HEMA and Budo

Tom Cruise

White Belt
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
139
Reaction score
0
For those who practice one or the other (or both), what are your views on the opposite? Within either community, there seems to be strong negative bias towards the other. Statements from HEMA practitioners saying the tsuba is impractical (despite this type of guard complimenting proper drawing and sheathing as to avoid contact with the koiguchi, as in noto and iai), budo fanatics stating that the katana is the end-all-be-all for swords, HEMA fanatics assuming that samurai had no other weapon than the katana and that a samurai would therefore lose most encounters with a knight, budo fanatics assuming that knights were unskilled and sluggish, ect.

I'm not addressing a topic as far as this subject goes, so leave random thoughts or elaborate on any of the examples I mentioned. Also, feel free to include anything regarding the classical period in the Mediterranean (Greek hoplites and such).
 
For those who practice one or the other (or both), what are your views on the opposite? Within either community, there seems to be strong negative bias towards the other. Statements from HEMA practitioners saying the tsuba is impractical (despite this type of guard complimenting proper drawing and sheathing as to avoid contact with the koiguchi, as in noto and iai), budo fanatics stating that the katana is the end-all-be-all for swords, HEMA fanatics assuming that samurai had no other weapon than the katana and that a samurai would therefore lose most encounters with a knight, budo fanatics assuming that knights were unskilled and sluggish, ect.

I'm not addressing a topic as far as this subject goes, so leave random thoughts or elaborate on any of the examples I mentioned. Also, feel free to include anything regarding the classical period in the Mediterranean (Greek hoplites and such).

Whats a HEMA.
 
Whats a HEMA.

Historical European Martial Arts. Most information comes from historical sources, such as Hans Talhoffer, Pietro Monte, Paulus Hector Mair, the combat de bolenois, and many treatisies and other combat manuals.
 
Last edited:
I do HEMA. I also do Haidong Gumdo, which is Toyama-Ryu kenjutsu with some korean wushu thrown in.

The problem in HEMA is that we have fought for a long time to overcome prejudices about our art, the idea that its somehow LARP or SCA stuff. Unfortunately, in the beginning, alot of this stuff was thrown at us by Japanese Sword Art folks and Katana fanboys so it has resulted in a certain defensiveness. That being said, as people realise that what we do really is martial art, there is a growing appreciation on both sides for the things each one offers.

HEMA is looking at the more traditional martial arts to gain clues about things that are missing from the manuscripts, and the learn training techniques. I know of quite a few Japanese Sword Art folks who are very interested in looking at the HEMA manuscripts, because it offers insights from the masters themselves about things that have been lost to the JSA community because the JSA folks were less likely to write stuff down.

And quite a few people are doing both. There is even a growing HEMA community in Japan and increasing cross community communication, which can only help both sides.
 
As far as HEMA goes, a lot of people do participate in LARPing. Firstly because it's good fun, but secondly because it's a reasonable substitute for supplying people with historically accurate weapon reproductions meant for sparring (this can get very expensive. A good gymnasium sword or foil, for example, could costs hundreds of dollars for a good one. There are very good ones though that are cheaper, like Red Dragon or cheaper ones by Regenyei).

You could of course buy a waster, but I feel as though if you want authentic combat training in HEMA then you should get a full-steel construction sword to actually feel the difference in handling (which is also the case with bokken and shinai. You will never get realistic training if you never pick up a real sword). Of course, LARPing is good fun and can be pretty physical. Some bigger events can have to between 200 and 500 on a field at once, and will be the most realistic thing you will ever get to real battlefield experience, despite the fact that you are using padded weapons that don't accurately emulate their real-steel counterparts.

Practicing both HEMA and budo (budo for much longer), I do retain a personal preference for budo. I think that, judging from European manuscripts and combat manuals, that even though knights were obviously very effective in combat and very technical in what they did, that there is more to learn in Japanese martial arts. There's historical reasons behind this, of course, and I'm not saying one is better than the other. There's diminishing returns in martial arts after a certain point, so I largely think regardless of whether you study one or the other as far as weapons are concerned, that it comes down to who is the better warrior and the context of the weapons and armor used. A lot people seem to forget context when they talk about martial arts of any sort.

tl;dr HEMA is just as good as budo if you're into weapons, both are very fun, and I would recommend anyone who does unarmed martial arts to take up one or the other. It expands your knowledge as a martial artist (particularly because you are actually learning about warfare as opposed to learning a sports, hence why it is called "martial arts"), and it doesn't have to be painfully expensive.
 
I do HEMA. I also do Haidong Gumdo, which is Toyama-Ryu kenjutsu with some korean wushu thrown in.

That may be the lineage of your Haedong Gumdo lineage, but the lineages of many of the Korean sword schools that call themselves Heading Gumdo are not so clear and quite murky.

And quite a few people are doing both. There is even a growing HEMA community in Japan and increasing cross community communication, which can only help both sides.

I would hope so.

I think the HEMA/ARMA guys are doing a great job of bringing knowledge of the European sword and other weapons back into the public, reconstruction or not. At the very least, there are a growing number of people with the knowledge and the platform to correct many of the misconceptions out there.
 
That may be the lineage of your Haedong Gumdo lineage, but the lineages of many of the Korean sword schools that call themselves Heading Gumdo are not so clear and quite murky.

perhaps, but in the beginning it began with few guys who took Toyama Ryu, mixed it with Gicheon il su kung fu, invented a nonsense history and a fake lineage and marketed it to the masses.
 
perhaps, but in the beginning it began with few guys who took Toyama Ryu, mixed it with Gicheon il su kung fu, invented a nonsense history and a fake lineage and marketed it to the masses.

I was involved with Haedong Gumdo from about 94-97, when it was blowing up in Korea. Somewhat unwillingly, but that's a long story.

During that time, there were so much politics and competition between the 2-3 major Haedong Gumdo associations that each of them were upjumping anyone they could grab who had any sort of training history, verifiable or not. Actually more so if the guys they were granting instructor grade dan ranks had spent time abroad and were unverifiable. Granting dans to straight gumdo (kendo) guys to open clubs after just learning basic forms for a few months was fairly common in that era, as was doing the same for hapkido instructors who had junior gumdo dan grades (generally drawn from the same group of martial arts majors from Korean sports/physical education universities). In a period of 5-7 years, there was a massive shift in the Korean gumdo scene as a huge proportion of gumdo (kendo) schools became Haedong Gumdo schools.

I know this because as a senior HDGD guep/kyu rank, I was one of the guys who would be rotated to lead classes in new schools in the area. While wearing my hapkido black belt (with either uniform) to give an appearance of authority. At the time, I didn't think much of it, but in retrospect, I think the entire experience/environment was extremely sketchy.
 
What are your guys' thoughts on HEMA weapon usage compared to budo weapon usage? Not exclusively the sword, but whatever weapon specifically you fancy yourself using.
 
Do the japanese sword arts practice with a shield? Do the HEMA, ARMA guys do? I give it to however uses the shield. Is there greco-roman weapon system out there with the short swords?
 
What are your guys' thoughts on HEMA weapon usage compared to budo weapon usage? Not exclusively the sword, but whatever weapon specifically you fancy yourself using.

Sticking with just swords:

I am personally most familiar and competent with "katanas", but if modern society were one in which people still wore swords as sidearms and if they were used regularly and if there weren't a particular fashion dictating/restricting wears of different types of sword and if training were equally available and if I could do it all over again, I'd train in rapier, basket hilted back/broadsword and saber, (in that order) but that would depend on which weapon it turned out I was better with.

Then again, the best weapon is the one that you have on you and I think the rapier would be a pain in the ass to carry around as a side arm due to its length, so maybe smallsword.

Only after those, would I consider the katana.

The only other weapon that has any real civilian relevance would be a staff and honestly, a staff is a staff. Yeah, different thicknesses, weight and length but on the whole, its a stick.

Everything else is generally a battlefield weapon of war so is more or less context specific.
 
What are your guys' thoughts on HEMA weapon usage compared to budo weapon usage? Not exclusively the sword, but whatever weapon specifically you fancy yourself using.

Both HEMA and Budo/Bujutsu are so broad that they defy easy comparisons. The real differences depend on the form of the weapon.
 
Do the japanese sword arts practice with a shield? Do the HEMA, ARMA guys do? I give it to however uses the shield. Is there greco-roman weapon system out there with the short swords?


The sources for shield use are almost non existent. The manuscripts were written for noble fighting men in the context of the judicial duel, and for middle class fencers. Shields were largely obsolete for the noble classes, because armour had become so efficient that shields were redundant, and to penetrate the armour required a two handed weapon. Shields were still widely employed by rank and file infantrymen, but the manuscripts were not written with those men in mind.

We do have sources on bucklers and a larger form of buckler known as the rotella.

We have no idea on the techniques of the greeks or romans..they left behind no known sources, and proper HEMA is drawn from historical sources.
 
Sticking with just swords:

I am personally most familiar and competent with "katanas", but if modern society were one in which people still wore swords as sidearms and if they were used regularly and if there weren't a particular fashion dictating/restricting wears of different types of sword and if training were equally available and if I could do it all over again, I'd train in rapier, basket hilted back/broadsword and saber, (in that order) but that would depend on which weapon it turned out I was better with.

Then again, the best weapon is the one that you have on you and I think the rapier would be a pain in the ass to carry around as a side arm due to its length, so maybe smallsword.

Only after those, would I consider the katana.

The only other weapon that has any real civilian relevance would be a staff and honestly, a staff is a staff. Yeah, different thicknesses, weight and length but on the whole, its a stick.

Everything else is generally a battlefield weapon of war so is more or less context specific.

Don't knock the staff. Staff beats sword in my experience, and the experience of a some of the western masters like Silver.
 
Don't knock the staff. Staff beats sword in my experience, and the experience of a some of the western masters like Silver.

Who's knocking the staff? There's a reason I specifically mentioned it as being a relevant weapon.

You can't just pick up a katana if you're a rapier fencer (or saber fencer for that matter) and be any sort of competent with it, nor nice versa. Not without extensive training.

OTOH, a stick is a stick. You could pick up the analogous staff weapon and be able to use it with some degree of competency.
 
Both HEMA and Budo/Bujutsu are so broad that they defy easy comparisons. The real differences depend on the form of the weapon.

Weapons of a particular classification in whatever context you choose to compare them in. For example, rapier versus katana if your context is dueling or self-defense, or perhaps different types of polearms in the battlefield against armored or unarmed opponents. A stick with a blade on the end is a stick with the blade on the end of it. The mechanics aren't so drastically different from weapon to weapon within their respective classifications.
 
Weapons of a particular classification in whatever context you choose to compare them in. For example, rapier versus katana if your context is dueling or self-defense, or perhaps different types of polearms in the battlefield against armored or unarmed opponents. A stick with a blade on the end is a stick with the blade on the end of it. The mechanics aren't so drastically different from weapon to weapon within their respective classifications.

For the most part, a spear is a spear and a staff is a staff. Mechanically, a spear or a staff can more or less be used the same way. If you are good with a quarterstaff and I hand you a bo, you should be competent with it.

OTOH, swords are swords, but not in the same way as spears and staves. Swords vary drastically in form and function and are each specialized in their own cultural or functional realm that they defy easy comparison. You can compare them, but there will always be caveats and qualifications. In this sense, Siki is correct.
 
For those who practice one or the other (or both), what are your views on the opposite? Within either community, there seems to be strong negative bias towards the other. Statements from HEMA practitioners saying the tsuba is impractical (despite this type of guard complimenting proper drawing and sheathing as to avoid contact with the koiguchi, as in noto and iai), budo fanatics stating that the katana is the end-all-be-all for swords, HEMA fanatics assuming that samurai had no other weapon than the katana and that a samurai would therefore lose most encounters with a knight, budo fanatics assuming that knights were unskilled and sluggish, ect.

I'm not addressing a topic as far as this subject goes, so leave random thoughts or elaborate on any of the examples I mentioned. Also, feel free to include anything regarding the classical period in the Mediterranean (Greek hoplites and such).

While I can appreciate you trying to stimulate discussion, I'm am finding this a little off-putting. If you have thoughts and opinions to share, then please do. OTOH, unless you're a person of high qualification, experience or learning (what exactly are your qualifications, anyway?) your approach for inviting discussion isn't exactly appropriate.
 
Sticking with just swords:

I am personally most familiar and competent with "katanas", but if modern society were one in which people still wore swords as sidearms and if they were used regularly and if there weren't a particular fashion dictating/restricting wears of different types of sword and if training were equally available and if I could do it all over again, I'd train in rapier, basket hilted back/broadsword and saber, (in that order) but that would depend on which weapon it turned out I was better with.

Then again, the best weapon is the one that you have on you and I think the rapier would be a pain in the ass to carry around as a side arm due to its length, so maybe smallsword.

Only after those, would I consider the katana.

The only other weapon that has any real civilian relevance would be a staff and honestly, a staff is a staff. Yeah, different thicknesses, weight and length but on the whole, its a stick.

Everything else is generally a battlefield weapon of war so is more or less context specific.

Can you explain why you would choose euro swords over the katanas? Do you feel their is something more practical about them?
 
For the most part, a spear is a spear and a staff is a staff. Mechanically, a spear or a staff can more or less be used the same way. If you are good with a quarterstaff and I hand you a bo, you should be competent with it.

OTOH, swords are swords, but not in the same way as spears and staves. Swords vary drastically in form and function and are each specialized in their own cultural or functional realm that they defy easy comparison. You can compare them, but there will always be caveats and qualifications. In this sense, Siki is correct.

Swords and spear or other polearms are not in the same classification of weapons, hence why I made the distinction. I wouldn't say to compare a sword to a spear, let alone a Japanese sword to a European spear, lets say.

And I was just wondering what people's opinions are because I am interested. I don't claim to be some high authority in the world of martial arts. I certainly have my own experience, but I don't think I had implied any sort of authority in my posts. I even expressed some of the things I have seen between the two groups in my OP and was interested in the imput of other people and their experiences. I didn't think that would have a tone of elitism to it.

Can you explain why you would choose euro swords over the katanas? Do you feel their is something more practical about them?
I know your responses was addressed to another member, but I can think of a few reasons why someone might prefer a European sword. Firstly, many European swords can to be longer than the katana (although, there is the odachi, but I have personal gripes with that weapon). That in itself is an advantage. In addition, European swords tend to be more versatile. You can use an arming sword with a variety of shields; a katana is a two-handed sword. A rapier has a swept hilt and provides better defense than a tsuba (although, the tsuba does have its purposes). A two-handed European sword can be used much like a short spear to penetrate armor, be used to cut through defenses that a katana cannot overcome, and in the case of bastard swords (or hand-and-a-half swords), you can use them as either a two-handed weapon or a one-handed weapon. Japanese style swordsmanship also doesn't particularly have too great an interest in wielding two swords (dual wielding), but there are some French and Italian treatisies that delve into wielding two blades (perhaps two swords or a sword and a dagger) than Japanese styles do. That's not to say that it isn't existent in budo (many schools will teach you how to do so), but the use of using a single blade is moreso the focal point whereas these particular European treatisies sometimes do treat the combination as a primary form of dueling.

That's not to say the katana is inferior. I love the katana. It is probably my most used and most liked sword for my tastes, but there physically in its geometry, metallurgical properties, or weight cannot be a perfect weapon, let alone a perfect sword.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top