The end of a new year and the beginning of a new year is for many people the ultimate occasion to launch new resolutions: losing weight, stop smoking, not spending too much money on certain things etc., etc. Some of us even have specific HEMA-resolutions: train more, daily swinging of the kettle bell, running once a week or why not… saving money for that beautiful sword you saw? With this text, we want to propose a new resolution: get rid of your protection and let’s fight naked!
In December 2011 Mike Cartier of the Meyer Freifechter Guild wrote a splendid article in which he enthusiastically – and for some of us even controversially – proposed to lay down our protection and to start fighting as our ancestors did in the Fechtschule.[1] This means we have to take away all our protection when we fight or better… only rely on our own skills and sword by means of protection. Mike Cartier’s text was for some members of the Hallebardiers (Brugge, Belgium) a revelation.
One of our main reasons to start with this way of fencing was our growing unhappiness about the present tournaments in the HEMA-world. We don’t criticize the great talented fighters today and the enormous efforts certain clubs dedicate to organize world famous tournaments. The problem is different, because we see several things which are in our opinion not the way it should be. During several years of HEMA we have seen more and more companies investing in better HEMA-protection, resulting in the fact that we have better protection and better swords than ever. The present day protection even functions as a modern armour, so fencers don’t have to be afraid anymore to cross blades on tournaments.
When we talk about modern swordsmen, and looking at this high quality modern armour, we sometimes even speak about ‘Robocop fencing’.
Again, we don’t criticize the people wearing this protection or want to ridicule this way of fencing, but – as Mike Cartier – explicitly says in his article:
They don’t seem to have used any padding or gloves until much later, and they certainly show no padding, masks, helmets or gloves in any of the Fechtschule depictions until the 18th century. This can be dismissed as an intentional deception, but I would have to wonder why they would not show gloves or masks/helmets if they were used. We do see certain Fechtbücher like that of Paulus Hector Mair showing finely-wrought metallic gauntlets in certain plates—as well as many, many more without. Meyer’s material certainly shows no gloves whatsoever. Given the price to be paid for lazy training, I am inclined to think the preparation was intentionally tough and exposed fencers to danger so that later, when they actually needed it they were properly prepared. If they had gloves and did not use them, that tells us something about how they viewed danger and risk when attempting to prepare for even more dangerous pursuits like war, dueling, and personal defense (p.3-4)
Paradoxically, and noted by Filip Bonte, a member of our guild:
- We do not fully understand the fencing manuscripts
- We’ve learned a number of attacking techniques but almost no defensive techniques
- Therefore we need to compensate our lack of knowledge about defense with hard gloves and armor
- So we can concentrate on attack without fear of getting hurt
- … and thus we hit hard because we know the other guy is wearing his protection too
- People DO get hurt so we need even thicker gloves and armor
- Back to #4
We are convinced that the heavy protection kills the art… and causes the utter disgrace of each fight: the double kill! Why should I protect myself and why shouldn’t I try to do this risky attack, I’m protected anyway? This confidence in our modern armour causes inexperienced people to take the risk to engage in serious tournaments, which can result in (terrible and sometimes humiliating) injuries, as happened in first rounds of the saber tournaments in Swordfish 2012. It is amazing that HEMA-tournaments don’t make any classifications between fighters and that people with years of training and tournaments behind them can face utterly newbies… But hey, no problem for a newbie: he can put on his plastic armour, padded gloves and with these on he can risk to try to Blössfechten on a tournament, relying on his equipment fit for Harnischfechten.
In the Robocop-fights you hardly see any bindings and clean examples of windings, only some highly qualified people manage to achieve this… instead we see people using speed, power and reflexes. Many fights are also won, only by using the technique of the Vorschlag. We only occasionally see clean techniques, e.g. an application of the Meisterhauen, and we can’t even remember a single fight where the flat of the blade is used as a technique, though this is recommended several times by Joachim Meyer.
1. Our experiences
Because of our discontent with much of the present day fighting and tournaments and mainly because of our quest to approach the ancient Kunst des Fechtens, we one day decided to get rid of our protection.
A key concept for trying to fight in Fecthschüle-style is also RESPECT: for your weapon, for your opponent and also for your own defense. Fencing is not about attacking someone, but about being able to defend yourself with your weapon:
The aim of fencing is the defense of self, from whence it derives its name; because “to fence” does not mean other than defending oneself, hence it is that “protection” and “defense” are words of the same meaning; whence one recognizes the value and the excellence of this discipline is such that everyone should give as much care thereunto, as they love their own life, and the security of their native land, being obligated to spend that lovingly and valorously in the service thereof.
– Capo Ferro, Gran Simalcro, The Art of Fencing, I, 3
(translation W. Wilson and J. Wherek Swanger)
With timid harts we started experimenting with removing bit by bit our protection, so in March 2013 we started taking away our leg protection, body protection and finally also our gloves. In the beginning only two people tried it, but gradually more and more people in our guild became enthusiastic about this way of fencing.
For our Blössfechten, we use these principles:
- No protection of the hands
- No protection of the torso
- Only experienced fighters or people who have proven their skills: a true swordsman can control his blade, even against inexperienced people (but as said before, maybe it is better these people don’t fight in these kind of tournaments.
- Huge psychological pressure: when you hurt me you can’t fence well; and it’s better to be hurt than to hurt another person. In the ancient Fechtschüle you even received huge fines if you cut your opponent or if you wounded him terribly
- Use of the flat as much as possible
- Try to avoid hitting hard on the person, but hitting hard on the blade is not a problem
- Only head as a valid target, so therefore we only need to protect the head
- Emphasis on control of the blade, so we needed to do more exercises to encourage control, e.g. hitting as hard as you can on the blade of your opponent but then stopping your blade a few cm in front of it. In sparring we also strive to give the ‘final blow or thrust’ as soft as possible, just to show that we are able to hit, not to hurt.
We also say that when we remove the protection, we also try to remove our ego, because you need to put your ego away and try to defeat your opponent but in a honourable way (which can not physically hurt your opponent). An ego can cause injuries and if your opponent makes a mistake and leaves a huge opening, you have to hit him like a gentlemen: firmly, steadily but never with the intention to hurt or hit hard. We fight as brothers and want to learn from each other, we hit but avoid to hurt.
Some people can criticize the fact that we only aim for the head, but this is because we strive to imitate the fencing of the Fechtschüle. Maybe it is not realistic that we do protect our heads with fencing masks and that we are not men enough that we want to cause a bleeding head wound, but behind the men of our guild are powerful women who would be furious to see their beloved men coming home with bleeding heads. A bit more seriously: today we don’t have a culture and the mentality that we want to show scars of fights towards our society.
Our new way of fighting has so far proven several advantages and every new fight we discover new aspects:
- Only experienced people fight like this, so you have high quality fights without people taking dangerous risks
- The emphasis lies on defense, only by means of footwork, handwork and your blade. This also stresses the notion of tempo: when is the right moment to attack and when not?
- Our fights have evolved in a sort of chess play: when does the opponent leave a fake opening or when has he forgotten to protect himself?
- Our Blössfechten has shown us the need of using more and more techniques and relying more on our art than on our protection. It is amazing how many more binds we have in our fights and how more important handwork becomes.
- Because we don’t feel any hindrance from our protection, our sparring gets better, so we start to interpret the techniques much better and techniques we don’t understand from the fencing manuals become more clear to us
In brief, more and more in this way of fighting the key concepts are judgement, distance, time and place (George Silver, paradoxes of Defence 1599 :through Judgment yo kepe yor dyftance, through Diftance yo take yor Tyme, through Tyme yo fafly wyne or gayne the Place of yor adurfarie ). Out of the Zufechten we try to create an opening or a tempo, sometimes this is even more difficult than hitting the opponent. This way of fighting takes much more time before someone is hit, the bindings are longer and the handwork becomes more important. The result of this kind of fight is that we almost automatically ended up in using more and more techniques of Joachim Meyer.
In these kind of fights we rarely see the Vorschlag, because it usually is a very big risk to execute the Vorschlag without being hit yourself.
2. Artificial?
Some people might argue that fencing without protection or in the style of the Fechtschüle is not real or even artificial. With our way of fencing you can’t kill a person, can you?
This is a huge discussion and it is not the intention of this article to answer this question, but let us state this: what is real fencing? Does it mean that we have to fence with sharp blades and pretend that we are on the battlefield, where a fair fight is out of the question? Does it mean a juridical duel fought out under high psychological pressure? We think there is an unbridgeable gap between our times and the so called real fighting from medieval and early modern Europe… Maybe the closest we can get is the way of fencing as practised in the Fechtschüle.
3. Aftermath
Meanwhile we did about more than hundred fights with about 8 people involved. We have no injuries, only some bleeding fingers because of burrs on the crossguard or strong of our blades, the latter caused by halfswording.
Sometimes fingers were hit, but with the flat of the blade and under control, so no serious injuries happened. Only once someone’s finger was bruised, but this was caused by a foreign visitor of our club who proclaimed himself as an experienced fencer. We still have a long way to go and we are still learning, techniques become clearer and we risk more in our sparrings: more halfswording, more grappling,… Sometimes we even aim for other parts than the head and try to give a controlled strike to the bare upper arms, torso and even the hands.
Does this mean that we have thrown or protection in the dustbin and that we stopped buying the great HEMA-protective equipment in a huge dustbin near our training place? Absolutely not: we highly recommend this equipment for people who start historical fencing and who start their first sparrings. We also use it when we train for regular tournaments, where still no real Fechtschüle rules are applied.
It would be great if we could organize a ‘real’ Fechtschüle like this: real unarmed fencing with a lot of neat and clean techniques. Some people may think this is impossible to do with people whom you don’t know and also that the risk of injuries, caused by the stress of a tournament, is too high. For this problem we have a solution, let each fencer, selected from his or her group and qualified as experienced, pay the sum of 100 or more euro before he fights. If he causes an injury to his opponent, he’ll loose the money, if not, he receives his money back.
Maybe someone does get hurt, but if we want to take our art serious, we try to fence like our forefathers…
So who would pick up the gauntlet to paradoxically fight without gauntlets?
Bert Gevaert and Krist Martens
Hallebardiers, Brugge (Belgium)
More reading on related topics
The Art of Control – Fechtschule Manifesto 1 by Mike Cartier
The Art of Control – Fechtschule Manifesto 2 by Mike Cartier
A mentality of fear – and its importance to fighting by Roger Norling
The Wreath or the Cash? On Tournament fighting by Roger Norling
References
[1]https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxtZmZndXNhfGd4OjY5NjM3MzU0YjFlYWZkMTg
I’ve long thought that less protection is better, even for starting out. Heavy protection changes the way you handle the weapon, and interferes with learning the techniques, just as simulators further away from the original behave more and more differently. Of course there is a balance between authenticity and safety, but I’d prefer to see that balance addressed with slower training, taking the time to get the defence right. For some weapons (and staff is definitely one) there are no safe simulators or protection, so you have to play this way.
I also particularly like the idea of putting up a sum of money against the possibility of injuring an opponent. With the right training and practice (which I can’t say that I have currently) there is no need for the intensity to be reduced and it does rather change the focus.
Reading the various replies across the internet, it seems I’m one of the few who disagrees with the article. That doesn’t mean I don’t find it a useful idea or badly thought out, but it does not fit in with my experiences.
First, I have tried fencing and sparring with minimal gear. When I have taken up HEMA, there virtually was no other way; there was no adequate protection to be used. So when I got good enough to feel comfortable with the idea of free fencing with just the mask, I started doing it. What I’ve noticed was a couple of things: first, the fighting was a lot cleaner. It looked a lot more like what I thought fencing should look like rather than what started happening when I got my gear. Secondly, it was a lot slower. This allowed for more technique to come into play.
So now to explain why I disagree. The fencing looked better, but the few times I’ve fenced with minimal gear lately I noticed why. When you fence in minimal gear, you start cooperating. You’re not willing to injure your opponent, so you look after him. And it becomes a whole lot easier to do techniques against a cooperative opponent than one that’s not going to let you do what you like because he’s afraid of hitting you on an exposed area. But, in my opinion, this distorts fencing more than fencing in full gear. In modern times, we’re much more squeamish when it comes to our bodies, much less tolerant of injury, weather we are the injured or the perpetrator. Bloodying someone is no longer the goal of our fencing, but something to avoid. Once you have full gear, you can afford to hit someone without the fear of hurting them. This is also why I dislike the idea of putting money down to be paid in case you injure someone – it means you’ll look after your safety less than your opponent’s, something that’s counter-productive to fencing.
Also, the slower attacks are not something I like. I want my attacks to be fast, and I want to throw every strike with the intention of hitting; only when I see it will not, do I allow myself to change it (for the most part, there are exceptions, of course). Slowing down the attacks makes them weaker, in turn not testing the opponent’s defense thoroughly – to me, this is giving up the basics in favor of flashier techniques.
I do, however, agree that we have a problem when it comes to the mentality of many HEMA practitioners and clubs, where attacking is seen as the most important, and often the only valid choice to take. But I think this is an issue of how we train rather than being overprotected. At least in my experience, exercises that force the defender to really defend and only then attack are seen much too rarely, instead favoring the concept of Gleich (which is often confused with Indes). If we start training so that we stop attacking into an attack so often, I’m sure we can raise the quality of our fencing.
All that said, I do agree that to an extent, minimal gear fencing is highly beneficial. But in no way should it be done in a competitive setting of any sort. Yes, if you trust your clubmates, go for it. It’s great for training the decision-making process, and showing you why you need to be afraid of the sword. But in a competitive setting? Nuh-uh.
I’m a bit short on time so I will just comment very briefly on the topic of speed. There is a bit of an issue with speed vs control, where too much speed also means you give up some degree of control in lieu of taking what one perceives as an opportunity. However, this is also a risk taking that can get you “killed”. IF that is realistic risk taking can be debated, but assuming it isn’t, then taking such risks would mean that we create a different type of fight, trusting in that we aren’t taking any REAL risks when fencing today.
I have prepared an article on this very topic, but as I am not near finishing it for a foreseeable future I will steal some quotes from it.
Wyatt Earp said this on this topic:
Similarly Myamoto Musashi said this:
Just some food for thought on the topic of striking fast.
As for using this in a competetive stage, this is what I wrote a year or so ago about, how we need a change in mentality towards something closer to what our predecessors had, with mutual respect, control and self-preservation as key elements.
I agree with most of the quotes posted, and I’m a firm believer that speed comes from being relaxed, not tensed – which is what I think the quotes are saying, for the most part. However, that does not mean you should not strive to be fast in your strike. But be fasted correctly, and not by tensing up or whipping your sword.
“There is a bit of an issue with speed vs control, where too much speed also means you give up some degree of control in lieu of taking what one perceives as an opportunity. However, this is also a risk taking that can get you “killed”.” I’m not sure I quite follow this. Can I ask for a bit more detailed explanation?
Hi Alen!
I actually think they do speak of speed and not tension. Speed only takes you so far and it easily brings a mentality of trying to primarily be faster than the opponent rather than smarter and more skilled. A skilled fighter does not need to rely on speed, which is why few of the treatises even touch on the topic. Instead they speak of manipulating the opponent by using his actions against him. Speed, I think, has been given too much focus in parts of HEMA and while it works for some, for most it is heavily reliant on being able to take only theoretical risks while relying on protective gear from actual consequences.
However, this doesn’t mean you should be slow. Only in control. For most it is somewhat slower than the speed we are actually capable of.
And there are other associated topics here too that I will go into some day with the half-written article, like perceived speed etc.
Kit, Alen, Roger, thanks for the replies
Alen, I was going to reply to you but Roger beat me to it, and I must say I agree with him completely.
First let me lay down te settings in which we fence. Most of the time we fence without any protection except from our masks (this is only allowed for experienced members of our guild). We fence to strike the opponent on the head. A full facethrust isn’t allowed, a cut (schnitt) on the head is.
I’m sure you’ll get that these rules are influenced by the Fechtschule.
Let me be the first to say that we still have much to learn but since we fence under these settings our skills have improved dramatically. Suddenly we saw popping up the art of fencing in our sparringsessions. Something we rarely saw during fencing in full protective gear.
The idea that the fencing gets slower simply isn’t true, on the contrary. The lack of protection forces you in a different mindset. It forces you to fence from a defensive perspective. In my opinion to many fencers rely too much on speed and brute force. They try to overcome the opponent just by trying to be quicker or overcome him with brute force. They often lose control over the fight and sometime even themselves.
If both fighters start from a defensive perspective it gets really f***ing hard to hit the opponent, they sure as hell aren’t cooperative. You really have to use techniques to create an opening, create an opportunity (gelegenheit). Only at that moment we hit the opponent. Because it’s a real opportunity (you can safely hit him without risk of a counterhit) you have the time to hit the opponent soft on the head. You don’t need the full speed full force cut.
While working to create the opening we do use powerfull and quick techniques (for example : to cut away an incoming attack, this can’t be done slowely or without power). Some actions go to the blade, some actions go to the opponent. These can be quick and relatively powerfull but they aren’t used to hit the opponent, it’s used to force him/her to move and hopefully into the nach.
We strive for control in the tug of war between the vor and the nach. It’s a real joy to experience this. As a bonus : through this control we can hold our cuts if something goes wrong (opponent makes a bad parry).
A prerequisite is that both fencers know what they are doing. They must have the skills to parry speedy cuts. I see too many fencers who countercut with an action that parry’s and hits at the sametime (the mastercuts), or even worse countercut without protection. This is the fastest way to double hits and hand injuries. We train to deal with a threat by countercutting and creating an opportunity, in a second tempo hit the opponent. Meyer doesn’t look at the mastercuts as some kind of “supermoves”, they are just good cuts. He also points out that a fencer real needs great skill to parry and cut at the same time.
If your opponent doesn’t have these skills, both fencers will get hurt. I’ve been fencing this way for more then a year (2 trainingsessions/week) and never had an injury.
We noticed when we started respecting the fencing basics we got the flashier techniques as a bonus 🙂
I hope this makes sense
Fencing this way in a tournament, I don’t see it happening soon but who knows.
Do we get distortions in our fencing : sure. Cutting the arms is one of them. These techniques we really hold back because it hurts. But we do it. But I’m convinced there are fewer distortions then fencing in full gear where righthanded fencers barely can go into the right-handed ochs.
Greetings
Krist
I must say that I find this a very interesting discussion and I agree that ‘naked fencing’ is an important concept and that you must take this into your curriculum. After all, it learns you to respect the sword as a weapon but I’m not sure that this kind of fencing should be your main focus. I agree that every simulator of a sword should be seen as a weapon and you should always know that a hit would in real life mean serious injury but I also think that there are some pitfalls that one should be careful about:
1)Erschrickst du gerne, kein fechten nimmer lerne. is a famous quote from Liechtenauer, that tells us that if you are afraid of the sword, then don’t learn to fence. This means that you should respect the sword but at the same time you should not be afraid of the sword. Personally, I think that it comes down to the following question: is your willingness to win bigger than your fear of losing? If you fear more than you want to win, then you should ask yourself the question why you are fighting?
2)There is also the modern fear of not wanting to hurt your opponent, which even in the Fechtschule context was not there. A typical end to a fight for Meyer is a bleeding wound to the head, if that is what you want to simulate then you should fight without mask as well, a risk that I don’t want my opponent to take. Likewise, I don’t want to be doing a ‘Haenden drucken’ or a ‘Kniechelhau’ on someone that doesn’t wear protection which means that I will have to limit the number of defenses/attacks that I can use on my opponent.
3)I think we can all agree on the fact that there is no technique that always wins, as a consequence every time that you perform a technique there is a risk that it doesn’t work and that you will get hit. Does this mean that you shouldn’t take the risk? And when is a risk worth taking? A consideration that is highly individual and the one that is willing to take the most risk is still more likely to win the fight.
Anyway,these are things to consider and I think that a complete curriculum can only be built upon adding ‘naked fencing’, ‘pseudo-armored fencing’, ‘nylon-sword fencing’ together to get a complete picture of what it might have been like in those days.
The real change that has to come is in the mindset of the people and I can see how ‘naked fencing’ can contribute to this.
I hope that I more or less made my point without offending anyone or anything.
Greetings,
Davy
Hi there Davy,
Thanks for your reply, …, but offending ? Of course not, we have to keep an open mind for the interpretations of others.
Concerning “erschrikt du gerne, …” I agree that we have to respect the sword, but I think we have to fear the sword of the opponent.
I fence with the attitude : I want to hit the opponent but the fear of getting hit (preventing to get hit) is my major concern. Only when I’m sure he can’t hit me, then I will (try) to hit my opponent. This is a different mindset you seldom see when fencing with protection. The I want to hit mentality kick’s in very fast.
My interpretation on “erschrikt du gerne, …” is : fencers must have respect for the sword but he can’t be terrified of the sword. This is something different. Fencers must be capable of dealing with the fear of getting hit.
About fencing without the mask : I believe the fencers in the Fechtschule had superb control. I’m convinced that they could hit the opponent with control, striking fast but not skullcrushing hard. haenden drucken and the Kniechelhau fall under the same categorie. These aren’t decisive actions, they’re used to create an opening. If they can strike the head of the opponent with control they definitely can strike at the arms with the same control. This forces the opponent to move, make bad decisions. The blows won’t break their arms.
My personal opinion is : fencing with protection or without protection … you always get ‘artefacts’. But when you balance things, fencing without protection there are fewer artefacts then when we fence with protection. It certainly forces to use technique, manage their distance, focus on defence.
Again this is my take on fencing and I’m having a lot more fun compared to my fencing days in “full armour”. If you have an opponent you can trust, give it a try. You might be surprised.
And like I said before, we really go full out when defending, attacking the openings and knowing my opponent will make a sensible decision . Only when we are sure the opponent can’t hit me and I have a true tempo to hit him, there’s no need to smash in the skull of the opponent. If I can create a true opening I have time to hit the opponent in a save way.
See you in a week 🙂
Greetz
Krist
Hi Krist,
you will be glad to hear that yesterday on our free training we did some ‘naked fencing’ (based on the input of Dirk, who also trains with you). We only added the possibility that we were allowed to also attack the body but only with the flat of the blade. One of the things that we certainly did notice is that everyone was more busy looking for an opening then when you wear more protection. Another thing that we noticed is that we had practically no injuries, only a few slight bruises but that were more accidents then it was because it was intended.
The only big problem that I see in this is that you cannot do it with everyone, you need to have a certain degree of trust in your counter part, I know some people in our club where I don’t directly want to try this with. Anyway, I find this approach a good addition to the curriculum of our club.
See you next week 🙂
Greetz,
Davy