Link 18 Sep 7 notes The New York Times - Medieval Weapon Finds Modern Appeal »

This video article has been making the rounds, and in the last 72 hours, we in the HEMA community have already noticed a spike in interest from the general public. I know I’ve posted to this effect in the past, but, once again:

If any of you out there in Tumblr-land are interested in getting into Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA) don’t hesitate to get in touch with me here! If you are new to my blog, I’m a Germanic (Liechtenauer pedagogy) longsword instructor; I’m the Assistant Instructor at the New York Historical Fencing Association's branch in Kingston, NY, and the Head Instructor for NYHFA's Manhattan branch, aka the Akademie des Heiligen Schwertes. The latter branch also has a few additional study groups which offer supplemental or peripheral training, such as langes Messer, dagger fighting & Kampfringen, and sword & buckler combat (from MS I.33).

If you do not live in and around Manhattan or the upper Hudson Valley region, never fear! There are HEMA schools all over the country, all over the world. Inbox me, and I’ll help you find a school, club, or study group near you!

Photo 10 Sep 65 notes petermorwood:

This makes a nice screen background… (I dialled back the saturation to make the image less intrusive; YMMV.)And what’s the proper name for this particular type of armour?
If I’m not using something more specialised like ‘hauberk’, ‘habergeon' or 'byrnie' I use “mail”, and “mail-coat” or “-shirt”, with “ringmail” if I really have to avoid confusion with what arrives in the mailbox; though if I mean armour it's usually clear enough in context.
But I try not to use “chainmail” just on principal. It’s not an accurate description of how the stuff is made, or how it looks, and it’s not even historical. The word was invented by a writer - Sir Walter Scott - as recently as 1822 (that’s recent when talking about mail) when in “The Fortunes of Nigel" a character says (in Scots dialect)…

“…the deil a thing’s broken but my head. It’s not made of iron, I wot, nor my claithes of chenzie-mail; so a club smashed the tane, and a claucht damaged the tither.”

Charles Kingsley followed in 1855 with The Heroes, where…

“…Aietes sat upon his throne, with his warriors on each hand, thousands and tens of thousands, clothed from head to foot in steel chain-mail.”

There’s no record of the term existing before this. Citations are in in our Compact OED (the one that needs a magnifier) and quotes were found on the Gutenberg website.
Spelling it ‘maille' is too twee unless you're French, when 'cotte de maille' = “mail-coat.” It's 'cotta di maglia' in Italian, 'cota de malla' in Spanish, 'cota de malha' in Portuguese, each with that “coat of” prefix to make clear what it is; 'maliënkolder' (Dutch) is also “mail-coat”, and all derive from Latin 'macula' = the mesh of a net (Cassell’s Latin Dictionary, citing Cicero). No chains…Scandinavian countries go for the “ring” approach: ‘ringbrynje' (Denmark, Norway) and 'ringväv' or 'ringbrynja' (Sweden). Still no chains…German seems to be the only European language where chains are involved: there it’s ‘Kettenrüstung' or 'Kettenpanzer’, literally “chain armour” - however, says the Wiki entry rather scornfully, the word is of modern origin, “used today mostly by pop-scholarship writers.” (ooOOoo!) Academics (the word “proper” isn’t there but you can hear the beat of its wings) use the term ‘Ringpanzerhemd' - “ring-armour shirt.”
I’m not a proper scholar of arms and armour like David Edge and Toby Capwell (i.e. I’m not paid to do it, haven’t published on the subject etc. etc.) but it’s funny to see that my “affectation” of not liking the term chainmail has a basis in fact.
As for plate-mail…let’s just not go there. {:->

petermorwood:

This makes a nice screen background… (I dialled back the saturation to make the image less intrusive; YMMV.)

And what’s the proper name for this particular type of armour?

If I’m not using something more specialised like ‘hauberk’, ‘habergeon' or 'byrnie' I use “mail”, and “mail-coat” or “-shirt”, with “ringmail” if I really have to avoid confusion with what arrives in the mailbox; though if I mean armour it's usually clear enough in context.

But I try not to use “chainmail” just on principal. It’s not an accurate description of how the stuff is made, or how it looks, and it’s not even historical. The word was invented by a writer - Sir Walter Scott - as recently as 1822 (that’s recent when talking about mail) when in “The Fortunes of Nigel" a character says (in Scots dialect)…

…the deil a thing’s broken but my head. It’s not made of iron, I wot, nor my claithes of chenzie-mail; so a club smashed the tane, and a claucht damaged the tither.

Charles Kingsley followed in 1855 with The Heroes, where…

…Aietes sat upon his throne, with his warriors on each hand, thousands and tens of thousands, clothed from head to foot in steel chain-mail.

There’s no record of the term existing before this. Citations are in in our Compact OED (the one that needs a magnifier) and quotes were found on the Gutenberg website.

Spelling it ‘maille' is too twee unless you're French, when 'cotte de maille' = “mail-coat.” It's 'cotta di maglia' in Italian, 'cota de malla' in Spanish, 'cota de malha' in Portuguese, each with that “coat of” prefix to make clear what it is; 'maliënkolder' (Dutch) is also “mail-coat”, and all derive from Latin 'macula' = the mesh of a net (Cassell’s Latin Dictionary, citing Cicero). No chains…

Scandinavian countries go for the “ring” approach: ‘ringbrynje' (Denmark, Norway) and 'ringväv' or 'ringbrynja' (Sweden). Still no chains…

German seems to be the only European language where chains are involved: there it’s ‘Kettenrüstung' or 'Kettenpanzer’, literally “chain armour” - however, says the Wiki entry rather scornfully, the word is of modern origin, “used today mostly by pop-scholarship writers.” (ooOOoo!) Academics (the word “proper” isn’t there but you can hear the beat of its wings) use the term ‘Ringpanzerhemd' - “ring-armour shirt.”

I’m not a proper scholar of arms and armour like David Edge and Toby Capwell (i.e. I’m not paid to do it, haven’t published on the subject etc. etc.) but it’s funny to see that my “affectation” of not liking the term chainmail has a basis in fact.

As for plate-mail…let’s just not go there. {:->

(Source: stupidwerld)

Video 3 Sep 74 notes

lama-armonica:

Armeria di Palazzo Ducale -Venezia 2
Palazzo Ducale’s armory 2

Text 27 Aug 314,059 notes Reblog if you have a scar with a story behind it.

(Source: birdsorthebeez)

Video 25 Aug 586 notes

maerenundlobebaeren:

A Falchion of a Knight Templar (~1300)

Dieser Falchion oder Malchus wird im Rothenburger Reichsstadtmuseum gezeigt. Die Knaufvorderseite ziert ein mit Kupferdraht eingelegtes Templerkreuz. Die Knaufrückseite zeigt ein stilisiertes “H”. Im oberen Teil der Klinge ist zudem ein Kreuz mit einem Auge an der Spitze eingelegt (auf den Bildern leider nicht zu sehen). Die Waffe wurde auf das Jahr 1300 datiert.

Link 20 Aug 5 notes NHFL - I lost every bout and I loved every minute»

Some valuable insight into how competitions / tournaments can be used as a training tool

Photo 12 Aug 554 notes museum-of-artifacts:

Sword and scabbard of Boabdil (Muhammad XII), Nasrid Granada, c. 1400

museum-of-artifacts:

Sword and scabbard of Boabdil (Muhammad XII), Nasrid Granada, c. 1400

Link 11 Aug 12 notes An open letter to the cutting tournament haters (orig. posted on my FB wall)»

mikestumblrfeed:

schwerterundstickerei:

I don’t usually engage in HEMA arguments – especially those that occur online – because they’re neither worth my time (I’m a firm believer in “shut the fuck up and train”), nor do I generally consider myself answerable to anyone but my teacher, my students, those few persons in the community…

Some honest questions here. Hopefully as a conversation, not an argument you know?

Out of interest, do you know why the specific feats were chosen? In the Polish cutting competition, you have three target stands, and then each competitor must cut them (randomly rolled at the beginning of the competition). The cuts are timed, and penalties added for bad cuts. This forces the fencer to move quickly. and to make ‘unnatural’ cutting decisions, as you’d have to in a fight.

I consider myself a fencer before a martial artist, and to my mind that kind of pressure testing is more relevant to actual fighting then who-can-cut-through-seven-tatamis-at-hip-height. I’ve only had limited exposure to the New York style of test cutting, but similarly I felt it emphasised big, slow movements and cutting at extremely low targets.

But what do I know? I think the only trick to cutting is getting a blade moving fast enough through a target ;)

Well, those specific feats were chosen for two main reasons: One, and perhaps the more superficial, was to make the cutting finals a little more exciting for the audience to watch. Two, these were chosen because they focus on specific skill sets. For example, cutting downward through the stack of rolls is meant as a test specifically for edge alignment maintenance (if your grip mutates part of the way through, the sword turns, and it can bend - even catastrophically). The short-stroke feat (cutting the mat with poles to either side) is about power generation in a very short span of time (all about linking the body and sword together). Chasing the target as it’s rolling away should be fairly obvious :)

Integrating cutting into the N. American HEMA scene has been a gradual process (not just at Longpoint, but especially at Longpoint). In 2012, it was really basic by comparison.. just standing in front of a target, taking all the time in the world, and performing a few specific cuts in a predetermined order. In 2013, it was more about speed. 2014 was a little of both, weighted slightly towards accuracy over raw speed, and then of course the feats to exhibit specific skills, as mentioned above.

Next year it’ll probably be even more complicated. More people are cutting, and getting better at it as well - which keeps me on my toes ;)

Text 10 Aug 12 notes An open letter to the cutting tournament haters (orig. posted on my FB wall)

I don’t usually engage in HEMA arguments – especially those that occur online – because they’re neither worth my time (I’m a firm believer in “shut the fuck up and train”), nor do I generally consider myself answerable to anyone but my teacher, my students, those few persons in the community for whom I have a deep and inextirpable respect, and ultimately myself. Having said that, since my name was brought up recently in connection with test-cutting and the [apparently still debatable] HEMArtfulness thereof, I want to make a few comments of my own here, just for the record. Note, I’m not trying to start a new argument or rekindle old ones, so my follow-up comments will be quite limited here.

The cutting feats at Longpoint 2014 are just that: feats. They are demonstrations of power-generation (full-body skeletal and muscular coordination), fine-motor control (maintenance of sword edge alignment), accuracy (distance management; targeting; striking along specific albeit arbitrary planes), dynamism (being able to do all this quickly, while moving), etc. As such, they are not combat. The targets, even when moving, are in no way a threat to the competitor. In fact, the only threat to the competitor is themselves, if they lack requisite control (and let’s face it, anyone without requisite control is not making it that far in the competition anyway). While not combat, these skills are all valuable in their own right *in* combat.

Since I think we can all safely agree that test-cutting, in any format, is neither combat nor a simulation thereof, the question remains: why do we do it? Well, that depends entirely on your personal priorities. Why do you do HEMA? If it’s to win [sparring] tournaments, well, then cutting is fairly useless. There is a massive difference between using a sword simulator to make positive contact on another person’s body and using a sharp sword to effect manslaughter. End of story. If, however, you view tournaments as a method of pressure-testing Fechtbuch techniques in a dynamic and chaotic environment, then cutting may have some use to you; yes, there is a mental and physical paradigm-shift that must occur when alternately facing a sparring partner/opponent and a cutting target, but it’s not that big of a shift, in my opinion. If you do HEMA primarily as a scholar – a historian, linguist, sociologist, archaeologist, etc. – that’s fine, and the community has learned and will continue to learn much from you folks. Cutting may be an interesting experiment for you, but if you’re more apt to argue social theory with me, and explain that I would be arrested and jailed for manslaughter for not turning my sword and striking with the flat in this city during such a year, well… my response continues to be that arguing these subtleties is not very much different from those made by the people who spend way too much time between sparring exchanges arguing that “well, your blow would never have landed because my blow would’ve lacerated the tendon in your arm and your sword would’ve flown out of your hand and killed your own mother…” To which I generally say, “right, just shut the fuck up and train.” There is a big difference between being able to kill someone and know when not to (same with responsible gun ownership in this day and age) than deciding that training to kill is unnecessary because the situation is unlikely to arise now or in the historical milieu of your choosing.

Back on track here – No, the cutting feats are not based on specific historical precedent. The argument has been made over and over again that there would not have been much need for “cutting practice” in the high or late Middle Ages because it was a edged-weapon culture. Everyone had and used bladed implements, for hunting, for harvesting, for serving food, for self-defense, for military offense. Cutting practice is for *us,* we 21st-century practitioners who have lost that intimate connection with edged implements. Because of this, I don’t personally believe that it needs to be judged by Fechtbuch-truism standards, because it is just another learning tool (much like the Fechtbücher themselves are). If people are unhappy with how I hold vom Tag in a certain situation, or the orientation of my feet at a particular moment in time, I think they need to step back and look at the bigger picture:

Besides the fact that the Fechtbücher often disagree with one another (and in many cases contradict themselves if their absolutist language isn’t taken with a healthy grain of salt and/or read in a context of pedagogical incrementality) the art of the sword, as with all combat arts, is based on only ONE truth: the human body can only move in so many ways. The Fechtbücher serve as foundations for the Historical and European portions of HEMA – that is, compendia of distance and timing strategies as well as methods for maximizing mechanical advantage with X Y and Z weapons. As for the Martial portion, I am constrained only by two things: that which I can do, and that which I can not. The Art comes when a harmony is achieved in combining the former, and, I daresay, is rather subjective. My Art may not be the same as your Art. That does not mean it is better or worse HEMA.

I’m tired of writing at this point, so I’m just going to shut the fuck up. And train.

P.S. for those who deify the Fechtbücher and their authors, and see any minor deviation as a defilement of the wisdom therein, guess what: there’s a competition for that too. It’s called the Paired Technique Competition. Just sayin’.

Video 9 Aug 8 notes
Video 8 Aug 10 notes
Video 8 Aug 1,539 notes

art-of-swords:

Bollock Dagger 

  • Replica
  • Dated: 1450-1500 (the original)
  • Culture: English (the original)
  • Measurements: overall length: cca. 42 cm 

The original dagger is property of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, USA.

Source: Copyright © 2014 Arma Bohemia

I love the original dagger, and every time I see it at the Met I think to myself what a wonderful repro someone could make - and someone did!

Here’s a pic of the original, from the Met Collection Online (Accession No. 26.145.7):

http://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/aa/web-large/sf26-145-7s1.jpg

Video 6 Aug 8 notes

tymerion:

A different point of view for cutting…

via Tymerion.
Photo 5 Aug 138,578 notes strangeremains:


Skull, found in France, with a knife still embedded it it.  The skull belonged to a Roman solider who died during the Gallic Wars, ca. 52BC. It was on display at the Museo Rocsen in Argentina.  

strangeremains:

Skull, found in France, with a knife still embedded it it.  The skull belonged to a Roman solider who died during the Gallic Wars, ca. 52BC. It was on display at the Museo Rocsen in Argentina.  

(Source: derwiduhudar)

Video 4 Aug 774 notes

art-of-swords:

European Sword

  • Dated: circa 15th century
  • Place of Origin: North Italy
  • Measurements: overall length 97 cm

The sword has a straight, single-edged blade of triangular section, featuring remains of brass inlays at the first part. It has a “S”-shaped quillon and oval quillon-block, plus a large pommel with deep grooves.

Source: Copyright © 2014 Czerny’s International Auction House S.R.L.


Design crafted by Prashanth Kamalakanthan. Powered by Tumblr.