Rob Lovett (rob_lovett@hotmail.com)
Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:38:01 BST
HI Michael,
Do you know if anyone has experimented with sharps at display. I ask as I
am curious t know if anyone has done the beef carcass thing, or the broom
stick on two wine glasses.
Rob
>From: Michael Lacy <mike@srmdel.demon.co.uk>
>Reply-To: histrenact@novar.co.uk
>To: histrenact@novar.co.uk
>Subject: RE: [Histrenact] - Combat Hobby, Martial Art or LivingHistory?
>Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:05:09 +0000
>
> >This is proving to be a long lasting discussion, but everybody is
>begining
> >to repeat themselves, or to reiterate what other people have said without
> >adding any extra value or information. (She says, about to do the
>same...)
> >
> >I would love to train in a realistic manner, but since it would be
> >unrealistic in the extreme for me even to be doing so, and that there are
> >certain practical difficulties (despite the fact that I am pretty strong
>for
> >a woman, no matter how hard I train, I will never be as strong as a guy
>my
> >size who does no exercise) it is just not going to happen.
>
>Strength is not really an issue in swordfighting. I know many women who
>fight in the SCA (which is a _much_ more physical activity than most UK
>steel fighting) and do very well indeed. Speed and timing are far more
>important than brute strength in swordfighting, and training helps to
>develop these.
>
> >Unless you are fighting with live blades, it's not real - very few people
> >would be willing to do this, nor would the laws and regulations in most
> >countries allow this to be taught (but you can, for instance, free-climb
>all
> >you like - go figure!). It's like the difference between street fighting
>and
> >martial arts in the dojo - only in the former is anyone deliberately
>trying
> >to injure, maim or kill.
> >
> >We have to accept that we cannot train in a totally realistic manner
> >whatever we do, so some form of compromise is required.
>
>Not so. Warriors have alway trained with non-lethal techniques - after
>all, they didn't want to kill their comrades in arms any more than we do
>today. Throughout much of the middle ages, this type of training was done
>with wooden batons. You _can_ fight safely with wooden batons. You can
>also train with steel blades against a pell or in set routines (like Katas)
>with a partner who knows what he/she is doing - all period training
>techniques.
>
> >Using what
> >historical sources there are is perfectly reasonable, but if they do not
> >apply to your peiriod, they are of limited value, a help, no more, and
>not
> >to be trusted to give you an accurate idea.
>
>I would again disagree. There are only so many ways that a human-shaped
>biped can wield a sword. Over time, the most effective techniques will be
>discovered by a sort of 'natural selection' and passed down the
>generations. It is worth noting that many of the 2 handed sword
>techniques shown in manuals such as the Flos Duellum (14th C. Italian) and
>Talhoffer (15th C. Swabian) are identical to Japanes techniques for katana.
>It is unlikely that this is because information was passed directly between
>these two cultures, and is probably a result of 'paralel evolution' in
>technique. If such geographically separated cultures can show such
>convergence, it is very likely that cultures from the same locality
>separated by the passage of time will also have similar techniqes. For
>instance, the sword and buckler techniques shown in I.33 are quite possibly
>similar to (if not derrived from) techniques used in the Viking age with
>the larger, centre-grip round shield.
>
> >They very well may give you a
> >good idea of how people were _trained_ (or how the author thought that
>they
> >should be),which is good for training purposes, but I wouldn't
>necessarily
> >rely on the as an accurate guide to how they actually _fought_.
>
>But using the manuals as a starting point makes far more sense than simply
>making it up as you go along - particularly in a non-competative
>environment such as steel fighting (as practiced in the UK). Full contact
>groups such as the SCA have the advantage that bad techniques are often
>weeded out by natural selection, and good ones developed by trial and error
>(in an environment where 'error' does not result in broken teeth). Without
>such a self-correcting influence, the only way to re-discover _how_ people
>fought is to do research, and the surviving fighting manuals are the best
>sources you are likely to find.
>
> >If you are not performing for the public, then how close you want to get
>is
> >really up to your own group, and your own levels of commitment and time.
>
>Agreed, however I would hope that intelectual curiosity alone would make
>you want to have a look at some research material on what you are doing.
>
> >If you are performing for the public, then I would say that you do have a
> >duty to try to be as accurate as you can, being aware that this is a
>tricky
> >process whilst maintaining reasonable standards of safety. Training
>should
> >enable people to block/parry/take reasonably realistic blows in as
>authentic
> >(if always inevitably debatable) style. The hobby should then be
>considered
> >a heavy contact sport, like rugby, where the risk of injury is accepted
>by
> >all participants.
>
>Not necessarily. If you are going to do a re-creation of lethal combat,
>you can use proper techniques safely by using a certian amount of
>choreography. But performances for the public do not always have to be
>depicting of lethal combat. Our group does displays of a behourdium, a
>type of tournament fought with wooden batons in the 14th and 15th centuries
>(although the use of wooden weapons in mock combat goes back at least as
>far as the Romans). These displays are full contact, educational and quite
>safe. If done right, they are far more 'realistic' than any display of
>'actual' combat, as no choreography of 'death scenes' need be used. We
>don't pretend to fight a behourd, we actually _are_ fighting a behourd.
>
> >To be honest though, it's not really going to matter as much as we would
> >like to think. (cynicism alert) The average member of the public doesn't
> >know anything about combat styles and is unlikely to be educated by any
> >display no matter how authentic.
>
>We have found that this is not the case. At a recent show in Porchester
>Castle, we went over some of the techniques from Talhoffer, explaining the
>background of the text, of European martial arts and of medieval training
>techniques in general. We held the attention of the public throughout the
>display, and many of them stayed afterwards to ask questions about medieval
>combat. If you just go out and start fighting, you probably will not
>educate anyone, but if you have someone to address the crowd and explain
>what you are doing, you do reach many of them.
>
> >We do this hobby for ourselves, not to enlighten people who aren't all
>that
> >interested, don't pay attention, know no background, but nonetheless can
> >tell that we are not doing it 'for real' (lack of blood and severed body
> >parts). You can't educate people in spite of themselves, nor should you
>try.
>
>I find that to be a rather dissapointingly cynical view; any 'reenactor'
>worthy of the name should strive to educate as they perform their hobby -
>particularly if, as many UK groups do, you are doing a display at a
>heritage site in front of a crowd. Otherwise you might as well just join
>the LRP lot and cast 'spells' at each other.
>
>Michael Lacy
>
>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue 30 Jan 2001 - 02:30:28 GMT