Notice that the objective of this video is making you think about the facts that: 1 - Training influences technique and consequently fighting. 2 - They had to train before writing out the books 3 - I found out some hints about how certain thing had probably been manipulated to make training possible. Notice that throughout ALL my career every single time I discussed this topic with some other HEMA enthusiasts or I’ve seen it (rarely) touched on the net the main assumptions always were: They had gambeson and helmets, they probably did as us more or less. Which to me is a big assumption to make which, in my opinion, is there for two motivations: 1 - Elevate the master above their mere human condition (Mamely: It’s impossible that we are doing even half a thing slightly better than them!!!) 2 - Justifying our modern training approach 3 - Avoiding the possibility that techniques may not be “100% correct” in a sense of “They are applied 1:1 as they are shown” (because point 1). To me instead, masters were human. We may learn by observing other martial traditions around the world and speculate a little in other directions. And if a technique doesn’t work as it is described, there may be a more nuanced motivation beyond the mere “It’s because they are made for real fighting with real swords” or whatever. I am suggesting that the master of the past were actually pretty smart people, with the same problems we have today, but different tools and possibilities: They used these to make their craft. Our craft is slightly different. We can figure out why there are discrepancies by speculating a little on the most relevant practice meant to learn how to fight: Training. I am not assuming they fenced naked, with only gambeson, or in armor to simulate out of armor practice, or with partial armor, or with sticks or blunts or whatever. I simply say: Think about it.
Singlesticks where the stick can loosely slide in the hilt are the only hema training weapon that can accurately simulate running through your opponent, as you can slide the stick all the way up to the hilt.
A very good and much needed video to understand your approach to several techniques. Of course we may be wrong in deciding when it applies and when a technique has to be understood in a more straight way, but I think the principle is sound.
Yeah definitely, I agree. There is quite a lot of work and study to do to understand when and how to apply all of this. I'm working on this since almost three years and I've found only a few things which I would say I am almost sure about (A number of them are in the video, namely the Fiore stuff), other ideas are more speculative in nature.
I think the easiest to see example of safe training variation in I.33 happens in kick that counters the arm grab: the manual shows the kick as being a stomp to the butt. If you are in that position, stomping the back of the knee or landing a kick to the nuts is very easy to do and much more devastating.
I think I.33 absolutely makes the most sense when viewed from a "what type of fencing can we do regularly, without helmets and without braining each other into brain damage". The whole system to my mind is: thrust to the body, where it doesn't matter if contact happens (blunt points). Thrust to the face but stop short so you can always show that you had the opening, but don't have to finish if you don't want to, and shield-knock for head cuts, which can easily be pulled (to not hit at all) or else flatted, if that is what you are into. All of which are just way safer to practice, then: swing wild from 2-4th guard as hard as you can and also strike the knee at full force (the things you see happen if you give any 2 kids foam or larp s and b's). Not that I.33 isn't martial, it still is, and that's the point, you can't actually fence regularly in the foam sword manner with steel swords and no protection so there is no way to have a system which doesn't carry that baggage So I liked many of the points you raised in this video, even while admitting that the truth is, that we can never really know one way or the other. One tiny bit of criticism (I know rando from the internet, but bare with me). In doing I.33, I think you will have much more success in unifying different parts of that manual if you use 1rst ward as a knukles up, I make a true edge descending riverso to "fall under" as opposed to the knuckles down rotate the false edge into the bind position, you happen to be showing in this video. That could just be the video you had most easily available, as it was just illustrating an example (in which case ignore my comment if this is not where your current usage is at). Anyway, I currently use the "fall under" command as to mean "attack the outside wrist" and the bind as being: "prevent that from happening". And this all works very well, and all that, in sparring, such that said interpretation is what I am going with until I find myself in a seance to tell me different. The knuckle up vs knuckle down 1rst wards both definitely existed, so in any kind of generic sword and buckler fight/sparring, either can be used as you see fit, but given the sword angle differences that we see between something like this: wiktenauer.com/wiki/Walpurgis_Fechtbuch_(MS_I.33)#/media/File:MS_I.33_01r.png and this: wiktenauer.com/wiki/Hans_Talhoffer#/media/File:MS_Thott.290.2%C2%BA_117v.jpg ... nearly 45 degrees downward vs basically horizontal. On this particular occasion and topic, I will die on this hill. The I.33 1rst guard is knuckles up.
@@briankirk4097 thanks, I tend to agree with your analysis, and yes we most probably never know for sure how it worked. About I.33 - Check my first videos of 6-7 years ago, I bet you’ll find my old approach to I.33 pretty similar to what you say ;-) Cheers
Hi Federico, i find that falling under is just the first part of the stichslach rather than a simulated hit to the hands, but that's becuase i hold half shield more like an outside guard rather than down the middle (well, it can be in the middle, or turned into the strike). This doesnt argue against what you say about training manuals showing safe ways of training, and a hit to the the sword can of course simulate a hit to the person.
@@stuartking84able notice that a fake thrust may obtain similar results to a hand snipe in regards of the prosecution of the various plays, by the way, in my interpretation. Still I lean more toward hand or arm sniping to open up the inside line or the centerline between weapons!
i noticed that most of the injuries that happen in either sparring or training usually come from a lack of awareness and sometimes understanding on the purpose of the exercise from one or both sides. i've often seen injuries happen because someone can't tell the difference between competition, hard sparring and light armored sparring or training and go in unrestrained. i noticed some people just want to "win" even in just a simple exercise. if we're doing something like very light sparring and i start with slow, controlled movements but the other persons starts fast to get the non-existing point first, i will instinctively pick up speed and this will only result in someone getting hurt. in training and even basic sparring, i think it's important to be aware of what protective equipment your partner is wearing and their skill level. if they're not wearing leg protection, obviously avoid leg shots, if they don't have elbow protection, avoid going for the fore arms. check their speed and match it. if you think they are doing things too fast to the point it can be unsafe, point it out and tell them to slow down a bit. and if you notice their skill is lesser than yours, drop it down a few levels to match it. there's no point in doing a barrage of 20x combo with a fatality at the end. you're not getting any points for it. it will just make your partner frustrated and they will learn nothing. i've been in both ends of this stick, i think most of us have. it it's not a tournament, there is no benefit in this.
@@cspahn3221 definitely nowadays it’s the case. But what other tools a Koryu had to train swordfighting? The quote you pointed at is by a book wrote by a researcher who focus his interest in Japanese martial arts. I suspect katas is referred to all that forms which may be done in solo and with a partner too.
This is all highly speculative. People kept forgetting that dull swords and heavy padded jackets, as well as helmets were present in the discussed era. I would love to get to more objective research about past training methods than big assumption that "well they show drawings without protection, so they've must trained like that" (as if italian rapier fencers trained naked).
@@Druid_Ignacy definitely it’s high speculative. As much as it is speculative to say they used this or that protection. I’m not saying they used sharps or what. I’m saying they used dull swords, sticks or whatever! Padding? Maybe. Helmets? Maybe… But even elmets are vulnerable to thrusting at the face and modifications to adapt are needed. Same is for thrusting at the chest or neck while using dull swords without any flex, as my neck may testimony by past experiences. And all of this by adding: who and when? Because every era and every single person or social class had access to different tools, money and possibilities. We don’t know a lot about how they trained, and I simply stick to what I notice and learn, as I did here. I am a little bit more intelligent than your example of naked fencing may suggest. By the way! Notice that “naked fencing” happens mainly outside of my field of interest in terms of historical period. I’ve seen a dull sword with a squared “blade” in monselice some years ago, a training rapier. In the late Renaissance and early 17th century they had far different tools and different levels of metallurgy in my opinion. It’s hard to compare even I.33 to Fiore, and both of them to Lew, for instance, as their historical period and consequent habits and tools most probably varied a lot. While comparing I.33 and Capoferro, for instance, the difference was most probably far more relevant.
One of the ways we can tell how much protective hear was worn in the past is that *some* sources actually tell us (though most don't). We do actually see attestations of padded gloves or jackets from some renaissance sources, for example. We know that weapons and armour were modified for sport combat in tournaments because tournament manuals say so, and 18th and 19th century fencing manuals in general are often (though not always) very clear about what sort of protective equipment they expect you to wear and why. That being the case, I think the fact that virtually no source on unarmoured fencing from before the 19th century shows the use of face protection can be taken as a strong suggestion that it was largely absent. There are also some known developments in fencing PPE that had significant, well-documented influences on fencing across Europe. While padded torso defenses existed throughout the Middle Ages, for example, the 18th century French innovation of combining a padded plastron and a flexible foil to practice thrusts at realistic tempo had so great an impact on contemporary fencing that one can infer this was not widely done before this point (pun intended). So, I tend to think Federico is correct to conclude that most of our sources were written by people who trained with less protective equipment than we do today, and I find his reasoning quite convincing when he says that this had at least some impact on how they communicated their arts in writing. How much of an impact is a much harder question to answer, though, and it seems likely (based on evidence from the video!) that different masters probably had different tolerances for risk and thus practiced techniques with varying degrees of "realism." Ultimately, the only way to know is to become good fencers ourselves and try them out in sparring.
@@EconaelGaming I used to think I.33 was better with short swords for many years, but now I think the opposite. I suspect if you want a specific sword you should check at smiths like Malleus Martialis
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Notice that the objective of this video is making you think about the facts that:
1 - Training influences technique and consequently fighting.
2 - They had to train before writing out the books
3 - I found out some hints about how certain thing had probably been manipulated to make training possible.
Notice that throughout ALL my career every single time I discussed this topic with some other HEMA enthusiasts or I’ve seen it (rarely) touched on the net the main assumptions always were: They had gambeson and helmets, they probably did as us more or less.
Which to me is a big assumption to make which, in my opinion, is there for two motivations:
1 - Elevate the master above their mere human condition (Mamely: It’s impossible that we are doing even half a thing slightly better than them!!!)
2 - Justifying our modern training approach
3 - Avoiding the possibility that techniques may not be “100% correct” in a sense of “They are applied 1:1 as they are shown” (because point 1).
To me instead, masters were human. We may learn by observing other martial traditions around the world and speculate a little in other directions. And if a technique doesn’t work as it is described, there may be a more nuanced motivation beyond the mere “It’s because they are made for real fighting with real swords” or whatever.
I am suggesting that the master of the past were actually pretty smart people, with the same problems we have today, but different tools and possibilities: They used these to make their craft. Our craft is slightly different. We can figure out why there are discrepancies by speculating a little on the most relevant practice meant to learn how to fight: Training.
I am not assuming they fenced naked, with only gambeson, or in armor to simulate out of armor practice, or with partial armor, or with sticks or blunts or whatever.
I simply say: Think about it.
Thank you for all your work and passion for historical fencing! It encourages us, a hema practitioners from other side of a planet, a lot.
@@arhont7485 thanks ^^
Singlesticks where the stick can loosely slide in the hilt are the only hema training weapon that can accurately simulate running through your opponent, as you can slide the stick all the way up to the hilt.
@@weaselrampant I imagine it may work!
Informative as always.
You're the best, Federico!
A very good and much needed video to understand your approach to several techniques. Of course we may be wrong in deciding when it applies and when a technique has to be understood in a more straight way, but I think the principle is sound.
Yeah definitely, I agree. There is quite a lot of work and study to do to understand when and how to apply all of this. I'm working on this since almost three years and I've found only a few things which I would say I am almost sure about (A number of them are in the video, namely the Fiore stuff), other ideas are more speculative in nature.
Excellent video. Thank you. Maybe, just maybe, a few more people will think about this.
@@tomdutoit5591 thanks!
Fede! Keeping up the great work I see. Well done!
@@upwardbarbell thanks man ;-)
Some interesting stuff to think about for sure.
Fantastic video. Great insights.
@@HikerDood thanks!!
I think the easiest to see example of safe training variation in I.33 happens in kick that counters the arm grab: the manual shows the kick as being a stomp to the butt. If you are in that position, stomping the back of the knee or landing a kick to the nuts is very easy to do and much more devastating.
Excellent video.
Of course, they had to practice fencing in recreation and sport to be able to properly learn it "for real".
I think I.33 absolutely makes the most sense when viewed from a "what type of fencing can we do regularly, without helmets and without braining each other into brain damage". The whole system to my mind is: thrust to the body, where it doesn't matter if contact happens (blunt points). Thrust to the face but stop short so you can always show that you had the opening, but don't have to finish if you don't want to, and shield-knock for head cuts, which can easily be pulled (to not hit at all) or else flatted, if that is what you are into. All of which are just way safer to practice, then: swing wild from 2-4th guard as hard as you can and also strike the knee at full force (the things you see happen if you give any 2 kids foam or larp s and b's). Not that I.33 isn't martial, it still is, and that's the point, you can't actually fence regularly in the foam sword manner with steel swords and no protection so there is no way to have a system which doesn't carry that baggage So I liked many of the points you raised in this video, even while admitting that the truth is, that we can never really know one way or the other.
One tiny bit of criticism (I know rando from the internet, but bare with me). In doing I.33, I think you will have much more success in unifying different parts of that manual if you use 1rst ward as a knukles up, I make a true edge descending riverso to "fall under" as opposed to the knuckles down rotate the false edge into the bind position, you happen to be showing in this video. That could just be the video you had most easily available, as it was just illustrating an example (in which case ignore my comment if this is not where your current usage is at). Anyway, I currently use the "fall under" command as to mean "attack the outside wrist" and the bind as being: "prevent that from happening". And this all works very well, and all that, in sparring, such that said interpretation is what I am going with until I find myself in a seance to tell me different.
The knuckle up vs knuckle down 1rst wards both definitely existed, so in any kind of generic sword and buckler fight/sparring, either can be used as you see fit, but given the sword angle differences that we see between something like this: wiktenauer.com/wiki/Walpurgis_Fechtbuch_(MS_I.33)#/media/File:MS_I.33_01r.png and this: wiktenauer.com/wiki/Hans_Talhoffer#/media/File:MS_Thott.290.2%C2%BA_117v.jpg ... nearly 45 degrees downward vs basically horizontal. On this particular occasion and topic, I will die on this hill. The I.33 1rst guard is knuckles up.
@@briankirk4097 thanks, I tend to agree with your analysis, and yes we most probably never know for sure how it worked.
About I.33 - Check my first videos of 6-7 years ago, I bet you’ll find my old approach to I.33 pretty similar to what you say ;-)
Cheers
Hi Federico, i find that falling under is just the first part of the stichslach rather than a simulated hit to the hands, but that's becuase i hold half shield more like an outside guard rather than down the middle (well, it can be in the middle, or turned into the strike). This doesnt argue against what you say about training manuals showing safe ways of training, and a hit to the the sword can of course simulate a hit to the person.
@@stuartking84able hi! I understand. I theoricrafted for years on the I.33. In all honesty now I see it in a find simpler way!
Cheers!
@@stuartking84able notice that a fake thrust may obtain similar results to a hand snipe in regards of the prosecution of the various plays, by the way, in my interpretation.
Still I lean more toward hand or arm sniping to open up the inside line or the centerline between weapons!
i noticed that most of the injuries that happen in either sparring or training usually come from a lack of awareness and sometimes understanding on the purpose of the exercise from one or both sides. i've often seen injuries happen because someone can't tell the difference between competition, hard sparring and light armored sparring or training and go in unrestrained. i noticed some people just want to "win" even in just a simple exercise. if we're doing something like very light sparring and i start with slow, controlled movements but the other persons starts fast to get the non-existing point first, i will instinctively pick up speed and this will only result in someone getting hurt.
in training and even basic sparring, i think it's important to be aware of what protective equipment your partner is wearing and their skill level. if they're not wearing leg protection, obviously avoid leg shots, if they don't have elbow protection, avoid going for the fore arms. check their speed and match it. if you think they are doing things too fast to the point it can be unsafe, point it out and tell them to slow down a bit. and if you notice their skill is lesser than yours, drop it down a few levels to match it. there's no point in doing a barrage of 20x combo with a fatality at the end. you're not getting any points for it. it will just make your partner frustrated and they will learn nothing. i've been in both ends of this stick, i think most of us have. it it's not a tournament, there is no benefit in this.
@@badrequest5596 well, yes, because what I talk about in the video happens also today based on different parameters.
+1 Wisdom!
@@johnstuartkeller5244 lol!!
7:50 but kata is not to “train” in a modern sense, just to practice flow between motions
@@cspahn3221 definitely nowadays it’s the case. But what other tools a Koryu had to train swordfighting? The quote you pointed at is by a book wrote by a researcher who focus his interest in Japanese martial arts. I suspect katas is referred to all that forms which may be done in solo and with a partner too.
@@FedericoMalaguttiI see. Thanks for the reply
@@cspahn3221 you are welcome!
This is all highly speculative. People kept forgetting that dull swords and heavy padded jackets, as well as helmets were present in the discussed era. I would love to get to more objective research about past training methods than big assumption that "well they show drawings without protection, so they've must trained like that" (as if italian rapier fencers trained naked).
@@Druid_Ignacy definitely it’s high speculative. As much as it is speculative to say they used this or that protection.
I’m not saying they used sharps or what. I’m saying they used dull swords, sticks or whatever! Padding? Maybe. Helmets? Maybe… But even elmets are vulnerable to thrusting at the face and modifications to adapt are needed. Same is for thrusting at the chest or neck while using dull swords without any flex, as my neck may testimony by past experiences.
And all of this by adding: who and when? Because every era and every single person or social class had access to different tools, money and possibilities.
We don’t know a lot about how they trained, and I simply stick to what I notice and learn, as I did here. I am a little bit more intelligent than your example of naked fencing may suggest.
By the way! Notice that “naked fencing” happens mainly outside of my field of interest in terms of historical period. I’ve seen a dull sword with a squared “blade” in monselice some years ago, a training rapier. In the late Renaissance and early 17th century they had far different tools and different levels of metallurgy in my opinion.
It’s hard to compare even I.33 to Fiore, and both of them to Lew, for instance, as their historical period and consequent habits and tools most probably varied a lot. While comparing I.33 and Capoferro, for instance, the difference was most probably far more relevant.
One of the ways we can tell how much protective hear was worn in the past is that *some* sources actually tell us (though most don't). We do actually see attestations of padded gloves or jackets from some renaissance sources, for example. We know that weapons and armour were modified for sport combat in tournaments because tournament manuals say so, and 18th and 19th century fencing manuals in general are often (though not always) very clear about what sort of protective equipment they expect you to wear and why.
That being the case, I think the fact that virtually no source on unarmoured fencing from before the 19th century shows the use of face protection can be taken as a strong suggestion that it was largely absent.
There are also some known developments in fencing PPE that had significant, well-documented influences on fencing across Europe. While padded torso defenses existed throughout the Middle Ages, for example, the 18th century French innovation of combining a padded plastron and a flexible foil to practice thrusts at realistic tempo had so great an impact on contemporary fencing that one can infer this was not widely done before this point (pun intended).
So, I tend to think Federico is correct to conclude that most of our sources were written by people who trained with less protective equipment than we do today, and I find his reasoning quite convincing when he says that this had at least some impact on how they communicated their arts in writing.
How much of an impact is a much harder question to answer, though, and it seems likely (based on evidence from the video!) that different masters probably had different tolerances for risk and thus practiced techniques with varying degrees of "realism." Ultimately, the only way to know is to become good fencers ourselves and try them out in sparring.
@@MisdirectedSasha I 100% agree with you.
What is the sword you're using for M1.33?
I used to train with a short Tupe XIV. But now I use a sigi arming sword
@@FedericoMalagutti My M.133 trainers say the sigi arming sword is too long, therefore I'm looking for a shorter one. Can you suggest a good type 15?
@@EconaelGaming I used to think I.33 was better with short swords for many years, but now I think the opposite.
I suspect if you want a specific sword you should check at smiths like Malleus Martialis
@@FedericoMalagutti I'd be interested in your thoughts on why a longer sword is preferable for I.33
Maybe a future video?
@@EconaelGaming I will
Modifying what?? I'd better understand if you say "ritmo" 😋
@@EconaelGaming hehe, some English words are still pretty hard to pronounce for me!
👋👋👋🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 Kyiv
@@tahonda. cheers!
Куев