HEMA and Budo

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.

Are kitanas metallurgically inferior?
 
Are kitanas metallurgically inferior?

I'll answer your other question in another post (already largely written on another device).

Katanas are far from metallurgically inferior. In fact, they're metallurgical masterpieces, considering the paucity and quality of iron ores on the Japanese islands. Japanese smiths never really had the luxury of access to the supply and techniques of various steels developed on the mainland, especially those of the Mideast and India.

Given that, the blade geometry, shape and subsequent weight of the blade are compromises dictated by what techniques there exist to form those metals into a usable sword blade. Contrary to popular belief, the katana is actually a relatively thick, heavy and short compared to its mainland Eurasian counterparts. This is due to the materials (or lack thereof) that the smiths had to work with - it simply wasn't possible to create swords the way everyone else did it. The Japanese method requires a thick spine because that's where the soft, almost pure iron core goes and you need quite a bit of it to make the sword resilient enough to balance the hard, brittle edge.

Katana_brique.png


OTOH, mainland blades didn't need this, because you could trade for high quality, homogenous iron or steel that could be tempered and hardened, which results in a stronger, more flexible and generally more resilient blade. Look at the following cross sections of European style blade:

400px-Sword_cross_section.svg.png


These cross sections, particularly those with fullers are basically impossible using the Japanese method - swords would snap or bend and stay bent with the first heavy blow. OTOH, strong, flexible and resilient curved cutting blades capable of lopping off limbs with a stroke were something that smiths from China to France were capable doing AND they were capable of crafting such blades to be much lighter and thus capable of being used one handed.

It's like a really wonderful beef bourguignon vs a steak. The complexity that goes into the preparing a beef bourguignon is necessary because the cut of meat that you started with wasn't that great to begin with. If it were a great cut, you wouldn't have to do all that shit to make it edible.
 
Budo, is like it's tool, tested, evolved with cunning murderous intent at every level. It's been thought about in an unbroken line for centuries. It's just no contest. It's a living art versus archeology.
 
That said give me a 5ft axe and I'll fuck all of them up.
 
Budo, is like it's tool, tested, evolved with cunning murderous intent at every level. It's been thought about in an unbroken line for centuries. It's just no contest. It's a living art versus archeology.

IMO, you have it exactly backwards.

Versus the Western fencing tradition, the Japanese tradition largely stopped evolving some time after the Sengoku Jidai. It's living, but it's living in the same way as a coelacanth - largely as a living fossil.

The oldest Western fencing clubs also have long, unbroken lineages, some dating back 400+ years. To put that in perspective, Europeans were still fencing with longswords, which are roughly analogous to the katana in usage and technique. Fencing evolved through many forms and styles of swords, broadswords, bucklers, rapiers, sabers, smallswords, so on until modern sport fencing of today.

How much did the roughly contemporaneous Yagyu Shinkage Ryu or even the older Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu evolve in equipment and practice during that time?

How often were they "tested," except against each other in isolation, in a society that was largely kept in a form of autocratic enforced cultural and developmental stagnation? OTOH, European concepts in warfare and combat were constantly being tested all over the world - the Spanish, Italians, Dutch and British all had extensive trading networks and empires that wrapped around the globe and were constantly exposed to new and different ideas. The concept and use of the curved sword made its way from Indo-Persia all the way to England and were used along with a variety of other swords in a way that contemporary fencers of the time knew of the strengths and weaknesses of different kinds of blades. How often did that kind of exposure happen for the Japanese?

The answer is that for the most part, it didn't.
 
The problem with HEMA is that you get guys like this:




I've never studied the Lichtenauer long sword method, but I know for a fact that no one who is actually competent in any form of combat, armed or unarmed, has footwork THAT terrible.

Staff:


WTF?

Sword and buckler:


It all looks incredibly awkward because these guys don't know how to move their hips and have shitty footwork. Why? Because they never received real instruction from a real instructor. They never spent hundreds of hours doing nothing but walking back and forth learning how to walk before they made their first thrust or cut with a sword. HEMA is full of these guys. They're the Ari Boldens (certain F12 poster who will remain unnamed) of the weapon arts world.

On the flip side, check out these guys:


Someone taught these guys how to move. (I included this vid because of the very, very slick move at around 2:00)
 
@Doughbelly I was not referring to fencing, i would aliken that to say, kendo. I think it's necessary to distinguish between sport and martial application.

Fencing informs HEMA like boxing informs mma, both are HEMA and mma are recreations of lost knowledge.

I was under the impression that in Japan there have been people throughout history devoting themselves to martial application of the blade, even in the age if gun powder. Hence my comment re unbroken line vs archeology.

You make a good point.
 
Can you explain why you would choose euro swords over the katanas? Do you feel their is something more practical about them?

There are a number of reasons why I believe that mainland Eurasian swords were considerably more developed in both form and usage than the Japanese sword. I mentioned the European swords because those are what I'm more familiar with versus say, Persian, Chinese, Middle Eastern and Indian forms.

Taken from a macroevolutionary scale, one of the worst things that happened to many Asian societies is that they were culturally conservative and had the geographic and societal wherewithal to close themselves off from the greater world. Removed from the need to constantly adapt to innovation, they stagnated.

As mentioned in a previous post, 15th/16th century katana combat more or less resembles contemporary European longsword (2 handed sword) combat. As Europeans expanded their reach, they ran into differing styles of combat (both personal and massed), their styles changed to reflect the realities of fighting. European sword combat developed along multiple parallel lines that clearly differentiate between the circumstances in which you might be expected to use a blade in anger. OTOH, the Japanese never contended with that. They stuck with what they knew was effective against each other.

This is most clearly demonstrated in an examination of the evolution in the types of swords that Europeans developed in a few hundred years, from long swords to rapiers to smallswords to broadswords to backswords to sabers to zweihanders to cutlasses to spadroons and every thing in-between.

While there are differences between the light Yagyu Shinkage ryu blade and a heavier Katori Shinto ryu blade, these are variations of one thing - a relatively heavy, short, single edged cutting blade. OTOH, on a single Napoleonic battlefield, you will see a dozen variations of swords specialized for the cut versus thrust, depending on the function and the philosophy of the varying warring parties.

Amongst people who actually used swords against someone who was trying to kill them, there is no argument - European sword designs and subsequent fighting methods had a much larger breadth and depth of exposure.
 
There are a number of reasons why I believe that mainland Eurasian swords were considerably more developed in both form and usage than the Japanese sword. I mentioned the European swords because those are what I'm more familiar with versus say, Persian, Chinese, Middle Eastern and Indian forms.

Taken from a macroevolutionary scale, one of the worst things that happened to many Asian societies is that they were culturally conservative and had the geographic and societal wherewithal to close themselves off from the greater world. Removed from the need to constantly adapt to innovation, they stagnated.

As mentioned in a previous post, 15th/16th century katana combat more or less resembles contemporary European longsword (2 handed sword) combat. As Europeans expanded their reach, they ran into differing styles of combat (both personal and massed), their styles changed to reflect the realities of fighting. European sword combat developed along multiple parallel lines that clearly differentiate between the circumstances in which you might be expected to use a blade in anger. OTOH, the Japanese never contended with that. They stuck with what they knew was effective against each other.

This is most clearly demonstrated in an examination of the evolution in the types of swords that Europeans developed in a few hundred years, from long swords to rapiers to smallswords to broadswords to backswords to sabers to zweihanders to cutlasses to spadroons and every thing in-between.

While there are differences between the light Yagyu Shinkage ryu blade and a heavier Katori Shinto ryu blade, these are variations of one thing - a relatively heavy, short, single edged cutting blade. OTOH, on a single Napoleonic battlefield, you will see a dozen variations of swords specialized for the cut versus thrust, depending on the function and the philosophy of the varying warring parties.

Amongst people who actually used swords against someone who was trying to kill them, there is no argument - European sword designs and subsequent fighting methods had a much larger breadth and depth of exposure.

You bring up some interdasting ideas. The euros seem to have all sorts of strange weapons, but does HEMA deal with all of them?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmDER4qovS8


They have a varied arsenal for dealing with armor, and they are very crude, blunt weapons, just swing away types. Does HEMA deal with those or is it just for swords?

If just swords, there shouldnt be too much difference across the globe. There is only so many ways to swing a stick. But you are right, it seems the japanese focus on the slashing, while the Europeans have both thrust and slash.
 
The problem with HEMA is that you get guys like this:




I've never studied the Lichtenauer long sword method, but I know for a fact that no one who is actually competent in any form of combat, armed or unarmed, has footwork THAT terrible.

Staff:


WTF?

Sword and buckler:


It all looks incredibly awkward because these guys don't know how to move their hips and have shitty footwork. Why? Because they never received real instruction from a real instructor. They never spent hundreds of hours doing nothing but walking back and forth learning how to walk before they made their first thrust or cut with a sword. HEMA is full of these guys. They're the Ari Boldens (certain F12 poster who will remain unnamed) of the weapon arts world.

On the flip side, check out these guys:


Someone taught these guys how to move. (I included this vid because of the very, very slick move at around 2:00)


So the guys who are awkward, what school are they from? and the ones who are more fluid?
 
You bring up some interdasting ideas. The euros seem to have all sorts of strange weapons, but does HEMA deal with all of them?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmDER4qovS8


They have a varied arsenal for dealing with armor, and they are very crude, blunt weapons, just swing away types. Does HEMA deal with those or is it just for swords?


I had a hard time watching that video because 1.) that guy mixes up a lot of terminology and 2.) perpetuates a lot of myths and misconceptions.

I would also argue that they're not that strange. Maces, hammers, axes, polearms and percussion weapons of various sorts were in widespread use from Europe to Persia to India to China.

Second, you are incorrect in your assumption that they are crude, swing away type weapons. Many medieval treatises deal at length with polearm combat between armored men, that are just as extensive as the sections dealing with the use of the sword.

If just swords, there shouldnt be too much difference across the globe. There is only so many ways to swing a stick. But you are right, it seems the japanese focus on the slashing, while the Europeans have both thrust and slash.

It's not just cut vs cut + thrust but the great variety of forms and weight for different purposes that existed in each of the major world cultures from Europe to China. While there are different weights, balances and curve/geometry to a Japanese sword, they are almost singular in form. Again, some of this is an inherent limitation of the resources and technology that the Japanese had available - the katana is an inherently compromised design that does nothing particularly well.
 
So the guys who are awkward, what school are they from? and the ones who are more fluid?

Those guys with the laughable footwork can be found at www.memag.net

Seriously, it's like their footwork is an afterthought, whereas in any martial art system or combat sport, (armed or unarmed) footwork is what you spend the majority of your development time as a beginner. Hopping with both feet to put yourself in the correct position after finishing your attack? Seriously? I'd be embarrassed to be showing that on Youtube. Hell, it makes me cringe in embarrassment just watching it.

That guy in black is Puck Curtis, who is one of the world's universally acknowledged rapier fencers. He's associated with San Jose State University's fencing club. I don't know the name of the other guy, but he's pretty good, too.
 
Those were MEMAG's early stuff (except the staff). They have improved alot since then. Alot of the earlier guys had problems with footwork..they came from non-martial or non-athletic backgrounds and focused on the weapons, and not the feet.

HEMA only covers stuff that has been documented. There isn't much about Falchions, but a falchion is essentially the same weapon as a Messer, and we know a great deal about messer fighting. We know nothing about the classic sword and heater shield that people normally think of when they think middle ages because no known sources cover that weapon
 
Last edited:
Those were MEMAG's early stuff (except the staff). They have improved alot since then. Alot of the earlier guys had problems with footwork..they came from non-martial or non-athletic backgrounds and focused on the weapons, and not the feet.

I won't argue that they might have improved, but in no way do I think that they were good at what they are supposedly or purportedly doing. The singular thing that separates novices versus competent practitioners of any form of martial art or fight sport is their footwork and hip movements.

Watching these guys, these guys are rarely ever balanced correctly. They are consistently reaching for stuff and it shows in how their weight never centers over their hips. Which is why they're hopping to make adjustments after they do stuff. Because they were never in proper position in the first place. This is basic first principle stuff that is remarkably consistent through every martial art and fight sport from East to West.

Let's say I am left foot forward, facing an opponent in the same stance. I want to circle or move to my opponent's left (my right). In what martial art, sport, performance or system of training do I do this by moving my left foot first (?) and crossing it over my right foot/opponent line?!? I have neither studied Joachim Meyer or Liechtenauer but that cannot possibly be correct.

I'm under the impression that Liechtenauer method is an advanced form well beyond the basic orthodoxy of his time, in which case the analogy of people trying to learn say, karate by studying black belt kata is even more true.

Oh, incidentally, I grew up only a kilometer or two away from a town called Lichtenau when I was a kid and have been there many times. There is a small castle from that time period that you're allowed to walk the walls of. Turns out that this is one of the places that this cat Liechtenauer might have been from. The name was ringing a bell but never put the two together till now, lol.
 
I won't argue that they might have improved, but in no way do I think that they were good at what they are supposedly or purportedly doing. The singular thing that separates novices versus competent practitioners of any form of martial art or fight sport is their footwork and hip movements.

Watching these guys, these guys are rarely ever balanced correctly. They are consistently reaching for stuff and it shows in how their weight never centers over their hips. Which is why they're hopping to make adjustments after they do stuff. Because they were never in proper position in the first place. This is basic first principle stuff that is remarkably consistent through every martial art and fight sport from East to West.

Let's say I am left foot forward, facing an opponent in the same stance. I want to circle or move to my opponent's left (my right). In what martial art, sport, performance or system of training do I do this by moving my left foot first (?) and crossing it over my right foot/opponent line?!? I have neither studied Joachim Meyer or Liechtenauer but that cannot possibly be correct.

Oh, I do agree. Footwork remains a big issue in HEMA due to the fact alot of people are self taught or learned from self taught people and they focus on the bladework and plays.

I had my footwork brutally corrected in the other martial art I do. Now that I am a free scholar I get to train folks. My pedagogy with new students is to focus on the the three things that happen in every fight..You need to move, You need to strike, you need to cover. Until my student can move properly and deliver a competent fendente its pointless to teach them anything else. Only once they have achieved competence at those do i delve into the plays. Alot of groups go right into the plays without teaching fundamentals first. Its like teaching a boxer how to perform combos without teaching him how to punch.

When I train new guys, footwork is the first thing we work on. I spend many hours working on footwork..how to circle, how to pass, how to perform proper accressare and decressare, how to shadow and keep distance, and how to step with your cuts. It makes a huge difference. When they see my style of sparring, which depends on quick feet and careful management of distance, they understand.
 
Oh, I do agree. Footwork remains a big issue in HEMA due to the fact alot of people are self taught or learned from self taught people and they focus on the bladework and plays.

I had my footwork brutally corrected in the other martial art I do. Now that I am a free scholar I get to train folks. My pedagogy with new students is to focus on the the three things that happen in every fight..You need to move, You need to strike, you need to cover. Until my student can move properly and deliver a competent fendente its pointless to teach them anything else. Only once they have achieved competence at those do i delve into the plays. Alot of groups go right into the plays without teaching fundamentals first. Its like teaching a boxer how to perform combos without teaching him how to punch.

When I train new guys, footwork is the first thing we work on. I spend many hours working on footwork..how to circle, how to pass, how to perform proper accressare and decressare, how to shadow and keep distance, and how to step with your cuts. It makes a huge difference. When they see my style of sparring, which depends on quick feet and careful management of distance, they understand.

I think we're fundamentally on the same page on this.

I think there is a big difference between the HEMA guys who come from have a background in classical fencing lineage versus those who are self taught when it comes down to training and instruction methods, basic fundamentals, etc.

When a guy like Matt Easton says that modern sport fencing is not sword fighting, he's worth listening to because there's a lot of truth to this statement. But at the same time, he was taught how to coordinate his arms, feet and body when making a thrust, judge and control distance and so on whereas the self taught practitioner is almost always weak in these areas because no one was around to recognize and spot correct errors during the learning process.

OTOH, when a self-taught HEMA guy criticizes classical sporting practices, whether it be kendo or western fencing, it's almost always from a position of ignorance to the translatable fundamentals that you get from trained instruction. As you said, these guys have it exactly backwards - they focus on the weapon first, then footwork and body movement as an afterthought instead of the other way around.

While I can't fault their enthusiasm, there's a reason that classical training in almost all fighting forms follows the general format that it does, even if the eventual practice in terms of competition are highly abstracted from practical combat.
 
HEMA seems to bring out the comic book nerds. Are there even any real lineages in HEMA?
 
I would also argue that they're not that strange. Maces, hammers, axes, polearms and percussion weapons of various sorts were in widespread use from Europe to Persia to India to China.

Second, you are incorrect in your assumption that they are crude, swing away type weapons. Many medieval treatises deal at length with polearm combat between armored men, that are just as extensive as the sections dealing with the use of the sword.

I know polearms are very common, but I have never seen a persian, or indian, or even chinese hammer, ax or percussion weapon.

I know there are treatises to deal with polearms, but what about the maces, hammers, and axes. I would love to see the way they train with those.
 
HEMA seems to bring out the comic book nerds. Are there even any real lineages in HEMA?

That guy Puck Curtis in the rapier video I linked has legit lineage.

To put it another way, it was less than 100 years ago that Western European officers were expected to (and did) use their swords in battle. At that time officers generally came from nobility and/or the landed upper classes and were expected to know the basics of fencing, which was taught in schools and in practiced in social clubs. After the use of the sword fell by the wayside during/after WWI, academic and club fencing shifted purely to sport fencing but there are a number of club fencers that preserved military fencing.

But no, very few have legit lineage.

I know polearms are very common, but I have never seen a persian, or indian, or even chinese hammer, ax or percussion weapon.

I know there are treatises to deal with polearms, but what about the maces, hammers, and axes. I would love to see the way they train with those.

How hard did you look? The very first thing on the Wikipedia Mace article is a picture of six Indo-Persian maces.

Chinese mace:

8216447033_a5c565d2a2_z.jpg


Indo-Persian battle-axe (which oddly enough, looks more like a Western fantasy battleaxe than real western battleaxes):
s746.jpg
 
That guy Puck Curtis in the rapier video I linked has legit lineage.

To put it another way, it was less than 100 years ago that Western European officers were expected to (and did) use their swords in battle. At that time officers generally came from nobility and/or the landed upper classes and were expected to know the basics of fencing, which was taught in schools and in practiced in social clubs. After the use of the sword fell by the wayside during/after WWI, academic and club fencing shifted purely to sport fencing but there are a number of club fencers that preserved military fencing.

But no, very few have legit lineage.



How hard did you look? The very first thing on the Wikipedia Mace article is a picture of six Indo-Persian maces.

Chinese mace:

8216447033_a5c565d2a2_z.jpg


Indo-Persian battle-axe (which oddly enough, looks more like a Western fantasy battleaxe than real western battleaxes):
s746.jpg
That puck Curtis guy has club level fencing skills. Some duelling - directly linked to fencing clubs in europe was still going on up until the 1960s
 
Back
Top