy enemy to recover his guard, for if thou doe thou looseth thy advantage.” (p. 74).  In referring to the “true guard for the defence, either of blowe, or thrust, with Rapier and Dagger”, Swetnam just as with other masters, advised to use its edge to parry –since, the true rapier being a narrow rigid blade with little edge, can do this.  Swetnam wrote: “Carrie the edge of thy rapier upward, and downward, for then thou shalt defend a blow upon the edge of thy rapier, by bearing thy rapier after the rule of the Backe-sword, for this is the strongest and surest carriage of him.” (Swetnam, p. 86).  This “rule of the backsword” that Swetnam refers to bares explanation.  Just what it is he never explains or addresses.  But common sense tells us there must be some reason why he specifically refers to a parrying rule for the “back” sword and not simply a rule for “a sword” or “all swords”.  What is it that is special about a backsword?  It has a back.  Unlike double-edged swords it has one side that is thicker and dull and not used for striking cuts (…similar to a rapier).  Thus, it can be used for parrying and likely was employed in this manner similarly to later cutlasses and sabers.

  
 First of all, stating "counterstriking over blocking" is a bit odd when it comes to rapier in general- single time defences manifest in several ways, and the "defend and offend at once" is not really counter-striking. Basically you try to put your sword in a place which stops their attack and lets their momentum carry themselves onto your point.  Or a single time defence. With rapier and dagger you can use your dagger to block/entangle their sword and attack in the same motion.. Defence and offence in one movement.  Athough, cutting someone's hand off as they're attacking is arguably "defending and offending" it's still 90% attack and I'd count that as pre-emptive striking or countercutting.


The rule of the backsword has taken me a while to figure out and it's mentioned in his single-sword section... I think, I really can't be bothered to dig it out, but it's something along the lines of not turning your sword as you parry. The usual parry you move the hilt and keep the point in their face- going from _\ to /_. Maintaining threat Rule of the backsword you move hilt and blade together- going  from _\ to \_  (hopefully that makes sense.. choreography has shorthand notation and maybe we should develop our own for the purpose of online discussion)  Also- false edge parries are ridiculously uncomfortable and aren't particularly supported by body mechanics, so the "back" of a back sword isn't really supported as an edge parry.

I believe this is something briefly mentioned in a French book, and more for cutty weaponry as a way to buy more time against a volte and extend the tempo of a cut and allow you to block then attack.  Or a double-time defence.  When looking at backsword/rapier the thing that is special about a backsword is that it is much more efficient on the cut.  Swetnam, more or less, uses interchangeable techniques with a focus on point or cut depending on the weapon and cross references within the work anyway (which is a pain in the arse, considering there are things he's forgotten, but can probably be recovered through the other schools that were in London at the time)

So to quillions. When you get to a lot of flat blade parries, you can see that the only thing keeping you safe is your perfect skill. A semi-equal fighter would be easily able to slide down your blade and take a shot at something squishy in your arms. The tsubas, on oriental swords, have protection on flat parries because of their circular nature.  We have quillions- two metal bars that run in line with the blade edge and are surprisingly protective when used well. That extra 6-8 inches of hand protection turns "perfect skill" to flinch acceptable.

The evolution of the hilt resulted in knucklebows, side rings, pretty swept ring hilts with massive holes along the flat side of the hilt and eventually the obviously sensible solid gated + hilts that completely protect your hand. If you were thinking about the hilt as a defensive structure, surely side rings would have been the starting point for hand protection. After all, the blade is coming down on your flat, it's lined up nicely and will carry itself down the blade to your thumb. (and hand hits, although not glamorous, are fatal... in their way)


That said, certain guards lend themselves to flat on flat parries. I'm not big on longsword, terrible with the correct terminology and I suspect they're better for rebats than actual parries. So I'm not saying completely wrong to do flat parries once in a while.

What I'm really wondering is how on earth this still manages to be a question after all this time?

Play with the idea, see where and how your body feels mechanically strong. Remember that really strong cuts should be able to be deflected or intercepted as you play weak against strong so you need to look at that aspect of motion   Then look for the shortest line between their blade and your squishy bits.

It that line is very short and doesn't require them going around your sword, then it's a bad parry.

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.