fechtschuleamerica

[Roger Norling]

Just quoting Matt Galas a bit for those who didn't bother with reading the thread linked. It is interesting stuff, really: http://www.swordforum.com/forums/showth ... word-Rules

"Here's a simplified version of the rules used in Belgian fencing guilds during their yearly competitions with the longsword. The rules are the "common denominator" between the various rule sets; individual guilds had some variations on these. These rules were in effect in Northern France (Paris, Lille) and Belgium (Ghent, Bruges, Brussels, Antwerp) from at least the 1540s until the late 1700s.

---

What type of longswords were used in these bouts? (foils? sharpness?)"

All the evidence points to the same type of longsword foils that the Germans used (what people are normally referring to as a "Feder" in our community). They were almost certainly blunt. The rules generally say that you have to strike with the _flat_ not the edge.

"What type of clothes/PPE were worn?"

The rules appear designed to replicate combat in street clothes, but the rules make references to "wambaes" (gambeson), "cassacke", and "accoutrement", so it is likely that some kind of padded garment was worn. Likewise, there are references to some kind of head-gear: "slagsweerdevryhoete" (literally, "battle sword free hat"), "chapeau" (hat), and "bonnet" (hat, bonnet). Gloves were mandatory, and there were fines for fencing without gloves.

"What level of intensity were put into blows, and what constituted an acceptable hit?"

Hard to say, except that there were fines for injuring your opponent. Blows were with the flat or the point. An acceptable hit was above the belt, and above the elbows. It appears likely that the face was taken out of the thrusting zone (this appears in rapier rules), but it's not explicitly documented in the longsword rules. In terms of intensity, put it this way: The Guild of St. Michael in Lille employed a surgeon to tend to the fencers injured in the hall.

"How competitive would of the bouts been?"

Extremely. There are lots of references to arguments and disputes. Many rule-sets explicitly say they have been re-drafted because there were so many disputes. (Nothing changes.) Some of the target and technique limitations must be seen in this light; they were clearly afraid of this degenerating into a brawl. (This can be documented _many_ times in Germany, with some city councils outlawing competitions for this reason.)

"What type of arena were the bouts conducted in? (outdoors? within barriers?)"

Usually outdoors, in one of the town squares. There are references to benches, which probably helped define the fighting area.

---

"Do we have any other similar sets of rules from elsewhere in Europe?"

Yes, the German rules are very similar, although they don't explicitly limit the target area. German rules contain the same rule about how the higher hit wins, so the target tended to be the head. Joachim Meyer confirms this, when he says that most of the fencing in his day aimed at the head. German rules tended to explicitly limit grappling, pommel strikes, and often thrusting (at least with the longsword). Thus, in Germany you end up with a set of rules that strikes largely at the head, using cuts only.

---

It's important to view these rules in context: They were intended for public competitions, for the very prestigious title of "King". There was a _lot_ of money put into these events. The figures are pretty impressive in terms of costs of wine & food, not to mention prizes. Many of the rule sets contain mentions of heated disputes over the rules, indicating that these competitions were taken very seriously. There were also rules establishing fines for injuring an opponent.

---

To give you an idea of how many people were taking part in these competitions, here is some information I transcribed tonight from the archives of the Guild of St. Michael in Bruges.

In 1699, the guild played three prizes:

1) For the prize with the longsword (slaghsweert), 50 guild brothers participated. The prize was won by Theodor Haeghebaert.

2) For the prize with the rapier & dagger (rapier end poignaert), 61 guild brothers took part. The prize was won by Niclaijs de Smidt.

3) For the prize with the single rapier (deghen alleen), 64 guild brothers took part. The prize was won by Ignatius de Vogelaere.

Bear in mind, this was an internal competition of a single city's fencing guild. Oh, for the days!"

I have quite a lot of images depicting these types of events. Some can be seen here: http://www.hroarr.com/articles-reviews/ ... htschulen/

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Good catch Jon! I was not aware of that particular quote in DiGrassi...

Regards,

[Roger Norling]

Having posted all this, I can certainly understand the fear that the tournaments will become the definition of HEMA, since I used to share that fear. This would be a huge danger to the recreation of HEMA, since we are still right in the process of recreating it as a martial art and not a martial sport.

But since most event organizers are very much aware of these dangers and since I have seen the huge leaps the top fighters have been making in their development in these tournaments I really don't fear this as much any more.

We mustn't forget these dangers though. But I sincerely believe that the two can reinforce each other in our endeavors to recreate HEMA.

[Stacy Clifford]

Having posted all this, I can certainly understand the fear that the tournaments will become the definition of HEMA, since I used to share that fear. This would be a huge danger to the recreation of HEMA, since we are still right in the process of recreating it as a martial art and not a martial sport.

This is a good way of putting it, and it is one of ARMA's top concerns. I have never even heard John Clements say to my knowledge that we would rule out tournament fighting forever, just that we believe they are a thing before their time. We prefer to focus on reconstructing the art first without the temptations that tournaments present to veer off in unhelpful directions, and perhaps reevaluate periodically as the state of our reconstruction of the art advances. This revival we're all involved in is still very young and has much to discover, so it's fair to say we're not in a hurry on that point of contention.

I don't think it's impossible to conduct tournaments and still keep your eye on the ball of accurate reconstruction, it's simply more difficult. As it is, we have two large camps pursuing and advocating each path, with and without tournaments. Having different people pursue different strategies to achieve a common goal is not necessarily a bad thing as long as we remain civilized toward each other (and I am glad to see some very good discussion on this thread). One group allows people to satisfy their competitive impulses while the other prevents competition from defining the art in the public eye. Perhaps this is a balance that needs to exist. I for one am happy to keep up ARMA's end of this bargain and wish those who choose to compete the best of luck in having fun and staying true to principles. Different strokes for different folks, most literally.

[Aaron Pynenberg]

It's been quite some time since I posted, but I have read with great interest this post, compliments to everyone for a really quality discussion!

This topic comes up from time to time, but I notice all across the MARE world it is increasing in frequency and quality of information available on the subject.

Two points:

1-each Guild/and even individual must figure out for themselves if a "tourny" format is the correct way to go. Some want it-some don't - there's plenty of pros and cons both ways. Having said that no matter how good the players, no matter how good the rules, no matter how good the gear-in the end it's still just a game and games do not resemble real war, real life-and death fighting, nor real dueling. I would agree that in place of the aforementioned it may be close, but that's for the guild or individual to understand, (or not understand)!

2-ARMA Prizeplaying is no Tourney-and it's no game, it's a test and rite of passage, that's it.

Good stuff folks, thanks for all of your efforts on this topic-!- AP

[Kody Tench]

How exactly is a prize fight different from a tournament???

[Chris Holloman]

Hey Kody,

Aaron is making reference to what is called "playing your prize". It is where a person is tested for competency with a certain weapon within the ARMA organization. It involves a person being in a marked space and facing one opponent after another over the course of about an hour. They face a variety of weapons but are only allowed to use the weapon for which they are "prizing". Each encounter is judged win/loss by either one or best of three touches. The player must win a certain percentage of these matches in order to pass. There are lots of video's of ARMA prize play sessions.

This is in contrast to a prize fight like in say boxing.

I think this thread has done an excellent job of bringing out all sides of this issue so, if you haven't yet, read the whole conversation and I think you will understand.

Bro Chris

[Jorge Cortines]

How exactly is a prize fight different from a tournament???

ARMA's Prize playing, are about the prizer, not his opponents. The prizer must demostrate to his fellow scholars apptitude physically and emotionally to fight using the weapon, there are no rules to constraint what you can do or what you can not do (you may ringen am schwert, attack legs, arms, head, body if you can) nor there are rules that set a certain level, except for the space and the weapon of the prizer (playing his prize for that weapon)... There is no ego to be won or loss during the fights, just the testing of your fellow scholar...

[John Farthing]

Kody,

For more on this in a historical context, you might enjoy reading: http://www.thearma.org/essays/playpriz.htm

[Chris Holloman]

Hey John,

Great article. There are no sources cited with the article so I wondered if you know the source of the information. It would be interesting to read more...

Thanks
Bro. chris

[John Farthing]

One of the best sources of information available to us on this topic is the "Sloane" MS 2530. It was published a number of years ago in book format under the title 'The Noble Science' and presented by literary archaeologist, Herbert Berry.

[Chris Holloman]

Thanks John, I will check into that. Is that text the source for the information in the article itself?

Bro. chris

[John Farthing]

No problem Chris, I'm always happy to help!

The 'Sloane' MS is probably the most likely source for the information presented in the article, however I can not say for certain as I am not the author of said article.

[Kody Tench]

Kody,

For more on this in a historical context, you might enjoy reading: http://www.thearma.org/essays/playpriz.htm

Thanks I always new info on WMA

[John Farthing]

You are most welcome! I am glad you found it useful and informative!