Hi All,

Fascinating to see this matter being discussed on here.

By way of putting my cards on the table, I am a former curator from the Royal Armouries in England (most recently taking care of the RA collection at the Tower of London). I now live in Boston where I founded The School of Mars, teaching arming sword inspired from a variety of early manuals.

A lot of the myths seem to have been adequately busted in this thread, for which I am thankful. But just to recap.

- Actual swordplay, even in armour, was much faster than we tend to give it credit for. The weapons were properly designed (longswords usually no more than 3lbs. and balanced such that the blade's weight was compensated for by a heavy pommel), allowing them to fly in the hands of someone trained to use them. The armour, too, was custom made for each person, fitting them like a second skin, allowing for a wide range of movement and for the weight (usually 45-60lbs for a battle harness) to be spread throughout the whole body rather than being carried in one or two places. Some of our interpreters would demonstrate this by doing somersaults, cartwheels, and even yoga poses in their harness.

- Yes, battlefield combat is a very different game from tournament style 'one on one' combat. Some techniques are more suited to one than the other. However, many of the techniques in the manuals are usable in both situations, and it is more a matter of the mindset and application of the individual. I agree that most of the HEMA community trains for tournament style combat, because this is mainly the way in which techniques are demonstrated and used in competition. It would be very interesting indeed for training regimes to work out systems of teaching how to apply these techniques to a battle environment.

- Categorizing HEMA is going to depend largely on what your intentions are in studying it. If you want to attempt to accurately re-create the style of fighting from a particular master/manual, and restrict your research/practice to just the contents of said manual and any contextualising resources, then you are more in the realm of re-enactment. I am not yet convinced that the full realization of this is possible, given that we are dealing with texts of variable clarity and no living individuals from an unbroken lineage to verify our theories. That is not to say that there isn't a martial/competitive aspect to this particular type of re-enactment, but in this case one is dealing with a fundamentally 'dead' style, with a set end date and a finite number of techniques, unable to change after its period.

- To make it a martial art requires that we allow the style to be organic, to grow with modern practitioners and teachers as everyone discovers variations of the style that suits them (much like the masters did themselves). This is the idea that I am attempting to bring about with School of Mars. The manuals form the foundation of the teachings, but as new insights from modern practitioners, who may have been exposed to other styles etc., the techniques adapt, or have new techniques or applications added on. We today have the benefit of access to a rich martial heritage that spans the globe, which the early masters did not. To some the thought of mingling them could be seen as heresy, but in my opinion doing so is simply part of reviving the martial arts of Europe in a modern setting. I suspect that the early masters would have leapt upon the opportunity to gain inspiration from other martial styles had they the ability.

/rant. :-)