It's a little sad that there are so many people in the comments that simply watched the beginning and rage quit or watched it through the lens of their bias and didn't actually listen with the intent of understanding, merely to prepare rebuttals and arguments, that essentially are all appeals to straw men, false equivalencies, or no true scotsmen. This video is formatted as a video essay, as such the visuals are a guideline to provide a visual example of the words and arguments that Shad is making. At no point does he state unequivocally that the videos of him sparring with his mates in the yard is historical, exactly how the common medieval man would, or representative of battlefield combat. They are meant as placeholders for his arguments. For those who tl;dr-ed his video, Shad is making an argument that the actual meaning of the acronym HEMA is not apparently true in the way many of its members are using it, framing it in a response to Matt. While he is one of the creators of the term and thus one of the primary authorities on what it means, words have connotations, denotations, and etymology for a reason. Matt's video that Shad is responding to apparently slants very heavily to literary sources, while acknowledging that not all historical sorces are such. This is a weakness in the argument, and many in the community according to Shad- and many in this comment section- take this viewpoint further and ignore sources that are not treatises entirely. Shad never once said that Matt was one such, or that he argued such, merely that his own framing displayed the bias towards written sources while acknowledging that weakness in a slightly hypocritical way; likely unintentionally so. Shad then draws parallels to others who are attempting to actually recreate martial techniques in a historical way and respectful way for periods and regions that simply do not have many treatises or literary sources, and makes the argument that if they are doing so in a factual, period correct, and tested way, one cannot call that ahistorical, though he does not call it the 100% factual way it would historically be either, merely that it would be historically plausible or even historically likely, but certain members of the HEMA community still seem to look down upon them or call such endeavors, "not *real* HEMA" and that such thoughts are uncharitable and frankly untrue. I am not a member of the HEMA community, though it interests me, so I cannot speak to his examples of such, but like any essay they are *examples* of his arguments, not the totality of them. Finally, many argue three particular rebuttals: that Shad's view invalidates HEMA because then all historical combat/ dueling would have to be included; that Shad is merely whining that he isn't an authority or included in the HEMA space; or that this already exists in HEMA and thus his argument is invalid and pointless. To answer: Shad mentions thise who would study *European* martial arts, with at least some basis in primary sources such as art, artifacts, and yes literary sources, not anything historical or anything martial; Shad never called nor asked to *be* called an authority, he even called himself not particularly good, he simply said that if HEMA is truly historical there are many who are ignoring valid historical sources due to them not fitting their biases and views in the community, and that that should not continue; and finally Shad never said that Matt was ignoring sources or even that the majority of the community were, simply using Matt's video as representative and representation of those that he- and apparently many others- believe to be espousing such views. HEMA appears to be a hobby with many participants, some who don't fully agree what is and isn't "pure", and Shad was speaking out against those that wish to unfairly limit the hobby due to the parts they don't like not meeting some arbitrary standards while meeting the factual criteria for being HEMA, not those who rightfully believe that those who want to be revisionist, or want to smack each other with Buster swords and Muramasa should not be HEMA. Thanks to those who read, sorry about the rambling, and thank you to those who are actually discussing in a rational manner, hope this helps clarify some points.
Why is Matt Easton so adamant about what HEMA means? Because he and few other coined and created HEMA and have a clear vision about it. On one hand you declare that you are not part of HEMA and on ther other you try to define HEMA new. Sorry, a lot of sentences repeat themself and make the same logic error. That if you hold the object and/or do at least some based "historic" moves you practice Historical European Martial Arts. I am sorry, but that is untrue. The moment you don't rely on the martial art itself, but divert from it you are creating a sport. That is exactly what the japanese dojos fight against for decades now. People who do what they want have no martial background, because the martial background comes from the treatises or the living tradition of such art. Simply when those where created or written it was used in a martial context. Just using martial arts as a bases does not create a new martial background, but rather a diversion from the actual martial art. What is called sport and that is why sport fencing exists. It may be true that you could call nowadays everything under the sun as historic, but surely not martial. If whatever you do diverts slightly from being a martial art, historic or from europe, it is not HEMA. PS: If you do for example a pose from a historic european painting and it is indeed a true martial pose, what is not always a given. You do HEMA as long as you only do this pose. If you add now your own poses/moves/sequences too it, would it still be historic or martial? It would be experimental that is for sure. You may come to the idea of mixing different poses from different paintings together and for the sake of arguement those are all martial poses. Is mixing random martial poses still historic? We will never know. What should give a hint that it may not be so easy and why it takes years of research, where multiple sources are taken into account. I still don't get why people just don't start EEMA (Experimental European Martial Arts) for example and use HEMA as bases for what they do. Everyone would be happy and I am sure most HEMA people enjoy doing for times EEMA too.
@@cod4mike810 Again, not the point. If Matt Easton, who created the term, wants to discount historical sources that do not fit his narrative- which I repeat he did not actually say, simply for the sake of argument- then the name he chose is not quite accurate, and as there are others that consider themselves as HEMA leaders that do this the point is valid because again Matt did acknowledge that other primary sources are valid, he just was unwilling to acknowledge them in the video that Shad was speaking about. Sorry about repetitions or errors as I was half asleep when I was writing that, but you brought up another great inconsistency I have seen; yes HEMA stands for Historical European *Martial* Arts as you specify, and it is true that when you start to create something for yourself it starts becoming a sport in martial arts, I was a Jujitsu practitioner for several years and I understand that argument. The flaw is this: by using martial arts that were used in combat in non lethal forms for competitions, are we not by definition creating a sport? So you're objection is again slightly a straw man and hypocrisy. Once again, while it cannot be said that it is exactly true that movement, katas, and attacks that someone recreating a historical martial art may find are logical, viable, and stress tested were unequivocally used in historical combat and context, the same can be said of some of the manuscripts, as the meme spawned by Skallagrim shows. No one is arguing that experimental recreation needs to be superior to the treatises, is 100% accurate to the historical practices, or is as plausible or as another commenter put it confirmable, simply that it is equally valid if done correctly and with the right purpose and intentions. Does that need its own term? Maybe, but since HEMA is supposed to be *Historical* European Martial Arts, the way it is currently practiced is essentially a sport that is derived from historical literary sources that no one can be 100% certain their interpretation is the correct or even only way of performing the combat maneuvers and styles, and Matt Easton himself- as repeatedly mentioned one of the creators- did acknowledge that other primary sources are valid, even if he did not provide ways to include them for whatever reason he had, it can be said that those who recreate a martial art from European history from primary sources with the intent to be as historically accurate as possible and combat viable as possible, regardless of use of treatises, is performing HEMA, and that is all that Shad was arguing for. Thanks for participating civilly, have a good day/ night (I live in the US).
Also; thank you for the heart and pin Shad, was just irritated by people misrepresenting your actual argument to create a moral or intellectual high ground, discussion should be exchanging and attacking ideas, not people, and there is a reason misrepresentation of someone's argument, intentional or not, is called fallacy. Have a great day and keep making great Content!
@@cod4mike810 "I still don't get why people just don't start EEMA (Experimental European Martial Arts) for example and use HEMA as bases for what they do." Imo that's exactly what Matt Easton tried to convey! He gave a sensible lecture about what 'history' and 'ahistorical' means in a academic sense. It's not about what you do or not do to be part of the "elitist" HEMA-Scene. It's about whether it fits certain criteria to be called 'historical' for that purpose. When people hear 'academic', I guess, many think of elitism and exclusivity to a small circle of "worthy" insiders. While there are annoyingly always individuals in research, who think of themselves this way, for the whole community of academic research (be it inside or outside of institutions) these allegations couldn't be further from the truth! 'Academic' simply means a certain scientific standard and procedure on how to put a theory or a thesis, how to gain data and how to share this data with others in the community and the broader public. By experience, it's the best way to gain new information, have a civilised discussion and to tackle bias on the way by constant cross referencing, debate and peer review. And everybody can be part of it, regardless if you have a degree or just study in your free time, as long as you comply with the scientific standard put up by the community. Now to come to the semantics: History and 'historical' means not everything what happend in the past but whether there are written records of those events. Historians also always use other sources than written (pictures, archaeol. finds) to cross refference and further validate their subject but they are strictly bound to the timeframe for which they make a statement. I.e. you couldn't use a 2nd WW combat manual to write something about the army of Napoleon. That is what the 'H' in HEMA stands for. The treatises are the primary source. Everything else like fragmentary accounts, depictions and artifacts from the given time are for further check or confirmation. And finally to the 'Experimental' part: If you want to make assertions about a subject in the past, be it in 'historical' times or in prehistory, where you don't have written records, you have a whole toolbox on hand other than history. You can use Archaeology (study of human artifacts), Physical Anthropology (human remains), Sociology, Art History, Ethnography, Material Physics a.s.o.. If you want to recreate a fighting syle from before the first written treatises and still want to be close to any source you can get hold of, it's Experimental Archaeology. Archaeology is more free in it's interpretations than history and can use a wide range of data inside and outside your timeframe, but always under the disclaimer that every theoretical conclusion is temporary and open to debate and new information. Archaeologists are even more obligated to meticulously present their thought process behind a theory and every single piece of data and still then it may fail the test of time, when there is new conflicting data or others find flaws. So if someone experimentally tries to recreate a fighting style, they have even more work to do in planning experiments, get exact data, try to falsify their theory through changes in the setting, reevaluate, make it imitable and communicate their results for peer review. So much I like Shad personally, this is not what I see in what he and his lovable rascals are doing with their figthing. It's neither a 'historical' approach nor a strict and verifiable experimental setting and therefore not HEMA in it's 'academic', research oriented sense. Sorry to say that, but this is a mere "show and tell" with medieval clothing and sword replicas. This whole debate is imho just about semantics. That's what I think and many critics in the comment section as well. Shad simply wants to push his broad definition of history while the majority in- and outside of HEMA is happy to use the scientific definition. That's not elitism or gate-keeping but simply one way to avoid misunderstanding and gain a certain structure for all to profit from. Roland Warzecha and other experimental researchers ARE part of the HEMA community. Although they don't practice HEMA in that moment, they adhere to the scientific standards, put their findings up to debate and therefore create a lively interest and respect from other HEMA-practitioners who might want to parttake in the research. In the tournaments (this is what I get by anecdotes) there are combatants who never studied the sources themselves or came up with a style by mixing and trying other styles and they successfully whoop as*es. They also are part of the community, just don't doing 'historical' EMA in that moment. It's always good to call out elitist and narrow minded behaviour of individuals in the Hema-scene, but this whole discussion, from what I learned, is not about it. Hope I could put across my points half-decently. Sincere appologies for the long read.
Also I want to recommend the reply of "Schildwache Potsdam" to Shad's video: ua-cam.com/video/bxYR6jCjlrc/v-deo.html&lc=z23ddh4ibv2rwrvpw04t1aokglenfuvlyao4kloajk0rbk0h00410.1627056467499772 They make good points and clear some misconceptions. Also don't let you deceive from the ornate backdrop! It's not a expression of elitism but just a public park in the city and a nice scenery to make videos ;)
You just need to look at modern manuals of warfare used by the military. They will show many of the basic battle drills amd ways to use a weapon, but when you are actually getting trained, shit changes, we use these manuals as a guideline, a base, but things are almost always added to the Manual’s “correct” way, wether it’s in shooting,is wing equipment, Shooting, etc. These treatises are basics, guidelines, and probably where taught with a lot of oral advice and knowledge on TOP of them.
Exactly. Sure they could show them how to use a sword and fight in battle but shit changes when your face to face with thousands of enemies the opposite side. Also it depends how your enemies fight. All your training is ok if your fighting someone with a similar style and tactic but against someone who used different weapons, styles and tactics all together then you better start adapting
If it's your life on the line you use what works, not stick religiously to what the "proper" forms might be. I'd presume that experimenting will not produce anything that wasn't actually used by at least some people during the centuries when it is something that really does work in a fight.
Gentlemen, it is clear that this contest of HEMA definitions cannot be decided by the power of your UA-cam responses, but by your skill with a medieval sword replica..
This feels kind of like a lingo issue here. For a lot of historians "historical" takes on a connotation of 'confirmable'. Which in an academic setting kind of makes sense to me, if only as just a useful shorthand. In this case we can understand the broader HEMA as on a spectrum of confirmability. Combat based off of manuscripts are more confirmable simply because of the available evidence. This differs from more experimental learning where there is less evidence. But that doesn't mean the method is necessarily ahistorical, just that we need to be more comfortable understanding this spectrum of confirmability. While I'm not sure this comes from elitism in the minds of academic historians, rather a noble respect for getting to the most factual understanding of the past. Where it ends up becoming elitest is the manuscripts were not always available to those in the lower classes of society, or those who happened to be antagonistic to those with the resources to create a manuscript. So, in terms of 'experiment' style, due to its lower amount of primary sources could be thought of as less confirmable, even if we acknowledge that these techniques still likely existed somewhere in the time period. And truthfully even when we think about those who learned directly from the manuscript teachers, it would be ahistorical to assume that these people learned the same way, followed instructions to the t, or that the author didn't have the kind of academic integrity we would look for today in terms of heavy bias, ignorance, etc. Which I mean European aristocrats? No they would never write with heavy bias and no one to check. . I don't know if all of this was said in the video because I started writing this 2/3s of the way through the video but yeah. There's my 2 cents I guess. Final message, never pretend that you can know the entirety of a time period if you haven't lived through it. Even then, we are probably in the matrix and this is meaningless lmao. Peace
@@witalian1 You can use as a base, you know that a punch hurt, so you know someone on the past can and most likely did punch smt, you know that wrong sized plate armor lock your movement so you know a the number of people who used it would be kinda limited, a long bow back them punched like a recreated longbow made today, so you can have a reference of effect, it's possible to make a historical research with experimental learning, you just need to know how to used it and don't bias youself, let's say, the longbow example "look, this gambeson stop this arrowhead with this poundage, that means that cloth armor can stop arrows" this is a partial truth, the complete truth would be "look, this experiment show that this arrowhead with this poundage CAN be stopped in THESE circunstances" and even if the info is not a 100% replica of what happen, example is Tod's workshop longbow vs plate armor, it is still a reference, with that video made today we know that the top knotch armor can stop arrow fire from high end bows, but we too know that mail would be made into butter, not just that but looking at the damage caused by the arrow, and even the speed of the horses, in Agincourt we can say that thinner armor CAN be penetrated by arrow fire, that would explain how that many people died in that battle (horse stomping can do only so much). A cross between a experiment done today to clarify or contradict historical events is still historical study
@@witalian1 Let's say Vincenzo del Tutti over 200 years ago (made up name)came up with a recipe to cook tomatoes into a paste, specifying temperature, time and ingredients, and called it "del Tutti paste. Now imagine Margie Seward (also made up) last week perfected her tomato paste recipe after several trial runs, and had never even heard of Vincenzo del Tutti or his paste, and her tomato paste has very nearly the same ingredients, taste profile and consistency as "del Tutti paste" but her cooking times and temperatures were a little different. - Has or has not Margie made essentially the same tomato paste? And what if Margie's tomato paste is better than del Tutti's?!
The reason why history starts with a period in which stuff can be confirmed to be written down is because history does mean to make testimony, bear witness or to recount. Writing is a way of making something that would otherwise be uttered to be more permanent. it isn't about being confirmed or true, it is about listening to or observing something and being able to tell it to others.
@Junior Read You make a fair point, but HEMA seems to be the tradition, where those who do the experimental archeology or practice to understand medieval weapons are more so the ones developing an art and utilizing a craft. And since HEMA is mostly restricted to dueling it should probably be called HED or HEMT. That being that stuff like battle of nations and the experimental archeology have more aptly developed a practical art or craft in weaponship. Meaning such pursuits would be better served if called HEMA over the practice of studying historical dueling traditions. Especially when martial is more pertaining to war and warfare and not dueling.
@Junior Read The thing is, the common source of martial arts in Europe (the art of combat) is not the manuscripts, they are only for a minority, the nobleman and rich who could afford them, with this logic we should follow the way that the majority of the soldiers learned, we should ignore the manuscripts, bc most soldiers woldn't be able to acquire them and use only common sense to fight, bc that's the historical way, the way that most people would've done
I think the actual key to this argument does not lie in the word ‘historical’ but the fact that it is connected to ‘martial arts’. For many people, ‘martial art’ means a system of fighting - like judo/BJJ/boxing etc. and wouldn’t consider something a system until it’s actually codified and taught as a discrete system. So while you can learn about general swordsmanship from reconstruction, art, and sparring, you aren’t learning any of the actual historical ‘martial arts’ - i.e. one of the actual systems that was codified in the period. A reconstructed martial art is a modern martial art simply because it is being codified right now. But if it is based on historical evidence, then there is no reason that it shouldn’t be able to coexist as a historical martial art (in the sense of using historical martial techniques and weapons) with the traditional historical martial arts which practice actual historical systems from a manual.
Here's the thing though: Shit like Systema are called martial arts but it's just "how to fuck a guy up in the most effective way". Or Kenjustu, which is just the art of swordfighting, is classified as a martial art, despite lacking a consisten, codified system or rules. The term martial art is far too ill defined to use it this restrictively.
No the key point being “Historical” because many of these fighting traditions have died out and weren’t written in manual scripts but we know they existed so that’s why its “historical”
I see your point, but I have a counter. HEMA isn't like Judo. Judo is a specific system, however, from my understanding of the term, HEMA is European Martial Arts. Europe is a big place, and has many martial arts. If, for example, I made a new category of Chinese Martial Arts, you would likely agree that Kung Fu and Tai Chi are both Chinese Martial Arts. However, if someone came to me with a style that combined Kung Fu and Tai chi into a single style, a style that has never been systematically codified... it is still a Chinese Martial Art, is it not? The only thing that hasn't happened is that it hasn't been written down, but the moment the person writes down their thoughts on how to combine these two styles... it is codified. And I think Shad has a very real point in discussing that many people would have been taught, not official styles with official names, but by an older warrior who gave them a weapon, told them which end was sharp, and then made them focus on what would keep them alive when using that weapon. And as such, it is completely legitimate to take the same equipment, and just figure out effective ways to use it. Because that is most likely how many of the common people learned how to use their weapons.
@@Chaosmancer7 good points! It’s been six months since I made that comment though, so I’m not super invested in the discussion anymore, if I’m honest 😬
I personally used the term "experimental archeology" to refer to the kind of "build knowledge from the historical object" you masterfully describe through the video, in opposition to "historical studies", which indeed wheighs upon books and treatises, or primary sources. It's just a terminology misunderstanding to me. Archeology is more relevant to what you describe to me. But then again, yes archeology is a part of history, so I have to agree on the broad conclusions you draw here.
Definitely agree here. I think history should encompass what can be inferred and discovered from artifacts or writings as a base. Every source will be inherently limited in the information they contain; writings and art can't fully capture an entire art that requires much practice and experimentation based on the source to make it work. Often there won't be sources as Shad says, so experimentation is far more necessary but equally valid as a study. Even just the weapons themselves can give an idea of how they were probably used, it's still historical to explore that process.
I think his best response would be to emphasize European. Across all history they learned by picking up a sword and trying. But that's not specifically European martial arts. It's kinda HMA. But I agree with you personally.
I love Shad, but to be honest this video is kind of a mess. The first 20 minutes (I'm not watching the rest) is just rambling, I don't know what he's trying to say. He's fitting in a lot of facts and definitions that don't really mean anything. A good example is at around 15:00 he says that he learns from people who study treatise and you said it was HEMA because it is influenced by the treatise which makes total sense. Then, Shad says despite what people say, it is HEMA because it is influenced by the treatise secondhand, as if you didn't just say that. This type of messy thinking is not professional, he's just getting himself riled up and is saying a whole lot of nothing. I have to say, this video is of really low quality. There is so much filler in it, and there is no focus or main idea. I believe that most of what he is trying to prove is something unrelated to what you are trying to say, such as the example I gave. Does anyone else feel this way? I love Shad, but as someone who cares about him I think we need to reel him in when he gets off the rails.
@@chalichaligha3234 I get that, however so much of weapon fighting is similar. Like anything you can do with a stick you can do with any sword, but thats not specifically European martial arts.
Add new categories "Aristocrat"-HEMA and "Peasant"-HEMA :D Aristocrat: you get tutor and you need follow exactly what he say Peasant: you get metal stick and need to survive battle Both approach are historical :)
still looking for battlefield HEMA with long pointy sticks but this i can get behind with xD a different school of HEMA that is more exploratory might do the community good :)
@@Narguhl MMA isn’t a defined art either. Really HEMA is ‘peasant HEMA’ and the elitists who want to practice a certain SCHOOL/STYLE of HEMA yet want HEMA all to themselves, are just other peasants with the rest of us. Time they accepted that fact...
@@Narguhl Don’t lie is pathetic mate... Or maybe I’m jumping the gun, and you actually accept Shads definition of HEMA?.. that ‘peasant HEMA’(reconstructing through experiment without written sources etc) is real HEMA.
It is good to see that the primary parties, Easton and Shad, are respectful and considerate, even accepting, of each other's perspective. Pity that not everyone is. Thank you, gentlemen.
It's also worth acknowledging that the treatises definitely have things in them that are just plain wrong- whether they were included intentionally like the 'trap streets' of mapmakers to catch plagiarists, or as exclusionary tests to ensure only the 'proper sort of people' learned certain styles (or skill levels) of fighting, or because whoever wrote them just made a mistake.
As a musician I have to somewhat agree with Matt on this one. Don't get me wrong, experimental archaeology has tremendous value, especially when paired with other historical sources. However, standing on it's own you simply cannot confirm that any of your assumptions are historically correct. I like to use a musical analogy. Throughout the past hundred or so years, experimental archaeologists and musicians have paired together in many projects to learn, study and approximate the music of the past. The main struggle faced however is that we have relatively few written notations for music, especially when compared to the immense amount of time that music has existed. That is why a significant portion of it is experimental archaeology. 2 great examples are the reconstructions of the Deskford and Tintignac carnyx's and the reconstruction of the Divje Babe flute. In both cases, extremely accurate reconstructions were produced to the highest level of accuracy achievable. Significant thought and time was put into accurately recreating the dimensions, materials, etc. They then got experienced musicians to experiment on them and recorded it. Don't get me wrong, as a musician I find this exceptional and amazing. The problem with this though is while it may give us some ideas of what the music played on the originals sounded like in relation to tone colour, timbre, range, etc, they unfortunately can't and will never be able to give us the full picture. They don't really confirm anything other than the realms of possible sounds. We can't use the music played on them by musicians as confirmation or evidence for how music was approached and played nor does it explain music's relationship with the culture during the period and location that the originals existed. This is exactly how I see this hema debate. Merely holding a longsword and swinging around, even with the best intentions of learning and approximating historical fighting, just simply cannot be used as evidence or confirmation that a certain technique is 100% historical.
Shad is arguing that the methodology that these arts use to create new melodies/techniques are historically accurate, not the result melodies/techniques. He is arguing that even though the end result might not be historically accurate, the end result is. Even in todays music the melody is created by playing random stuff until it sounds good, just like how people used to do it in the past.
@@mustardjar3216 Right but just because I am noodling around on a historically accurate replica of a medieval lute doesn't mean I am making medieval music. I can't call any of the music I come up with historical. I can call it historically inspired or something along those lines but I can't call it historical. Go and ask the people who actually created hema and Id wager that they would tell you that the Historical in HEMA refers to the techniques and results,.
@@mustardjar3216 "Even in todays music the melody is created by playing random stuff until it sounds good, just like how people used to do it in the past." This is not even close to how music is made, nowadays or back in the 1700s. Musicians do not throw shit at the wall until something sticks. They carefully spread certain amounts of shit on certain parts of the wall, following some pre-determined formulas (depending on genre, desired effect, etc.), and then see if that sticks, followed by experimentation on what parts of the wall should be covered in shit or not. People throwing shit at the wall do NOT make music, despite what some parts of the academic musical establishment believe. And John Cage's 4'33" is NOT music, no matter how hard some people try to make it so. Shad's argument that a historically extant sword can be swung about by a person today and then considered a "historical source" and the effect of said swinging about a "Historical Martial Art" is ludicrous. If I give you a brush, an easel and some paint that are all confirmed as historically extant in say 1600s Netherlands, and then you proceed to paint something using that material, would you say you're practicing "Historical European Painting"? Or are you just playing with brush and paint? A person practicing personal experimentation today, having all the idiosyncrasies of the time (including material stuff, such as shoes that grip the ground FAR better than historical shoes/sandals did, or protective equipment that makes certain moves harder/easier to perform, etc.), is NOT practicing any Historical Art at all. This is, by the way, a clear limitation on HEMA itself, since most people wouldn't be caught dead practicing some of the moves without being encaged in a protective cocoon, but at least the HEMA practitioner is basing his practice on something more concrete than "I picked up a mace and started hitting the wall." The guy that I respect the most is Roland Warzecha, who tries to reproduce as much of the material and mental circumstances of the period in which he focuses. But when he advocates a certain use of the Norse Shield because of biomechanics, he is clearly not doing anything historical. He is producing modern experimentation that may or may not have anything to do with the price of fish. People tend to behave in all sorts of interesting and wonderful ways when their ass is on the line. We know this because we have been able now to see and study men in actual combat. Some of them follow their training to the best of their abilities. Others panic and make huge mistakes. Yet others revert to caveman behaviors when pushed to extremes. Shad would have you believe that just because you can approximate the behavior of the guys that revert to cavemen, you can say you're practicing modern battlefield techniques or fighting styles. Drill Sergeants the world over will let you know how unreal that is.
@@keyboardmamma There's a major difference between music and fighting. What people find pleasing to the ear can change over time and across cultures. Biomechanics are a constant that impose much stricter limits than the possibilties on a musical instrument do. Combat treatises would depict combat through a filter. Most periods had some sort of code of conduct for fighting, and the author of a treatise on fighting would rarely would have gotten away teaching tactics his contemporaries would have considered in violation of said code of conduct. However: When I went through basic training, I was taught when not to use lethal force - and a couple of seconds later the instructor said: "In actual war, shoot to kill. If you get questioned just say: 'It seems my sights need re-adjusting'". And there's another factor: Leonardo daVinci is known for many techincal drawings of innovative machinery. However: If you build them as they are depicted, they don't work. That's because daVinci deliberately put mistakes in those drawings to protect his intellectual property. This way he showcased his idea without giving the recipient a chance to build it without him. It is plausible the illustrations in the treatises do something similar - this is what can be done, to properly learn come sparring with me. Based on that the stance "the treatises don't show it, therefore it wasn't done" seems to be an idiotic one to take.
@@MrAranton My argument still stands as the historical instruments in question do in fact have significant limitations in terms of the possible notes and sounds that they can produce. The Deskford carnyx is not capable of producing the melody to a massive portion of music that has ever existed. The Divje Babe flute is only capable of producing roughly 4 notes. These are very limited compared to modern instruments. Does that mean we can say for certain that a piece of music created by a modern musician on these instruments is a historical piece of music? No. It can give us an insight into what the actual music would have sounded like but we cannot use it as evidence or confirmation that a certain piece is historical. These instruments are far more limited than you seem to understand. The realm of possible techniques is comparable to that of fighting techniques. I mean, jist look at how many different fighting styles have existed across the entire world. How can you be at all certain that what you come up with experiementing in your garden is both historical AND distinctly european which it has to be in order to be at all considered hema? Much like it's impossible to be certain that a piece of music you come up with on a historically accurate instrument is at all historical, even if the realm of possibilities is relatively small.
Aren't most of the manuals used by HEMA based on German and Italian styles? Those are pretty limited fields of studying given how many countries and societies there were throughout Europe. Then there's the way European martial arts were influenced by interactions with Middle East martial arts, North African martial arts, and even when Mongols interacted with Europeans. HEMA also seems to primarily focus on melee fighting, not even the exceptionally important cavalry martial arts of medieval combat
And Iberian sources. And as we move more towards 18/19th century stuff we see a ton of other countries manuals. As to cavalry.. thats just a money issue and skills issue.
I wouldn't even call them martial arts. It wasn't a in depth study as much as this is how you stab a guy with a spear. Sure there was a need of proficiency but not every aspect of combat is necessarily a martial art. Rifle shooting isn't one.
Historians and Archeologists may be connected, but Historians today are mostly very conservative compared to mostly progressive Archeologists, some have to fight for years, to get their research accepted, especially if those findings challenge the existing image of something. In fact, challenging findings are a Historians nightmare.
Well considering that archeology is in part art history it's hard to put them on equal footing as archeology has a lot more interpretation because you don't have the people's words
This is so true. Egyptologists are the worst in my opinion. To this day they still will only accept that the pyramids were cut from a quarry miles away and then dragged into place. Because of that they had to overestimate the population of slaves and the amount of years they took. All while real researchers like those at the Geopolymer Institute have made break-throughs that have gone widely unnoticed. (I dunno if you are interested but) The evidence actually suggests that the pyramids were actually made of a primitive concrete mixture that made use of limestone, sea shells, and salt water. Essential they just had to use bags to collect the concrete mixture and pour it into place using molds of some kind. They even tested it out themselves and were able to replicate the results exactly; which they used devices to examine the surface of a brick from a pyramid and the one they created and it matched. They found similar methods in other areas of the world like the Mayan temples, with a different set of ingredients, like bat guano. You can check it out yourself on their UA-cam channel or they also have their own website. But as you can imagine this conflicts with historians teachings. It'd have required way less people and way less time to accomplish. But it would have taken quite a long time for the bricks to dry. But it makes much more sense than what Egyptology has been pushing for nearly a century now. And this is just one example of historians not embracing discoveries when they contradict old theories. Even now you find new articles talking about how they found ramps, and so those ramps *must* have been used to move big blocks into place... Or maybe they were just used to allow workers to walk up the pyramid with their bags of concrete easier. Humans have always been masters of efficiency. I doubt Kings really wanted to out-live the pyramids they commissioned. They would have found the most efficient way possible to have them built in their life-time.
@@shinobi-no-bueno I mean, it's not. It very much depends where you live. Archaeology and anthropology are very often the same degree in most American colleges. I'm aware that it differs in Europe, but many places have it part of history, sociology, or anthropology And also, that's how most research goes. You have to present your findings and they must stand up to scrutiny when examined with a magnifying glass. That's how research and understanding goes in every field. Just because you think you have something new that disproves the old way, does not mean it will be immediately accepted. If that happened, entire fields would be in chaos. Yes, it can be frustrating to get your new research across, but if you conduct solid research and cite your sources along with a logical explanation of how you got there, then it enters the body of knowledge. Just because that isn't apparent to your average enthusiast doesn't mean it's not happening. The same things happen in the scientific fields every day.
To be fair here, archaeology is infested with progressive ideologues who can't be arsed to keep their biases in check. Large parts of archaeology (and anthropology) are basically commie pseudoscience by now.
I actually find it very, _VERY_ unlikely that the written treatises were the means from which even the nobility learned swordsmanship. As with everything else at the time, the main method of formal learning of a skill at the time would have been through apprenticeship and/or from a tutor - be it one-to-one or in a group setting. And the further back we go, writing becomes less and less the principle form of record-keeping (instead, it being oral traditions and - where skills are involved - hands-on learning from someone else). Even if and when the written materials would be used or were made available, they would not have been the main form of instruction but at best a reference point whilst receiving instruction from the tutor instead. Consider how we learn any martial art today - it is still again through instruction from a tutor. This remains the case any number of formalised disciplines. You're still learning it from a tutor and I can almost guarantee that the vast majority have not cracked open the manual that had been originally developed when the discipline was first formalised. And when you are learning from a tutor, it likely will not be an exact reproduction of the manual. Instead, they are likely to introduce their own variation and spin to different techniques and to deviate from the manual at one point or another.
Very true. We can also take note of things like celtic and gaelic martial arts. Both are noted for not having many written sources, and certainly not many surviving ones (carving lines into rocks is writing, but its a very impractical way of learning anything). Most of what we know of them is from roman sources, and esspecially when talking about the martial arts you'd have found in what is now Ireland (not just saying Ireland because there is probably a historical name for it which i Don't know), the Romans wouldn't have anything written down about how to perform or learn them. So some very definitely historical European martial arts cannot be learned from manuscripts. But we might very well see examples of them in things such as artwork from the times, even if it can be difficult to discern exactly how they were performed because its just static images, and probably not even enough to make a short flipbook out of.
You're right, but we have very few oral traditions remaining for most weapons dating more than a few hundred years ago. If we had easily accessible longsword tutors from unbroken lineages that'd be great, but unfortunately we don't, so we use the few written versions we have. It's a tiny sample of what existed then, but it's far better than waving swords around trying to recreate sword combat from scratch.
I don't know any martial art but it reminds me of how I studied music. Yes, I had a book with pictures and instructions but I either couldn't reproduce it correctly or couldn't understand it at all, so everything I really know I learned from my teacher. At the same time, my teacher got his techniques from his teacher and not (directly) from the books either. And I played a slightly obscure (to the general public) traditional instrument. So, if no one teaches how to play this instrument, in 100 years there will be debates on what is considered "historical" and "correct" way to play it
@@KingdomOfDimensions It depends on what you see the purpose of HEMA is. If it is simply a new sport that you're trying to create a standardised set of rules for, then you would be correct. However, if the purpose is trying to develop an accurate understanding of combat techniques used in history, then it's a very definite no. Restricting oneself to just the written treatises is cherry-picking the evidence and very likely to lead to a very incomplete and inaccurate picture.
@@evilwelshman I'm not sure what you're suggesting as an alternative. Artistic depictions can give us some hints, as can mentions of combat in any number of sources, but neither of those would allow you to recreate whole systems of combat, just as those same sources can't inform us on every detail of medieval life.
Mr. shad. I’ve been watching your channel for a number of years. I’ve always enjoyed your information and your opinion, but I must say this video has made me your biggest fan, bravo young man.!!! Salute to you from everyone here on the mothership!
Manuals and treatises and other first-hand accounts are definitely the best resources to study historical martial arts. If we have them? Even with thorough and credible sources, there's no way we can possibly know everything unless someone invents the time machine. Written sources can only provide a glimpse into what historical combat was actually like. I agree with Shad that experimentation definitely has and continues to play a role in the study and development of any historical martial arts.
That is not what Shad is arguing though. He is saying that just experimenting with the weapons of the time without referencing any other sources should be enough to be considered historical. All HEMA interpretations have to bridge the gap between what is shown/written down and the steps between, there is no one denying that. What some people view as elitism is seems to be what initial source the reconstruction is based on.
@@MrQuickben Most of the "elitism" in HEMA that I have seen is based more so which interpretation is the "correct" one. You can have 2 different groups studying the same source and they can reach different conclusions and each claims their interpretation is the superior one. Like, I said, unless you can go back in time there is no way of knowing 100% for sure. Some HEMA folks can be very dogmatic about their interpretations while others are more open-minded and not afraid to deviate from the source material.
It all comes down much to the epistemological debate on the subject of history as a science. HEMA, is in some ways similar to retro-coloured footages from the 1900s. They are equally not historical since they are presently reflective fragments of the past and subject to many factors outside history, and in our present. I can understand Shadi's take and pride in this matter, but if you open the Pandora's box of 'free the term of history' it provides space for really dumb narratives to emerge - not just in sports - but it segues to different debates. In the end I don't see HEMA or Shadi winning this, since on the epistemological level the topic has been debated and won in academia in the last 80 or so years.
34:00 false argumentation. If you develop and adjust contemporary firearms to your shield, would you still call it Hema? I highly doubt it. The video showcased a present technique.
@@MrQuickben >He is saying that just experimenting with the weapons of the time without referencing any other sources should be enough to be considered historical. Yes, because whatever works in combat, works. Is it helpful that it's in a treatise? Sure. Does it have to be? No. If you develop something that is proven to work, then you're actually improving on what the entire sport is about. No one is crying about Chess with the level of play being so high compared to the past due to being able to simulate millions of games with a computer. What works, works. And the point of treatises were to teach you the martial art and improve, and become for example a master of the longsword. If that mastery can improve, why the hell not?
I don't think there should be any question if something is "allowed" or not. There is no authority of sufficient skill today to make these determinations. Beyond learning to use swords and weapons there is historic soldiering which most of the gatekeepers ignore based on their own body composition. Just have fun.
"In the parameters of armed martial arts, there's nothing you can think up that hasn't been done, historically, before." What a beautiful quote to give credit where its due: To historical swordsmanship.
People like to ignore the fact that throughout time that trial and error have always been the greatest teachers. Those all important treatises of theirs is simply a written record of the results of others using trial and error. The idea of a written sources such as this is to save time by not requiring everyone to start from scratch every time. This increases the total amount a single person can learn by giving a foundation to start from. That is the entire point of the concept of history, to record what you have learned so that others don't have to learn the same things first hand as you did.
It's not about swordsmanship though, this is about historical documentation. It's all well and good if you become a badass with a sword on your own with no teachers, but you couldn't then walk into a museum and give a talk to people telling them that's how it was done by Knights back in the day, because it's "your way", not their way. (A great example is Chinese longsword vs European longsword, almost identical weapon, but very different applications and manners of using them). Maybe you'll come up with something similar or the same as the Knights by yourself even, but it's all about confirmation and historical vadility for the sake of documentation, it's not just about the sword and being good with it, that's what people are getting confused. It's not about the skill, it's about the accurate authenticity.
@@Mr-Tibbster HEMA is not specific to how knights fought. It is an umbrella term including all martial arts in Europe throughout history up to a certain point. It doesn't say it must be effective, it doesn't say it must be well known. It simply means that if it qualifies as a martial art and was done by any person at any point in Europe's history then it is HEMA. If you want it to be more specific than that then you need an acronym that reflects that. So if accuracy or authenticity is something you wish to make a requirement than that must be included in the acronym.
Close, others have hit the nail on the head: "History" as an academic discipline is in fact focuses on analysis of documentation (which of course would be primarily written documents until the advent of recorded sound/video). *Archaeology* is concerned with analysis of what is called "material culture" (artifacts and the like). Then there's other related but separate disciplines like anthropology, material science, etc etc which are relevant to people's *conception* of HEMA but is not actually *history* proper. I would suggest one of two approaches for the HEMA community: 1) Ditch the "Historical" part of the name, and be more explicit that what most practitioners really want out of the sport/discipline is not really to be confined by 'history' in the academic sense. Incidentally, its abundantly clear to me that HEMA was founded by those focuses on "history" in the academic sense, there's no way the sport would *accidentally* become so concerned with written sources had it been created by non-academics. 2) Work with those concerned with "history" in the academic sense- this is my preferred solution. I was a history undergrad up until the point a couple years in when I really started to appreciate just how restrictive the field is, both intellectually and career-wise. Had I known about HEMA I absolutely would have stayed in the field, because its a brilliant way to expand the study of history. What makes HEMA actually useful to the *academic* discipline of history is its focus on written documents, and it is *especially* useful because it subjects such documents to practical tests. To be clear: if HEMA were simply about "the best way to fight someone using a longsword", it wouldn't actually be useful to historians (again, within the confines of "history" within academia). To the extent that it allows historians draw conclusions about DOCUMENTS, it is invaluable. I would imagine "HEMA" (that is, as most practitioners imagine it) could be similarly valuable to archeologists, etc etc in testing theories prevalent in those fields provided links can be maintained to the more narrow academic focuses (eg, whether an axe found composed of a particular alloy was practical on the battlefield or instead more of a ceremonial weapon)
I have to say Shad, 1m 30 into the video and you've already misinterpreted (deliberately for drama?) two entirely clear videos I put up, as well as a lengthy private conversation we've had on this topic. This seems like a bad faith foundation. Note that I have always (across over 1000 videos on my channel) been clear that we can draw on all historical sources in HEMA, including art, oral history, living tradition etc. But obviously without a tie in to historical data somehow, we cannot affirmatively claim something to be historical. And that's essential it, in a nutshell. The study of history requires evidence. That's what history is.
As for the name HEMA, we've been using this for over 20 years to describe what we do. If you don't like the name, that's fine. If you don't like treatises, that's fine. But after two decades everyone doing HEMA knows what it is, just as people doing living history or LARP knows what it is. There is no need for people outside those activities to trouble themselves over the names we use for our activities.
@@scholagladiatoria Sorry you feel that way, please understand that I truly did not do this for drama, this is a genuine opinion of mine that I've had for a long time. If I wanted drama I would have acted very differently. I hope you can see that I tried to be as respectful as possible. I do not feel I misrepresented your videos or our conversations. If I've misunderstood anything from them, I'll accept any correction you would like to put forward regarding what you meant. As always I have tremendous respect for you and your views and wish you the best.
About halfway through the video you assert that two people using no source input, but experimenting with steel longswords is HEMA. This I hard disagree with, because they are not using historical input. A replica sword does not count as history by itself. If I train with a katana for several years, there's no hard connection point between what I devise and Japanese history. It's just Matt's katana style. It might be awesome, but it's not historical without historical input.
I should also reiterate that the name HEMA has come to define a specific type of activity, involving historical research with sources. People don't NEED to appropriate or hijack that name to give their activities with other types of swordsmanship validity. I could start a new stick fighting sport, but I don't need to call it escrima, Kali, or SCA. I can just call it stick fighting and that's fine (in fact lots of people literally do that). I wouldn't call my activity karate, if it wasn't. So aside from debates over the word historical, the fact is that HEMA is a defined and we'll known thing. HMB/BotN people don't call what they do HEMA. It's a different activity, even if it's related. That's not gatekeeping, it's just naming a hobby, which literally every hobby does :-)
9:39 "they don't tell us about battlefield combat" Purposely ignoring this point is strange to me. It's like basing one's understanding of Napoleonic military history solely on saber fencing manuals.
We don't purposely ignore this point, but unless you are a member of military, this is an experience you cannot get/understand. Anyone that's ever been in a war will tell you that nothing can prepare you for the actuality of being there. Which is why every military on the planet drills and drills and drills and drills... Y'know, like people studying Napoleonic military saber do. No one's ignoring battlefield stuff, but until you come up with a good way to find 1000+ trained soldiers to take the field, all armed with swords and horses, we'll keep drilling the same way the historical soldiers did.
@@technicolortornado I think his point is more to the fact that it is still HEMA based on the idea that while you are drilling they are attempting the equivalent of practical application to the best of their ability. You can keep drilling, they can keep fighting. It doesn't have to be a divisive issue.
@@LordDarkhelm The problem is how it's gone about. HEMA is specifically the focus of a weapons system, not mass combat. In large part because 1. it can't be studied effectively, 2. like all battles, you can't write down what it's like, and 3. we just cannot recreate those conditions. So we don't focus on them. The people who *do* focus on them by and large tend to not bother learning the weapon they're using with any effectiveness. Reenactors, SCA, BUHURT, whatever do not study the weapon as it was used (typically speaking - obviously some people do, but my experience is typically no). Those people go do the activity, beat the snot out of each other and then make definitive assertions on how that weapon should have been used.... except that they don't have any real foundation on how it should have been used anyway. Also, at least in the US, people that study mass battles got into it BEFORE HEMA existed as a way to fight with historical weapons. They (often) do not cross over to HEMA to learn more because adults are adults and we don't like feeling vulnerable and learning new things (or being told our preconceived perceptions are wrong). So that's another large reason why we prefer to stay separate. Reenactors and SCA can have all the pitched fun they want and when they want to learn how to use the weapon more historically, then they can come take a class.
Additionally, a note: just because it's not considered part of HEMA doesn't mean it's ahistorical. A lot of useful knowledge has come from SCA and reenactor mass battles, but because they don't often more rigorously study what they're doing and why, it has to be taken with a grain of salt. On the flip side, just because it's historical doesn't mean it fits in HEMA... and that's okay! We're studying the *martial arts* of Europe, nothing else. In the same way that modern militaries study their own martial arts separate from their battlefield tactics. They inform each other, but are two different approaches to find a similar answer.
I know absolutely nothing of this drama, but it is worth noting that, academically speaking, written history is by and far supreme, given that any other source is far too vulnerable to speculation or other corruption. Also, as a History major, yes - History as the study of sources is absolutely true, as history is narrative based. You cannot construct a historical narrative purely around, say, arrowheads and weapons and skeletons - but you can use those to evidence something otherwise recorded by a person. Like, if some chronicler writes "A battle took place here on wednesday", the presence of battle remains would obviously lend some credibility to that account. By itself, however, all one can do with the archaeological remains is speculate. I have a very limited understanding of what this debate is all about, but from the video I will say that it is very fair to say that, at least from an academic basis, if you pick up a sword and train and fight with it "naturally" (never having read some source on medeival combat or what-have-you), your use of the weapon is not made "historical" by the use of a historical weapon, as there is in fact no way of knowing (without sources) that your conclusions in training with a weapon 'in your own way' are the same conclusions that would have been made in centuries bygone. On that subject, the most effective use of a weapon cannot ever be assumed out of hand to have been independently developed in the past - especially if it does not end up being recorded as one would expect in such a case. If you want an accessible example, look into the theories of pistol combat and see how drastically things have changed in only the past few decades. Archaeology - the basis of historical approach for most of what is mentioned in your video, it seems, is mostly linked to anthropology for a lot of these reasons. Speculation made over artifacts, much less reproductions of those artifacts, carries relatively little historical weight by itself, because the past is a very foreign place than the present, and our speculations are subconsciously tainted by that. Anyway, Ive no dog in this fight, but I think the disconnect here is the divide between history as an academic process and history as a popular interest. Also, I wrote this comment up basically while watching the video, so the layout is rather rambling and disjointed, and I apologize for that.
When you say history is the study of sources, are you meaning only written sources? Genuine question, because literally every definition I've looked up, and I've looked up a lot, academically verified and all, defines historical sources as anything, material objects included, verifiably coming from a period that had a writing system.
@@shadiversity I suppose I cannot speak for the internet at large nor history as a practice at large - I have only a BA, after all. I would say that while anything can be a source in theory, to be interpreted as part of the historical 'record' - or rather as part of a narrative, the effects of a nonwritten source are inherently limited. For example, going back to my talk about finding a field of skeletons and weapons, we could obviously infer from the battle remains that there was in fact a battle that took place at that location, and by the make of armor and weapons and clothes we could probably make some fairly good estimates about who fought it (that is, what factions) and when. You could even make some pretty good speculations as to exactly how it all went down. However - and this is where the written source bit and academia all come in - in a field where there exist a plethora of such artifacts and historical speculation as to their use, written record is generally the king of all primary sources and assumes precedence unless the credibility of the source can be seriously questioned, because it is contemporary - the writer knows *something* happened, at least, and most our other assumptions based on the presence of those material sources are themselves ground in written record. I apologize if this answer and explanation is insufficient, but this is why I see some merit in the HEMA side of the argument - theirs, as far as I know from my limited insight here, is the standard that would largely take precedence in a more academic setting
As a fellow historian, I have to disagree with several points. 1. Historical narratives do not need written sources. Like ... at all. Our modern technology enables us to gather so much information out of material sources, that their worth can and oftentimes does exceed that of many written accounts. And you can absolutely construct a historic narrative on nothing but the physical remains of a battlefield. It's been done quite a bit. 2. Written sources are not inherently more reliable than material evidence. That is just factually incorrect, as written accounts can be deliberately biased or misleading. The historical worth of a book does not exceed that of say a battlefield strewn with artifacts by the mere merit of being written. 3. By the simulation of historical circumstances and reasonable extrapolation upon known factors, it is entirely within the realm of academic history to claim historiocity for the results. If a weapon's use is simulated under conditions that match our current scientific knowlegde, the resulting techniques can be understood as a very likely simulacrum of the historic thing. And do you know why? Because that's how the scientific method works and like it or not, the field of history isn't exempt from it. History is the study of the available sources to find a RECONSTRUCTION of the past. And that includes ALL sources, literal and material.
I was looking for a comment like this, and I think you summed up my feelings quite well. Experimentation is fine-but it often won’t result in something as historically grounded as it could be. In the absence of written records, of course we must rely on other methods of discovery, but if we have them we should use them. When I first started practicing HEMA, I had the bad luck of having a terrible coach who banned his students from looking at the treatises until they were “ready” (which was never), but it quickly became clear that he wanted to be the only source of information, and he was afraid of being challenged on his interpretation. The treatises are no replacement for drilling and sparring with other practitioners, but they’re also an invaluable tool that anyone can access if they put their mind to it. I find historical music a good parallel for HEMA, since we have no recordings of how anything sounded back then. However, we do have music that was written centuries ago, and there is no reason to pick up a lute and guess as to how it was played when we have pages and pages of John Dowland. Simply using the tool does not reveal its historical use any faster than if we start with a source. That’s not to say that our interpretation is ever 100% correct, but it’s a really solid start. All that being said, I probably care less than some about what is and isn’t HEMA. After all, anyone who fences, whether it’s HMB or international HEMA competitions, probably has a job and a family and doesn’t want to get maimed or killed. We can never safely take this practice to the extent of its intended function, so there will always be a lot of speculation. But we might as well get it as accurate as possible, and treatises are a great start.
@@ct7567CaptRex I have to keep my sense of humor. My kid brother is in legal trouble. He got involved in an investment opportunity to finance a trampoline park in Prague and got arrested in America - for bounced Czechs.
A squire learned from a knight. In every city, at least in Germany, there was a fencing teacher. And in huge parts the fighting with the long knife ("langes Messer") was practised in the villages learning from the older ones, while the possession of swords was prohibited. So they didn't learn simply by doing. The treatises, especially Johann Liechtenauers 'Zedel' ("slips of paper; notes; leaflet), were written as advertisement. They usually don't tell the whole thing, keep secrets and presuppose a lot of knowledge.
I really like the calmness. It's a nice change of pace from Shad's usual energetic narrating style in my opinion. Not that I don't like the usual videos though.
Having only discovered shad last year I was imagining early shad being even more untethered than he already gets in some of his videos (esp all his "almighty stick" vids XD) Was pleasantly surprised to see it as more calm and coherent XD
Im imagining someone bringing an actual dragon to a HEMA fight and someone yelling "There is no historical record of this! Get that dragon out of here!"
I am being humble when I am telling you that I am the most powerful strongest coolest smartest most famous greatest funniest Y*uTub3r of all time! That's the reason I have multiple girlfriends and I show them off on my ch*nnel all the time! Bye bye la
I personally joined HEMA because I treat it as a martial art. I gain practical benefits from it: learning basic self defense, doing exercise to stay active, and having fun with friends. That being said, I also have a similar mindset as Shad, where I'm not interested in reading verbatim from the manuals. I just feel a lot more engaged when I have really good mentors teaching and coaching me on how to fight effectively. I don't really see the point in being anal and strict about "if it wasn't in the manual, it's not HEMA" because at the end of the day, the manuals aren't omniscient and it's the duty of a martial artist to APPLY knowledge, not just memorize it. What good is having knowledge of fighting if you limit yourself only to extremely specific moves for specific circumstances? Besides, I never focused on one treatise; I like to have fun looking up random techniques from across the board and experimenting with them to see what works for me and what doesn't. I'm not tall, and many of my friends are significantly taller and bulkier than me, so I clearly have to adapt my style(s) to spar with them.
I've been involved in HEMA since before it was HEMA - way back in the heady days of the early Nineties when it was called Western Martial Arts. In fact, when I started in '94 we didn't even have a name for it. All I can add to this debate is the skeletal remains of a long-dead horse which you are welcome to keep beating. Carry on!
Not gonna say anything more about the discussion, but I do think it is simply showing us how both of you are different and awesome in your own way: Matt is a HEMA instructor who delicates himself to the study of detailed history since before UA-cam even existed, always taking context into account. Shad is a writer who loves history *and* history based fantasy; he's an inventor and loves to take into account what others wouldn't. Think we have a Tony Stark/Steve Rogers situation here (?
As someone who professionally engages with history on an academic level, I have to disagree. Matt's approach to what is and isn't historical would quickly get him into hot water with scholars of history, as it is exceedingly perscriptive and contradictory, as Shad pointed out several times. I'm not fully aware of Matt's background, but a lot of the arguments he brings for his narrow definition of HEMA and history can be defeated with even a basic understanding of the academic concept of history, stuff you learn in you first year at university.
@@draochvar9646 I know a lot of academics who know next to nothing compared to what Matt has to offer (maybe it's because of my country). Shad did an excellent job pointing out what he thinks Matt failed to explain, but as someone who has been a part of his channel since a long time ago, i can attest to his dedication and experience when it comes to the field he knows best. Historians rarely agree on anything completely, and everyone is free to decide what fights they want to fight. I'm just a big fan of both Shad and Matt; i appreciate what they do and how they explain their own takes on the same subject. It is easier to criticize when someone else has already done it masterfully. Aside from knowing you are a professional, I'd be more interested in knowing what arguments you have *besides* the ones Shad's already listed. Regardless, Matt has been studying history since a long time ago, and is experienced in a lot of the subjects he has talked about. The fact that some of his points of view can be wrong or controversial doesn't diminish what he does know or the fact that he's a dedicated instructor.
@@addictedtochocolate920 that is fair. It is just, that to dismiss anything that isn't written as ahistorical is grade-A nonsense, especially in a field that so heavily relies on non-literary sources as the study of History. Especially since the veracity of a source isn't guaranteed by the mere fact, that it was written.
@@addictedtochocolate920 "Historians rarely agree" Yeah that's generally because historians tend to be the text book teacher types... Very similar to teachers throughout our school systems. They like things to be linear; They read history from a book or writing, accept it as fact, disregard any study or discovery that disputes or otherwise proves that historical events did not happen the way they were taught, then they teach others what they want rather than what's most likely true at the time. I'm sure you can find a myriad of things taught in high schools right now that evidence from the last 10 to 20 years already contradicts. Historians like the narrative they were taught. I don't care how dedicated an instructor someone is, if they are very limited in what they teach and they aren't open to new discoveries or different ways of thinking, they may as well just call themselves preachers. Some people have to ask themselves if their goal is to inform to the best of their ability or is it to indoctrinate a cult following into thinking a certain way. "It is easier to criticize when someone else has already done it masterfully. Aside from knowing you are a professional, I'd be more interested in knowing what arguments you have besides the ones Shad's already listed." Boy that's a loaded question. Either you said this out of contempt or just genuinely want to trap people in order to shut down dialogue because you are a fan of Matt. First of all, if we don't follow Matt obviously we weren't going to come out with criticism against him. Second, yes Shad laid out a long video voicing his concerns over Matts way of thinking. Pretty sure he covered his bases. The conclusion being that Matt's way of thinking about History is very limited. I didn't even need to get through the whole video to see that for myself because Shad showed us clips from Matt's video. I reached the same conclusion as Shad probably 13 minutes in. What other arguments does there need to be? Or could be? The entire point is that HEMA stands for HISTORICAL EUROPEAN Martial Arts. And Matt cherry picking Martial Arts, even though they are both Historical AND European in origin, is fundamentally a flawed way of thinking. That is just an objective observation. You can still enjoy Matt's content and recognize that. This is not a Shad vs Matt war. Honestly Matt isn't even the only person in HEMA to think this way. But so long as they do, they shouldn't call themselves HEMA. That's far too broad for what they cover.
@@draochvar9646 I suggest you watch my video, because your comments suggest you haven't seen it :-) I am a history AND archaeology graduate, a former archaeologist, and have worked for several museums and institutions. I am a former head of arms and armour at a London auction house and a professional antique dealer. I include ALL sources in my study of the past, including art, oral history, experimental archaeology etc. The fact remains that in order to call something historical, we have to use historical sources. Waving a sword around (say LARP for example) does not qualify as history by itself. History is based on evidence.
As somebody who has a degree on European History I have to say, you are right. Selecting your sources based on your liking and disregarding everything else is wrong as your results will be biased and only capable to justify your agenda. EDIT: I just hate to see that HEMA is slowly but surely became the same cult like organisation as the majority of the martial arts schools. "The only truth is mine and everybody else is wrong..."
@@EntropicEcho pretty much all the material sources and non-codified descriptions of combat, be they written or pictographic, as well as the results of simulation and logical extrapolation. As a fellow historian, I can only agree with Victor, disregarding sources cause they don't suit you is really grinding my gears.
@@draochvar9646 I mean, except that we absolutely take into account those things. Simulation and pressure testing is done all the time at tournaments and sparring matches, people discuss finding pictorial sources and how they might line up with other written sources, etc. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening. In fact, there are a pile of good HEMA researchers on YT that explicitly talk about their research and methods. Sources aren't just discarded and I have no idea where/why that keeps popping up. The handful of times I've even heard of people putting aside a source is if it is so different and incomplete to not be rendered even a little bit safely or accurately. If you can't import "frog DNA" into a source that is wildly incomplete for context, then there's not really any value in trying to recreate it until something else like it comes along to give you a hand (think trying to decipher Linear A). As a historian then, you know that artistic sources aren't often 100% accurate either and are often done with a goal or a patron in mind (and sometimes to hell with accuracy) which is why recreating a physical, moving martial art solely from pictorial sources can be dangerous at worst and incomplete at best. The written sources make up the foundation of the various martial arts that HEMA encompasses with pictorial and verbal evidence making up the rest. Evidence, after all, is the foundation of any research field, but especially any historical pursuit. Without it, we have nothing.
Even assuming the broader definition of historical in HEMA, how would experimenting with sword replicas by yourself constitute a martial art? Or even by written accounts of fights or duels or battles? How would that constitute a martial art? If I pick up a sword and swing it, guaranteed many many people throughout history have done it exactly in the way I just did, but that doesn't make it a martial art. The great thing about the treatises is that they are complete systems, with techniques that abide by consistent principles and approaches to the fight. That idea definitely much closer fits the bill of martial art, while still also aligning with the historical and european aspects of the acronym.
HEMA named itself after a goal, not after what it can actually achieve. HEMA aims to recover historical European martial arts. But it can never truly recover these arts. Rather, it tries to reconstruct them using historical sources and judgment. There will always be an amount of active speculation involved, as well as inaccuracy that manifests in the reconstruction tacitly due to the art being taken out of its original context. Studying artwork is just as historically valid as studying the treatises, but artwork gives less information than treatises and therefore the reconstruction is necessarily more speculative. Reconstruction based solely on artwork as its foundation will almost certainly be of lower quality (less accurate) than reconstruction based on treatises. That is presumably why many HEMA practitioners want to exclude such endeavor from being considered HEMA. A name was picked that claims to sit on the crest of a hill. Instead, however, it can only reside entirely on the slope of that hill, from the place where it joins the flat ground to somewhere partway up the hill. Despite everything being described by the name lying some distance from what the name implies, many HEMA practitioners want to create some sort of cut-off point so that things barely off the level of the ground and most likely wildly inaccurate are not included. That of course makes sense to do. The problem is only that they are named with broad-encompassing terminology that has an unachievable goal and so carrying out such an exclusion becomes somewhat hypocritical.
except that isn't what shad is saying, at all, in even the slightest. as he stated, when describing his worldview of what he thinks HEMA is, many hema have gone hm, yeah, that's hema. so shad isn't, at all, in even the slightest, saying disregard the treatises. he is saying study that on top of other things. cause as stated, the treatises don't paint a whole picture and are largely incomplete and don't take many factors into account. they mainly deal with dueling, which you wouldn't do in combat, so how is dueling relevant to a battlefield? thats why shad is saying study those AND other sources, that way you get a more complete picture. its not going to be perfect, because much information is lost. but by studying everything, we are practicing real, legitimate HEMA. but then you get to the HEMA elites saying either study these things or your fraud or are not welcome here and your a fake. that's completely incorrect. that's why if i were ever to practice swordsmanship, I wouldn't call myself HEMA, i would call myself a swordsman, cause i would learn from HEMA, but i would also learn from other sources, which by their logic makes me fraud. so dont put words in shads mouth mate. he isn't saying even remotely what your describing.
@@scorpionlord9175 Only he is not studying the treatises and instead presenting a bunch of hog-posh which is a combo of his own inventions and glimpses of actual fighting arts. He doesn't follow what he preaches, according to you.
@@scorpionlord9175 And I would add that the idea that HEMA practitioners don't study other sources outside the treatises, historical and archeological, is complete nonsense and patently untrue. Which anyone in HEMA would know.
@@borislavkrustev8906 um, you didn't watch the video obviously. He did state that he follows the treatises as well. If you had actually watched the video(it now obvious you didn't), you would know that he does indeed practice them, along with outside sources. So your either purposefully lying about shad to push a narrative or your exceptionally ignorant. Which are you? Cause you can't say that and have a third option. Your either a liar or ignorant. And btw, if you had also watched the video, you would know he didn't say ALL hema. He said there are many though(such as the guy he is responding to) who believe that if you practice other stuff outside of the treatises, you are not practicing hema. So no, your wrong on both counts and just like the commenter above, your putting words in shads mouth. So I ask again: which are you, a liar or ignorant?
I would have though the more difficult to define term in HEMA would have been "martial arts" not "historical". If guys figuring it out themselves in the garden is technically HEMA, then is two guys brawling in the backyard technically "martial arts"?
Buy this definition, yes. And as people brawled during historical times, it would also be HEMA. It would also be Pre Historical Martial Arts. And also Future Martial Arts as people will no doubt be brawling in the future too. It would also be every other form of martial art as people have brawled everywhere in the world. With such a broad definition the term loses all meaning.
I would say to classify as a martial art it must consist of techniques, striking or otherwise, for defeating human opponent/s in melee combat. No need to complicate it, if it’s something that can be learned to help you defeat your enemy then it counts. If the guys brawling in the backyard are keeping their hands up to protect themselves, using footwork, striking weak points, using throws and grapples to get the upper hand, absolutely a martial art.
I did as well and there are actually two practicing groups around me. And they hate each other. The first one does sword fighting after manuals, the other one puts on armor and they smack each other with flails and hammers. The first one accuses the other one of not being HEMA and just being dumb brutes drunkenly clashing into each other. The other one accuses the first one to be full of weaklings who wouldn't survive actual historical combat. I decided to stay out of it.
@@qwesx Sports or War?... I would prefer War than Sports since Sports has its limitations in both practice and execution... Adapt, Learn, and Overcome.
I think the biggest issue with that approach is that it is highly speculative. There's simply no way of telling whether that's really how people did it back in the day or not because there are no points of reference (except medieval art, but that teaches us very little). And yes, while swords are historical sources, they don't teach anything about swordsmanship in and of themselves. The only thing you can do with only a sword in hand is speculation. History isn't the study of speculation. Yes most people most likely didn't learn from masters, however, we don't know how culture affected each Kingdoms and regions swordsmanship. It's very likely that the attitude of a city-dweller in southern France in the 11th century toward learning swordsmanship was VERY different from that of a modern 21th century French man. Sure evolutionary convergence might help to reconstruct it, but it's just as likely that we'd get everything wrong, even the parts people back then would get wrong (as in, we wouldn't fuck up in the same way). As such we'd learn very little from that kind of practice. Now if that speculative practice is done on top of the study of ALL the sources we have at our disposal (ie. treatises, etc...), then you can base your speculation on a medieval person's perspective on swordfighting, although that also has to be put back in its context (we mostly have only German and Italian sources, and they are geared toward a certain class of people during a certain time). Even then, it's still an educated guess. As for what we don't know, we will just have to admit that "we don't know". And any speculation would be just that, speculation. With all that said, I absolutely agree that experimentation can definitely add valuable insight into what we've learned through archeological, written, and artistic sources. Buhurt will definitely inform some things about how medieval group fighting could be like, and trying out new moves could definitely help make a better picture, especially if those things are made with respect to the sources, and while those things will always remain speculative, the use of period weapons and armor, as well as glimpses of past martial traditions, makes them reliable enough in my opinion. I will, however, still firmly believe that smacking your opponent with a falchion instead of a mace is silly, but I've just read a tournament account talking about just that, so who am I to judge?
@@astrophobia6049 except the evidence is in the efficacy. If someone comes up with a technique that beats out the historical techniques it is a better technique. In combat the only thing that matters is efficacy, and you can tell that by who wins. So the proof is in the pudding.
The only issue with what you've said is the Convergent Evolution part of Shads argument. If someone who is seriously dedicated to finding effective ways of fighting againt others with a sword, the same way people did historically and tbey figure out some extremely effective way to fight then it can be asssumed that people did historically as well. If it is truly effective then the odds are that someone did it historically based on convergent evolution. There's only a set amount of ways you can effectively use a sword, there isn't an infinite number of effective things you can do with it, so via trial and error you will narrow down to the most effective things the same way people did historically, with no direct sources even being used. The fact that these weapons and martial arts were used for hundreds of years by a huge percentage of the population, combined with my previous points, basically guarentees that any effective thing you learn with a sword was done historically by someone at some point. No sources or anything needed.
@@BananaMana69 And yet swords were used in different ways in Western Europe, China, Japan, India, etc. this even though some sword designs were very similar. Even in Europe, you can look at saber-fencing, which is very different from medieval fencing. Same goes for unarmed martial arts. Nowadays the norm is boxing, karate, etc. Even though we have the same bodies and search for what's most effective what we practice is very different from what medieval people did. We don't live in the same world, which is why if we use "convergent evolution" to try to figure out medieval fencing out of thin air, we'd most likely converge in the wrong direction. So no, searching for what's most efficient wouldn't necessarily lead you to medieval fencing. It would just make you very good at using a sword.
@@johnathanera5863 How does making up a better technique today make that technique historical? I'm really confused. Also, making up a technique today, would still leave out most of the context necessary to understand the historical techniques. (footwork, shoes, context of the fight, etc)
Most people who carried swords in the medieval period rarely used them in combat and when they did, it was only a few times in their lives. Most of their skill with them came from training, not direct combat experience. There are of course exceptions to this, but they don't represent the majority. Contrary to the misconception, mediaeval Europe was not constantly drowning in war and physical conflict.
@@shadiversity sorry... But I didn't know how else to send this to you than to reply to one of your comments... My husband of 11 years passed away last month of a unexpected massive heart attack at the age of 38. Your the only thing I've been able to bring myself to watch this past month and I wanted you to know how much your helping me without realizing it... Hope all your family is doing good. THANK YOU for being you. The way you connected with your wife... You are one of the few who would understand the loss of my sole mate. PS sorry noleenote for you having to see this
Did you know that people in history rarely fought for their lives and usually fought in sport competitions called Fechtschule with one another? There were competitions pretty much every week or so. For example to big marriages they held a competition.
@@shadiversity Yes, the same is true of modern gun ownership. Shooting matches and training is very commonplace but those who participate in those activities very rarely, if ever, actually use there weapons in an actual life-death gun battle. This even includes most police officers and military personnel.
If it works in combat, it would've been used in history at some point. It may be fun to clash swords around with your friends but if your life was on the line, you would use ANY strategy you could think of to gain the slightest advantage.
This is akin to saying one does not need to study grappling/kickboxing because in a life or death situation your instincts will kick in and you'll "fight dirty". These people get knocked out almost every time this is tested.
@@shinobi-no-bueno he's saying it's fine learning a sport like boxing or Karate and having fun/competition with friends, but in a chaotic streetfight, what you've learned is rarely apliccable, and you need both expirience and flexibility to survive. hence ''unorthodox'' moves and strategies, not the rigerous code of conduct from a sport an ancient Phalanx or Roman infantry line would need the training and conduct, but if the line breaks and it becomes a chaotic melee, the line infantry training advantage dissapears and the expirience of each individual soldier of what works becomes the factor
@@shinobi-no-bueno Except he's not saying that at all. What he's saying is to not restrict yourself to one specific set of techniques. An untrained individual would get their ass handed to them by a purist kickboxer. But a kickboxer with additional background in other martial arts that complement their main style would curbstomp that same purist kickboxer, because the purist won't have an answer to them.
@@shinobi-no-bueno It’s more like saying that you should actually learn grappling/kick boxing aside for sword fighting as someone with experience in both would beat someone who only trains with one.
@@shinobi-no-bueno That's not what I was saying at all 🤦😂 Sometimes peasants would've been dragged into combat with little to no fighting training... Someone with no sword fighting experience will do the weirdest and worst techniques - But that still means they were used historically does it not? Edit: I doubt you'll find a treatise that says to bite the enemy as it would likely be seen as un-chivalrous. It still would've happened in a grounded struggle, thus, realistic.
The treatises are just what survives in written form, a handful of sources that capture a piece of the art as practiced at specific points in time by specific individuals. They cannot be confirmed to represent a region or historical period as a whole because they were written by specific masters, who all had their own individual perspective compared to other contemporaries whose perspectives did not survive, or were never written down. Treatise study is hard history, from written sources and therefore can be said to have a certain level of accuracy based on the evidence. But the hard historical evidence only ever captures a small portion of all that existed, to only base practice upon those sources would seem very strange indeed to people from the medieval/rennaisance periods. What was lost must be reconstructed and the only way to do that is through practice, experiment and debate. Otherwise HEMA had better be content to stay within the bounds of a handful of sources, a shadow of the living tradition it wants to revive.
>They cannot be confirmed to represent a region or historical period as a whole No one claims they do. >But the hard historical evidence only ever captures a small portion of all that existed No one in HEMA has ever claimed otherwise. > to only base practice upon those sources would seem very strange indeed to people from the medieval/rennaisance periods. No one in HEMA does that. >What was lost must be reconstructed and the only way to do that is through practice, experiment and debate. You are describing the world-accepted approach in HEMA.
@@borislavkrustev8906 I know I'm trying to say Matt Easton was oversimplifying when he said the treatises define what is considered to be HEMA, by pointing out the limitations of the sources. You could easily argue that the sources give a highly biased and incomplete viewpoint, very specific to individual people or places, and times. The sources are an important starting point, but debate, practice and experiment are valid ways to do history too. You need the sources and the practical stuff to get the most understanding, so Matt saying that sources alone make something into HEMA was oversimplifying a lot.
@@GiordanoBruno42 >the treatises define what is considered to be HEMA Well, that is absolutely true. Most good fencers who study Viking swords also study later treatises. Without the sources we wouldn't have HEMA, they are the backbone of it. >You could easily argue that the sources give a highly biased and incomplete viewpoint, very specific to individual people or places, and times. There are literally hundred of sources, so now, you can't say that. You can argue they give an incomplete viewpoint, which every HEMA practitioner knows, Matt included.
@@GiordanoBruno42 >The sources are an important starting point, but debate, practice and experiment are valid ways to do history too. Matt has said that before in older videos and in online discussions. Again, that is something every HEMA practitioner says. He probably didn't see the point of repeating something obvious in an already too-long video.
18:40 Yeeeah, but I agree with Matt here. If you have two people sparring without any historical inspiration whatsoever, then you are doing exactly that... Just sparring. Sure, you might come across some stances, strikes, etc. that people from history used, but that's a relativist argument at best and disingenuous at worst because you could just as easily find your own unique way of fighting that ain't historical at all. The point of HEMA is looking at how people back then fought. It's a study that also happens to be a sport. If you aren't looking at any historical inspirations for how to fight, then you are just sparring. The one exception I can think of is the example of if someone is trying to not look at historical stuff, written or otherwise, to try and learn on their own as a person from medieval times might try and self teach, then I can sort of see it. However, I think that's a flawed categorization because... We are never going to have the proper context for an experiment like that to be fully accurate. We, in the current year, cannot replicate that kind of life and pain an accurate portrayal of how that might be. As a fun experiment for just seeing how you might learn on your own and self teach? Go for it! But I'm very hesitant to call it historical in any real way because you aren't learning from history, but personal experience based on only your personal experiences. Which is fine. I don't think anyone here is trying to say that's a bad thing, but don't call something what it isn't. I agreed that "historical" shouldn't only be labeled to written stuff, given there's enough reasonable evidence to back it up of course, but this doesn't seem right at all. And that self teaching to drive example is a false equivalence: its learning a modern practice for practical sake. Now, if you set out with the hypothesis of trying to learn how people in the 1920s drove cars, then sure, maybe. But I'd still point back to what I said earlier about this "self taught" example not being really historical, being only barely if so. And regards to the "using the sword" argument, it's a tool, not information. HEMA isn't about the sword itself, otherwise we'd be in a class talking about the sword itself. HEMA is about the "martial arts", not the sword itself.
Huh History student here, most historians I know would absolutely not use the prehistory/history distinction. "Prehistory" itself is kind of an outdated word in academia, people generally talk about "proto-history" to explicitly imply that the study of cultures without writing is still history. Also archeological evidence are obviously historical sources. Today, if you study the Middle Ages, you HAVE to use archeological evidence whenever possible.
I completely missed the point, but what does this have to do with HEMA? HEMA was invented when prehistory and history distinction existed. When talking about HEMA we infact talk about living history. Don't history students learn at the beginning of any studying to not use present views on history itself?
you are both wrong here. Pre-history (at least in the academic field of history) refers explicitly to pre-civilization or pre humanity. put simply basically anything before humans started grouping up and building things. anything prior would be the territory of paleontology. you could say the field of history is more specifically the study of past stories. prior to civilization there isnt much "story" yet. as for mike there....completely aside from the fact it is damn near psychologically impossible to separate the modern lens from the study of history because personal experience is the lens from which we determine anything and everything in our lives. what is known about history is a changing thing. the field of history is not like math, where 2 will always = 2 . 50 years ago as far as historians at the time were concerned the city of troy was as fictional a place as the elysian fields in the greek afterlife myths. but then one adventurous historian taking the Iliad more literally, through his more modern perspective, found the city. so now we know that Troy was a real place that fought at least 2 wars with Mycenean Greeks. the as the perspective changes what we know about history changes. thus, what does this have to do with HEMA? well them excluding bronze age fighting styles because there was no writing and called "pre-history" by the hema elitists, is frankly... horse shit they arbitrarily decided upon in spiteful opposition to any actual historian.
As someone who works with military technological treatises (not late medieval fencing books though) I will just throw in this point to consider: treatises present theory and ideals. And the audience of these were probably noblemen. They might have learned fighting from that, very orderly, according to strict rules. But this has probably little to do with practice on the battlefield. Most soldiers wouldn't have learned from these books, I believe. Here is the thing, when you talk about "martial arts" I would say you refer to something developed which has rules, which is worthy of the term "art". I wouldn't call all combat an art. The thing is, it needed to have been considered an art in its time, and the fencing books are a good display of considering fencing a martial art. The focus on the meaning of the word "historical" is not as important as considering what a "martial art" is. I would just call it "historical combat techniques", the term "art" I would consider a bit problematic. Because martial arts simply refer to systems like kung fu or karate.
Here's the problem though: martial art does not have that meaning. Both Systema and Krav Maga are classified as martial art, both of which were deliberately designed for and used in modern combat (by the Russians and Israelis respectively). Kenjutsu, as a martial art, encompasses all forms of japanese swordsmanship and is understood to be the battlefield application of it, whereas Kendo is far more limited and regulated. Muy Tai is a martial art, and was 100% conceptualized and used in combat. So the definition of martial arts is by no means as limited as you might think.
@@draochvar9646 There is a current definition of the German equivalent "Kampfkunst" though and it contains the following requirement: needs to have technical systematisation and be taught professionally through paradigms, needs to be part of a normative framework. This is given through the fencing treatises for example. But couldn't be reconstructed through experimental archaeology. Maybe that makes it clearer why I think the focus should be on the use of the word "martial arts", not "historical". The examples you named are also named systems, somewhat normative frameworks. Of course these techniques can be used in actual combat, but not every soldier would have learned like that. There is also combat that doesn't follow the rules and that's what can be discovered through practice and experimenting.
So, basically I think one should differentiate between HEMA, a sport based on late medieval fencing books that tries to recreate that system, and on the other hand just trying to figure out how people fought in the past, how they used weapons. Question is whether there was a fencing sport with strict rules such as today in which people were using blunt swords or so. If yes, then it is valid to reconstruct that sport. On the battlefield though one doesn't do sports, one tries to survive. That also includes such techniques as backstabbing and so on...
@@kadda1212 I can agree with that differentiation. Especially if we apply the Kampkunst definition, since it's a lot less ... mushy then martial arts. I primarily took issue with "I wouldn't call combat an art" since martial arts like the aforementioned Systema is a fighting style that lends itself to nothing but combat. It's like saying a gun isn't meant to shoot things. The japanese actually kinda have that, with things like kendo referring to the reglemented 'martial sport', whilst kenjustu referrs to the actual combat use of the blade.
@@draochvar9646 What I meant is that I wouldn't call just any kind of combat on the battlefield an art. I don't like the use of the term "art" being applied to killing anyways, and on the other hand actually wouldn't apply the term "martial" to fighting sports. It's not the best term, but it derives from the fencing treatises itself and was then applied to Asian fighting styles. But the term has Renaissance written all over it: Let's make reference to an ancient Roman god, and let's use the term "ars". I find it nonsensical to use this term at all when talking about fighting systems of other cultures.
Shad, you bring up an excellent point and that is the fact that (in my own words) one should not get so bound up in narrowly focusing on treatise techniques when how those techniques actually perform in practical application is the most important aspect of keeping any martial art pure. This is a huge problem in non-European martial arts, leading to McDojos and crap techniques that are ineffective in practical application either in self-defense, mma competition, or actual life & death combat. Sure, one can study the techniques simply for the sake of studying them with no intent to do anything with that knowledge, not even sparring, but WHY do that? If, as many have said, HEMA is meant to be an accurate recreation of it's acronym then why not discard the rubbish, garbage, or dangerously ineffective techniques? And why discard the crap techniques? Because they'd have gotten someone killed 500 years ago, or at least beaten, defeated, wounded, or maimed. That Mark guy that Matt mentions, that whoops everyone's arse at Brit HEMA tournaments, IS a HEMA practitioner because he's picking up a historical weapon, using it in the best biomechanically sound manner to defeat the strictly by the manual crowd, and THAT is what real medieval etc people did. It's what people do to this day! We see it all over youtube too, fake martial arts/artists exposed and long-practiced martial arts found useless as anything other than physical fitness techniques. (That's only a slight exaggeration, even considering that those "arts" can only prevail against the untrained lol). Yeah. HEMA needs to check itself lest it go down the historical path already laid out in the martial arts world that lead to McDojos, Frank Dux, and the like. Great video!
I know of one HEMA McDojo and funnily enough they believe they are doing the 'real' historical longsword. It fulfils McDojo criteria because they have a very long grading system of levels and classes, never compete and never interact with other schools as everyone else does things the 'wrong' way. The founder runs it as a business and makes a lot of money. He took me aside when I visited and told me point blank that what I am doing sparring in full gear is not the real deal (tournaments and sparring..). He is somewhat correct in that modern protective gear produces artifacts and people are less careful, but it was a bit weird. However what they do in their school is not so good in my opinion - it is basically poorly-interpreted stage fighthing that is never pressure tested wtih protective gear - which is not at all historical as longsword Feder fencing in the style of Meyer was a bloodsport so you do need protective gear to avoid giving people brain damage and bleeding heads. To do Liechtenauer and recreate duels you definitely need gear as you can't practice thrusting and cutting with full force without it. Everybody else I have interacted with generally accept that what we do is try to be as historical as possible but use modern safety gear so we can enjoy real, full-intensity fighting as that is what is most fun and tries to be the closest to using an actual sword. And the vast majority of people don't make any money out of this, in fact it is quite expensive to maintain. We are just lunatics who do it for pure enjoyment.
I don't know. it seems to me that you are more or less arguing semantics, but largely agree with Matt Easton. I think what he says has merit. If I take a sword, and go around swinging it with no training whatsoever, is that HEMA, just because I could get lucky and come up with something that is actually viable--without studying any historical sources whatsoever? I daresay no, and I don't think any reasonable application of the word "historical" would apply to that. While "historical" should definitely include anything we can study and glean information regarding historical arms and their use/techniques, I do think there has to be some sort of standard that counts as HEMA.
That whole argument reminds me on the reenactment/living history debate that spurs up when someone asks "nice clothes, do you have any sources on item X"? So often the answer is "no, but they weren't stupid back then".
@@Glimmlampe1982 That makes sense to a degree, but when talking about historical combat, at what point do you draw the line of "plausible technique" and "making it up?"
@@shawnwolf5961 that's the point. If you want to call it 'historical' you need to base it on historical facts (like treatises, descriptive accounts or images). Which are always changing with new sources, so it's always "to the current knowledge"
The line between what's historical and not is hard to draw, since it's a matter of accuracy rather than black or white. I don't think a sword tells you enough about how to use it. It tells you some about how to use it (and only the specific sword you're physically holding) from your modern point of view, so if anything you'd end up with a modern type of martial arts that you can name after yourself if you want.
Hi, archaeology student at Universitiy of Zürich here We actually learn experimental archaeology as a valid method, as is reasonable. We of course also lern about th problems of the method, just as we learn about the problems of for example typochrologogies. Another method which I actually regard as pretty bad...
Using guns as weapons can be a martial art as well. We're also ignoring the usage of firearms in a historical context. More broadly, there's nothing that says "martial arts" is limited to melee combat. Archery, the use of slings and other projectiles are examples that count as well. Looks like the wider misconception is that people think that HEMA is just swords/maces/polearms/shields/etc.
Mostly, this is incorrect. Lots of us in HEMA also study missile weapons, for which there are also treatises and plenty of sources. I study bayonet for example, but I also shoot the firearms of the same era. I also shoot historical bows and consider that HEMA and yes there are some very cool archery treatises. Where there are not treatises available, if course we have to rely on other historical sources for research, but using historical data is what makes it HEMA.
Ohohoho, Shad is getting rightfully, academically cross here! I love your take here. The manuscripts aren't perfect, they are just one lens of the history.
It's really similar to modern US History textbooks in certain areas referring to "state's rights" being the cause of the US Civil War. Historical texts are very often intentionally misleading and/or biased.
@@internetuser8922 So by your example of United States history, someone can take a drawing of a US battle and then recreate it and then decide in their own mind the historical tactics used? Shad makes no sense here. If you aren't studying written texts then what "history" are you drawing on?
The treatises indeed are not perfect historical sources, but for the late medieval period they make up about 90% of what we know about the use of weapons in close combat. If someone doesn't like the treatises, that's fine. But to ignore the treatises, when they are clearly the absolutely primary source we have surviving, would be very silly. I can't imagine a person being genuinely interested in historical medieval combat and not wanting to study the treatises (or learn from someone who had studied them).
I'm gonna have to disagree on this one. I'd not consider a sword on its 'own' a valid "source" of martial knowledge, you'll gain accurate understanding of how the sword "acts", the mechanics of the object, its balance, weight, etc, but that's just the object, it does not validate the person who swings it around randomly (whether he successfully wins a bout or not with an opponent) to be doing an actual historical form of swordsmanship, because it's non-confirmable. The object on its own doesn't neccersarily tell us how it was used, beyond the very few "obvious" things (ie: it has a point, it was most likely used for stabbing, etc, but even then, it's a guess at best and isn't a good measure of what a fully developed technical system of fighting would have looked like). Using an historical boat is not a good example to compare it to, because all you need is the object to recreate it. Historical sword remains tell us what they looked like and what they were made out of, and those artifacts DO tell us how to make an historically accurate sword (in apperance and material at least) as an object, but now how they were used physically by the people who held them. In the same manner, it would be wrong on the basis of recreating a modern Viking boat alone to claim you knew how the boat was 'operated' and how the crew arranged themseves, (for example you'd not know about seating arrangements, sail operation, how they held the ores, the rhythm of rowing, nor the drum they used to keep pace. All these things had to be learned from other sources outside of just the boat itself as an object to give us a complete and accurate picture of Viking boat operation). To say you're doing "martial art" or even a single "move", that is at least somewhat historically valid, you need to have a source (whether in writng or otherwise, pictures, artwork etc) of the "technique" used with the object, in order to say you're doing something historically authentic when it comes to the "movement" of how you're wielding it. The definition HEMA uses for "historically authentic martial art" at the minumum standard is; a 'collection of moves' done with an historical weapon confirmed in a source which shows or hints the physical movement of the 'individual' holding that object. Remember it's call heMA because it's "martial art". Using untrained people from the period as an example and stating they did whatever they wanted or what worked does not classify what they did to be a "martial art", if we were to include such, then we'd no longer call it HEMA, we'd call it HEPA (historical european peasant arts) or HEWW (historical european whatever works). "Martial art" refers to a series of physical actions performed by a human within the continuity of a system. A weapon alone does not show us physical actions of the people who would have used it. It's like picking up a stick in a field and whacking someone on the head and saying "that's how Robin Hood did it, I just confirmed it by doing it!" (I know he's fictional, but you get my point). You may have discovered a valid way to use a stick, but it doesn't confirm anything about Robin Hood and how 'he' used the stick. It doesn't mean he's not a good stick fighter, but he can't call himself "a Robin Hood" stick fighter, and this mentalilty extends to the historical periods and weapons in "general", and especially so of their "martial arts". Now you can fill in gaps and move freely I agree, once you have a basic "premise", system, framework or collection of historically valid principles to operate from. As waving your weapon in any way physically possible, IS historically "feasible" (and I'm sure many trained swordsmen had to to fight peasants just flailing their swords about like crazy people), and therefore should not be discounted, but neither should it be seen as historically valid as the "professional art form" of swordsmanship, but rather, an action people "could have freely done" if they wanted to, and so allowing modern day practioners to operate on the same logic, but it would be "catergorised" as such; someone being random with their sword, and it certainly is the responsiblilty of a professional HEMAist to respond to whatever an opponent throws at them (skillful or unskillful), using the martial knowledge they have to the best of their ability (adaptation to the situation is an important and universal martial skill within all systems, and therefore is historically accurate, so long as it's launched from a confirmed historical base 'first'). IMO, the only... "validity" a person could claim by swinging the historically accurate weapon around without sources detailing any techniques, would be HEPA, that he was an historically accurate untrained peasant learning to fight and creating his own art (which of course how all these arts began in the first place, experimentation and experience). Now someone doing HEPA, may actually come up with a really good sword fighting system! But that would be regarded a modern creation based on his own modern day experience and orginality, and not something that was an historical system confirmed by source. But of course, the irony is, if you did that 700 years ago, wrote it in a book, and people studied that book today, THEN it would be authentic HEMA. (Ahh semantics). I think this is the main confusion/fallacy Shad is making. The METHODLOGY one is using to learn/create the art of the sword is historical, but the ART or end product he CREATES through that method would be a modern day creation, not an historical one, and therefore not HEMA. A good way to see it is, sewing, you might use a sewing machine from the 1800s, but if you sewn a Pikachu picture on a shirt with that machine, it would not be an historically accurate shirt from the 1800s, but rather it was just "made" in an "historical way", and this is how we view HEMA and the arts of these weapons. Using an historical "method of creating" a sword art does not confirm that's how "sword arts" would have looked back in the day.
Humans have used swords for thousands of years. Any single technique, that anyone today try to use has at some point or another been used throughout history. So I find this entire situation just funny.
I've seen the argument in the comments that it should just be ema as then we don't have to rely on 'what was probably done in history' and can focus on what works
Yeah people forget that we have the exactly same body plan and biomechanics as our ancestors, if it works for us, definitely one of them figured it out.
Don`t you love when two gentlemen have a disagreement ? I honestly love it ! it build so much knowledge for both of the parties involved and for us the observers ! with the greatest of respect for all of you , i say ! keep " fighting " keep searching and lets get to the bottom of this !
As a Scadian that's used the wrap shot in combat both tournaments and on the field, there are actually different techniques between the shot used in tourney vs on the line (field combat). And I trained, as most medieval soldiers did, with a small group of highly skilled fighters that learned from their knights. Knights passing down skills to their apprentices is ABSOLUTELY historically accurate. And you wanna know how effective the wrap shot is? I started using it with no instruction, and our knight paused the fighter practice to break down how effective it is and why. It's just something you naturally pick up. It's very intuitive. If I, a then-18-year-old pleb, could pick up this technique all on my own, so could literally any skilled martial artist.
You know, that's an excellent question. We used rattan swords in place of steel. They're about the right weight, stength, and density to approximate sword combat. So no. I haven't tried to cut anything with it. But I have a nice ding in the back of my helm from my sparring partner getting me with a wrap shot. It's a good steel helm, again, not perfectly accurate, but a good approximation. I'd love to see a demo of it with live steal and more accurate armor.
@@alethearia If I may offer some advice from the point of view of a gatekeeping HEMA elitist: see about getting your hands on a decent quality sharp sword and try to cut something with your wrap shot. Ideally, try wrapping your target in some kind of textiles and cutting through it. You might be surprised as to the results.
Sounds like a worthy experiment. But I wonder, why cloth? If the goal is to damage or disorient the opponant with a shot to the back of the head while helmed, why does it need to cut cloth?
Been waiting for this video since I first watched Matt's (whom I also respect and am subscribed to). This was my comment on his video, "Some approaches to history requires a great deal of filling in the blanks left by missing sources. What I mean is, the number of existing HEMA sources probably comprise a tiny fraction of the number of actual techniques that have existed throughout history. It seems that some people who take issue with only using sources, would rather use the existing sources to extrapolate what might have also been, through testing and experimentation. Just my two cents." I have to say, you did a better job explaining than I did.
I'm not involved in HEMA, and so have no opinion of it myself, but you seem to be missing the point of what he's saying. I would compare it to, say, Judo. If you were to hear people describe it, especially as "trips" or "throws", you would be very unlikely to be able to recreate it in any accurate way. In addition, if dealing with sources that are not directly tutorials, you are likely to be sifting through embellishment and fictional accounts recounted by those without actual training or combat experience (such as the authors of manga or anime). And so for something like HEMA or whatever, it seems valid to question what modern recreations are actually _historical,_ and which are modern inventions based on a misunderstanding of a possibly fictional tale. In this way, we can only know that things from "the Manuals" are actually historical, as they are written with that purpose at that time, and so have a minimum of modern interpretation or invention. In this case, it seems you're focusing exclusively on the definition of "history", when based on the clips you played of his, that seems to be a minor point for him. In particular, the reason he is dividing "history" from "archaeology" is probably because, while archaeology can inform us about artifacts, locations, times, and large events, it can't tell us about techniques or methods - for that writing, or at least oral tradition, is really required. It would be like trying to recreate a dance from olden times. We might know what kind of shoes they wore, and so what dances would be fitting. We might have pictures of people dancing to give some idea of what it might have looked like. We might even have a story describing people dancing. But we can't actually know to any degree of historical certainty what the steps to the dance were or the pacing or music it was danced to without sheet music, instructions, and the like.
With Judo you have to look at where it came from. Judo is basically a "modern" sport from of Jujutsu. Where students could practice grappling without breaking an opponents bones and having a "win" or ippon (killing blow) without killing - it also had a name change and ended up as BJJ in Brazil when Japanese Judoka emigrated there. There are many arts around the world that have sprung up around the world that are much like "Judo" even though Judo itself has an historical element. Old Irish Wrestling (Coiléar agus Uille) has many techniques that are the same as Judo, Mongolian Bokh wrestling again similar techniques to Judo, Georgian wrestling basically brought about a number of changes in Judo, Shuai Jiao from China could be confused with Judo if you didn't know better, of course Sumo has a huge number of throws from Judo and Jujutsu.
Couldn't you learn about techniques from an artifact, though? Like, if a bunch of swords at a battleground burial have cuts on the same part of the blade, that could mean the people using those swords probably were trying to hit with that part of the blade. And other such inferences...
@@thedanielhicks You could make guesses, but whether anything you recreated from that were historically accurate would be a craps shoot. Was that where they struck? Is that where they blocked? Is that where a completely different culture was trained to block the blade? Did they favor side cuts, overhead, stabbing with an occasional cut, diagonal cuts? What was the footwork like? What kind of grip did they use on the blade? Some of these you can make guesses at to a degree, but overall an artifact cannot tell you about what techniques definitely were used with it, or in what situations.
Planning to do a video on MK9 kostumes I see .... don't forget they weren't afraid to show femininity just a few days ago while still being strong and compelling characters
Great video! I don’t think Matt’s opinion has change, but rather that he reframed to a more strict definition of HEMA. As you demonstrated, he obviously agrees that is all Historical, just not “Historical” by some stricter definition. Any HEMA practitioner I’ve learned from describes how we fill in the gaps - experimental archeology, other martial arts, and modern sports science. Also, the first thing I did when I first held a sword, was study how it moves in my hand. So many times I’ve come up with a sequence on my own, “the Chad move” 😂 that, later on, when I’m reading the sources, trying to interpret a play, something clicks and I realize that what they’re describing is what I was already doing! The effect is that I’ve learned to trust my intuitions, and the intuitions of others, especially when the source material echoes my own experimental archeology! The great benefit of the treaties, is that they often come with the wisdom of experience, that I don’t always have, lending me the context, warnings, and ways to compensate for the weaknesses of, “Chad’s move”, ultimately making it more effective. A perfect example for me, is the “Rose” as described in Meyer and Mair Longsword and Dussack - It took me and my instructor experimenting with it a lot before we were confident that our interpretation was, if not correct, then something valid. I think the confidence we have in a source is part of the muddying of these waters. Labelling something historical has been conflated with tangibility and confidence that it’s true. Confidence is really difficult, even with a treaty or manual, and the irony is that the addition of experimentation to the sources is what ultimately gains you the confidence to believe it may have been historical. The next conflation has to do with assuming that a sequence working makes it historical, but I let that one go, as historically accurate, but you don’t really want to do that, but know how to exploit it! 😂
I watched Matt's video and I'm pretty sure I heard him say that the treatises are not the only sources for HEMA and that studying other documents, paintings, carvings etc could also fall under the HEMA umbrella. Looking at it as impartially as possible, I have to say that if I were to use the Bayeoux tapestry for example, to try and replicate Norman combat techniques, I would be using a lot of quess work, personal interpretation and experimentation. Nothing wrong with this but it has to be acknowledged that this is not the same as a, if he does this, I do this type of manual. The more personal opinion one has to put in, the further it grows away from what we know was done in the past. I think someone crosses an ethical line when they say they are teaching an historical art, when they are purely instinctively taught, this was done to death with ninjutsu and how long did that argument go on for! This type of debate is only of worth to those who care about others judgements of them, be happy and swing away!
If I buy a katana and try things to see what works, I'm not practising Iaido or Kendo. The same things applies here. Experimenting with a sword is fun, but it's by definiton not HEMA. That's not gatekeeping (everyone is MORE than welcome to come and train with us). If you are painting impressionistic art and calling it bungee jumping, me being a bungee jumper and pointing that out to you is not gatekeeping.
Here's the thing though: Neither of those arts make the broad sweeping statement of representing all asian martial arts that have been historically practiced, whilst HEMA, BY ITS VERY NAME, does. Add to that, both Iaido and Kendo are hyper-ritualized forms of martial arts, with very little connection to the actual combat application and the entire comparison fails. So yes, if you were to swing about a historically accurate katana and would become so proficient at it that you could win a fight with it, you wouldn't be doing Iaido/Kendo. But you would more than likely do Historical Asian Martial Arts.
@@draochvar9646 Would I not be doing "martial arts"? There would be nothing historical about it as I'm creating it as I go. I wouldn't even dare call it Asian, because I'm not Asian. (If I were, Asian Martial Art would be okay I guess. :) )
Exactly Shad. I have spent over 200 hours in blade and sorcery before ever swinging around a real sword. Obviously swinging a controller around in VR is not the same as swinging a real heavy steel sword, but it did teach me a lot about sword fighting in that game. Like how to anticipate strikes, how to block and parry, to some degree... and also how to counter their sword movements and shift the weight into my favor. There's much more to sword fighting than just "how to swing your sword." There's a mindset that goes into it. Knowing when to strike, knowing when to respect your opponent and not be risky, and so much more. If playing around with foam swords or sticks in your backyard helps you learn some of those principle, I would say it's time well spent if you ask me. Let the gatekeeping stop. Let's let people embrace their enjoyment of the sport and art of sword fighting, it just means more people who may be drawn to the craft, and thus increasing our hobby more and more!
@@EntropicEcho I remember when I started, there were much more edge on edge contact due to poor edge alignment. I have not seen that in years now that the people in my group learned who to properly control the bind, meaning trying to get on the opponents flat instead of just pushing against their edge.
@@MrQuickben When fencing with feders it doesn't really matter because they're blunt, with sharps you can choose to have the swords "bite" into each other a bit, which allows for easier manipulation of the opponent's blade. However, for some parries like Lecküchner's Bogen you want the opponent's blade to slide off your own blade instead.
History was very experimental. I think HEMA should be exclusionary as to streamline it in the pursuit of it being learnable and especially teachable (learning a base and a few special things works better than learning the base and all special things especially on a higher level, that's the reason we have different teachers for different classes in schools) for a regular person with intrest in it
There are good reasons to do that, but if it is to be that way, it needs to be named/defined differently. There shouldn't be historical european martial arts that don't count as Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA).
Also pretty interesting thing about history in general is how many historians argue with each other. Reading the debates in regards to Trojan Franks is a back and forth spanning hundreds of years between historians that didn't live at the same time
@@bluesun5429 yeah, that's fair. IMO the name change would just make more sense than the change into basically everything goes. The name is kinda bad for what it's trying to be
@@mykulpierce that's in nearly all sciences if you dig deep enough. My favorite example is that how I speak is considered German in Germany and Dutch in Belgium with the Netherlands considering it an entirely own language, all of which are based on some linguists (and applied for political purposes)
That's a valid reason for classes to be exclusionary, but not the definition of HEMA. To continue with your school metaphor, just because a class is not taught at your school does not mean it doesn't qualify for the title of school.
The issue, Shad, is that you want probability to be the deciding factor of historicity, when in reality, we can't even properly quantify that probability. Even when probability can be properly quantified, in many cases, it's still a terrible way to determine reality and history should be about what happened, not about what we think could maybe have happened based on nothing other than what is happening in the present. You can't call it historical unless you can confirm it through a historical source.
Hi Shad, great video as usual! I think we all know this is largely a battle of semantics. I'll give you my opinion as a HEMA practitioner, hope it's useful :-) I joined Rosa e Spada in 2008. We practice I.33, Fiore and the Bolognese school. We also do 11th century reenactment so you might say I've experienced both sides of this "dispute". I joined the club in 2008 because I was curious whether we had any martial arts in the western world during the middle ages. I can see now how stupid I was at doubting it since the expression "martial art" is Latin in the first place, but regardless of my stupidity I was really curious XD I went online and quickly learned about my local club and how they were studying the teachings of ancient masters. I joined the club for the sole purpose of learning a martial art, as in a "figthing system". I was curious about that, I wasn't really trying to learn how to fight with a sword. That perspective has dominated my life as a HEMA practitioner. For instance I don't particularly like tournaments. I have competed in some, and I had a lot of fun, but I have always seen them as ultimately pointless, because my main interest was always in the fighing systems, not in the effectiveness of the techniques or of my fencing. On the other hand I have also enjoyed the conversations and experimentations with my friends during reenactments about how we should hold a spear, how we should use that particular axe etc.. It's a lot of fun, and intellectually stimulating. I always saw these two activities as complementary but different. To me when I'm wearing fencing equipment I'm doing HEMA, because I'm doing a martial art, a fighting system. Whereas when I'm wearing norman maille, sword and shield I'm experimenting, I'm doing a historical investigation. But again this is my point of view, based on the fact that I'm not really interested in being a good fighter (to me that is just a happy by-product :-D), so whether Fiore's teachings are useful or not is irrelevant, and that to me the expression "martial art" has always meant "codified fighing system". I would love to hear your thoughts about this :-)
Excellent rebuttal. I didn't understand Matt to be excluding art; but perhaps I missed that. In any regards I agree with your point about history, as Matt uses it, including art. While I find practical archelogy of the utmost importance in understanding the past, I don't see it as having the same weight of accuracy as records (texts, art, etc). It shows how it could be done, not how it was done. I do take your point that Matt was flippant in his rejection of practical archeology. Showing how it could be done, is a huge bit of evidence as to how it was done. It shows us what type of records to look for.
I think a good rule to keep in mind is “If it works it was probably used”. Just because there are no writings of certain moves or techniques doesn’t mean that they weren’t used. If you were in real combat you were going to use whatever worked best at that moment.
@@witalian1 this is I think the biggest issue. As hema gets bigger people are getting more and more interested in competition, in actual fighting. But that isnt what hema is, as you said. If people want to learn sword fighting, and perhaps relearn the skills of the past in a more practical and utilitarian manner, there needs to be a different term for what they are doing.
@@witalian1 With this mentality we should just use manual techniques, and use only exact measures ignoring all common sense, nothing is HEMA then, you need the exact same armor with no divergence, the number of rivets should be always the same, the fighters should be limited by the height of the knight at the time, the colours should be the same, at this point is just an act
@@borislavkrustev8906 as a counter to this find me any modern martial art that is based on treateses rsther than experience and what amounts to an prał tradition. Many moves in martial arts come from specific practitioners thst popularized them in high exposure events, so tournaments. The modern equivalent is video. However not even videos will teach you or explain how Mike Tyson or muhammed ali fought and fight. Youd have to go to them, train under them, to learn their specific way of foghting and then you being someone different will adopt what you can and create everything else. Any good martial artist realize thst the tradition gives you all the basics in the world and you must then Express yourself in that art, or eventually be destroyed for being too orthodox.
@@Narguhl "Could have built it" and "Actually built it" are two completely different things, ancient people they could have done a lot of things and yet they didn't so it's not how the word "historical" is used at all (and I know you said that's Shad's opinion)
I think it should be called HEIMA historical European inspired martial arts . I stopped trying to practice with others a long time ago while still taking advantage of texts and translations provided by dedicated scholars in the community. One of the big problems is that people in general have low spatial reasoning. And this confused to me to the point where I did some research on the subject. There are studies in both architecture and medical professions about training spatial reasoning in order to develop the ability to interpret 2D images into 3d mental abstractions. Basically for a person's ability to take a flat image and correctly interpret that into reality. It's a skill that does not come naturally to all. I blame this basic principle for why there are so many interpretations based on Old historical texts. That so many people can look at the same thing and walk away with a different interpretation. Also footage of cane fighting from 1800s and early 1900s seem to indicate a very different type of style in Europe then the idea of trading blows often associated with Hema enthusiasts. Sword fighting specifically is likely a continuous flurry of strikes that take the momentum from the last strike in the next. But this brings up another point is the overemphasis of the sword over other implements!
@@An.Unsought.Thought not just for the artist but also for viewers. Works both ways! It goes to show as well that with any sort of combat proficiency there must be sparring. There must be practice and experimentation with body mechanics. Just like how learning to box from a book is not sufficient.
It seems to me that, even though that's not how people are phrasing their arguments, the whole debate actually hinges more on the martial arts part than on what is historical. I think that saying that you practice a martial art will, in the mind of most people, equate to the study of a specific established system, as opposed to trying to discover what obviously works and was very likely done by others trying to use the same tool for the same purpose. You're absolutely right in saying that HEMA, taken as a field of research, should include experimental archeology, but as a writer, I'm sure you'll agree that language evolves towards the most common interpretation of words and expressions by average people instead of remaining true to the words' initial definitions (which I happen to find very annoying). This leaves us with the current situation, where we argue not over if people should be doing one or the other but over which of the two is meant when we use the HEMA acronym.
@@Obi-WanKannabis From your comment i must assume you are one of those people that take the 1 Google Search Result for "Vaccines causes autism" and ignores the 99999999 Results that say the contrary.
You seem to have made a lot of connections between terms where there does not need to be any. Possibility of something happening is not the same as something happening. For instance just because I have means and time to fly to another country doesn't mean I actually did it. If I did AND I had a ticket to prove it then someone in the future can use that as a solid evidence that it happened. Otherwise they won't be able to say conclusively. Even more to the point: effectiveness is not the same as historical. It's possible that someone have done something in the past that was ineffective. It's possible that they even taught other people that and wrote it down. Just because they could have done that thing effectively doesn't mean that they did it effectively. It does however mean that it is historical. HEMA doesn't try to be some total descriptions of all fighting done in the past in Europe. It simply focuses on the parts of the fighting that are well sourced as most likely what happened and doesn't claim that other things that could have happened actually happened. Just because we don't know exactly how some skirmish in some isolated part of Europe looked like doesn't mean it didn't happen or that we can't speculate how it happened. It just means that we simply don't actually know how it looked like and most likely never will, and that is fine. I think you just need to accept that there are gaps in knowledge that without proper sources will never be filled. Just as you can assume and come up with techniques that are effective and therefore could have been used, someone could come up with all sorts of unwritten rules, customs, beliefs that could have influenced different techniques and ways of fighting. Even simple things like different shoes and being used to completely different way of walking could have changed it drastically.
I love both your and Matt's videos and I think you both belong in HEMA!I think the disagreement here boils down to level of certainty about historical accuracy and the threshold one uses to merit something as "HEMA." Those in Matt Easton's camp would prefer the threshold to be high (basically written sources and pictures only). This is understandable, especially from a scientific standpoint. However, from a more practical standpoint (like experimental archeology), it can appear exclusionary. Anyone who sincerely researches and practices historical European martial arts should be welcome in HEMA conditional only on the understanding that different tactics/methods have various degrees of historical certainty.
I think the biggest contention for me in this debate is HEMA is both a historical reenactment and a Martial Art. The few martial arts I've seen like Taekwondo are based heavily on one strict technique taught through specific manuscripts (which is what the "strict" definition of HEMA seems to stand for). However, practitioners don't seem to just be interested in learning these techniques but to also try to dress and live in a similar fashion to their historical counterparts, which seems far more akin to historical reenactors. And so we are at a crossroads as some prefer to follow the strict "dojo" approach, wheras others simply want to research the environment and attempt to recreate both the sword techniques and the methods to combat in the interest of preserving that knowledge of history. These two disciplines seem quite different, and perhaps a separate definition of the reenactment side could help to clear things a bit?
I am technically a HEMA Practitioner since I do WWII Combatives, but I am not so sure that I want to just come out and claim it. I do agree with Shad on this. One thing that I have learned is that pressure testing is a better tool for research and studying martial arts than reading a treatise or even watching a video.
@@markfergerson2145 both. I don't see the contradiction. The way I see it, if someone who has a deep understanding of body mechanics and he finds something that works against experienced fencers, that's HEMA too, but if you find something that works against your average joe, it doesn't mean that's a valid technic someone actually used to teach.
You realize that HEMA isn't a universal or homogenous thing, right? We all study varying things with varying definitions on techniques. Frankly, people within HEMA don't identify each other as having done "HEMA", we identify what sources and time periods we work with. The broad classification of HEMA is a convenient one, not an all-encompassing one. It works to better broadcast to the public what we're doing - we're not just some schmuck waving swords around in the backyard, but rather it implies that we're dedicated to teaching a martial art that is based off of historical sources, we're dedicated to a level of safety standards to keep people from getting injured, and we're ready and willing to pressure test those various techniques with other members of the community to see if they work or not. Also, like all group terms/language, it lets a person know what the focus is: if you want to learn how people lived and that includes weaponry, then you pick reenactment; if you want to experience medieval life with a vaguely fantasy lens, then you choose SCA; if you want to focus on horsemanship, then you pick jousting; if you want to focus exclusively on the weaponry of a time period and their techniques, you pick HEMA.
@@technicolortornado are you replying to someone else, cause i cant find anything in your beast of a comment thats specifically replying to my original comment, which didnt truly make any real statement itself anyway
@@cyrilgigee4630 you said, "it's nice to see HEMA getting some examination of late" as if HEMA is some huge institution that sets standards and needs to be brought down/examined. Like the term HEMA is literally a sheet we cover ourselves with to disguise how many things we cover/examine/argue about/etc. It's not one homogenous thing that requires fresh, quirky, anti-authoritarian outside perspectives to, IDK, show us how wrong we are? Like Shad isn't doing any of that. He's a frankly terrible fighter that appears to have no regard for actual sources, especially when asked what his sources are. And playing around in your backyard isn't a source. We all did that, congrats.
@@technicolortornado Matt Easton says it's not a sheet or blanket, it *is* a homogeneous organization, and needs rigid and clearly defined rules, standards and guidelines (history only runs up to 1945, does not extend to pre-history, needs to be based on specific treatises, etc) for lots of reasons that you would need an organization to be clearly defined (insurance, competitions, etc). I think the issue is language and individual perception - Matt, as a founding member of the HEMA Organization and as a HEMA instructor will have a different perspective of what HEMA is than someone who's been going to a club once a week after work for three months... the difference between historical European martial arts as an activity and Historical European Martial Arts as a specific organization, if that makes sense...
@@technicolortornado i said "interesting", not "nice", which i think makes my comment a lot more neutral than what youve taken it as. and i may as well admit that the reason i made a comment with so little of any real statement was simply that i was trying to comment on the video early with anything slightly more creative than "im early"
What you're talking about applies to all fields of study, but what makes combat interesting in particular is that this experimentation is constantly being pit against itself. This creates a sort of ecosystem of techniques, as well as a wide variety of styles. Combat in one location can be totally different from combat in another. The initial stages of combat experimentation become the foundation for an entire country.
"There's NOTHING that you can think up that hasn't been done historically before." ...He says to a digital camera, in a repeatable recording, on an online service, ultimately addressing more people at once, than the total people of at least two medieval centuries combined - and they thought the earth was flat! Do we even have an approximated numner on how many living, breathing swordsmen there would be on this planet at any medieval date? Do we have an approximation of how many sword enthusiasts that are alive in this very second? People have (historically) been incredibly resourcefull and inventive over the years. Now there's A LOT more of us. Each with thoughts in our heads. "There's NOTHING that you can think up that hasn't been done historically before." -Is that a challenge? I wouldn't bet on that statement. Anyways, I still totally agree with Shad, I just wanted to write a long comment.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 You can be very sure that a HEMA fighter will perform much better in a sword fight than every non practiced user. Just like a MMA fighter will perform better in a fist fight. The way you can train in HEMA is pretty effective concerning wielding a sword. btw. making stuff up wihle wielding a sword does not make the made up stuff historical.
There are a lot of people had made some good points in the comment section, I would add a few of my own. The first thing is the purpose of ‘HEMA’ movement. Is HEMA about ‘reconstruction of the martial arts tradition that used to prevail in Europe’, or ‘finding the effective way to fight with historical European weapons’? Different people who practice HEMA would have different goal in their mind of course, but in terms of the purpose of the movement itself, I would say both are important. And I want to emphasize the former, which is about to bring a subculture that has almost completely died out in modern day (we still have things like modern fencing, classical fencing, some form of folk wrestling, some stick fighting systems, etc. But most of the European martial arts traditions had already gone, and by ‘gone’ I mean there is no unbroken lineage last until today) back to life. And by learning the arts, we can have a better insight of the culture surround martial training of that time. For this part, I would argue that it can only be achieved by looking at the sources.
And here I want to discuss another important concept of this topic, that is, the concept of ‘martial art’. In a broader sense, any effective methods of fighting can be classified under this category. But things get different when it comes to the well-established, codified SYSTEM of martial art (which is what HEMA study primarily focuses on). Because they are more than just some ‘collections of techniques’ but also the underlying principles that thread these techniques together (e.g. preference of certain type of moves under a situation where other viable options exist). How these principles are codified (or even the very creation of these principles) are deeply affected by the culture of the time when the system is established and can’t be understand through ‘experimentation’ as it has little to do with the shape and function of the weapons themselves. A relatively simple demonstration of that would be making a comparison between rapier system in Spanish (Destraza) and the contemporary Italian rapier system. Despite the facts that they coexist in the same time period and are dealing with very similar weapon, the way they put those concepts together are significantly different. We can only have such insight by learning the system itself, and the best way to do so right now, is to read through and try to understand the source material. There is no way to learn that by sparring alone.
That’s not saying activities like this (I.e. sparring without getting into any established system) or ‘experimental archeology’ are worthless or somehow inferior to HEMA. If the purpose of your training is simply ‘trying out and see if you can find an effective way to use certain historical weapons’, then such activities would be perfectly valid, and I think that could be a good sport for people who just want to learn about how to fight with historical weapons and have little interest in history and culture. My point here is, since it doesn’t achieve one of the most important goal of HEMA movement, maybe we should put such activities into another category? (again it is not to imply that they are inferior to HEMA, they are just different enough to be classified separately)
Art historian here, just wanted to say I strongly agree and I have a non hema example to show why this is a fallacy. Sigmund Freud came up with a long theory about Leonardo da Vinci involving the interpretation of Leonardo's notebooks which can be easily debunked merely by viewing the painting in question. Basically Freud argued that Leonardo's account of a dream of a bird's tail tapping his mouth that had showed that he had latent homosexuality and you can observe this in the painting of the Virgin and Child with Saint Anne. Then Freud arbitrarily drew a line around the drapery in this painting to show a silhouette of a vulture. But anyone looking at the painting with or without Freud's outline would probably say that Freud was seeing exactly what he wanted to see, based on the writing being his primary source instead of looking at the painting first. Also, Freud mistranslated the word as vulture because he wasn't a scholar of 15th century Italian as a language. Vultures were seen as a feminine/homosexual principle by Freud, but Leonardo never said vulture and probably had no such association anyway. Also this basically has nothing to do with Leonardo's practice as an artist and yet Freud's argument eclipsed other interpretation of the painting for decades. Historiographically speaking this is laughable, but Freud was so influential that people just accepted this as fact. The truth is, you don't need to read Da Vinci's notebooks to paint like him. In fact it would be counterproductive. It would be better and faster to try to imitate the painting techniques by watching painting videos on UA-cam. Written sources are written by an individual human who are always going to have bias. Anyway, good job!
20:44 That doesn't sound entirely true to me because practicing yourself is only part of it. An iterative process of practicing, theorizing, and sharing information with other people, throughout a long period of time that spans multiple generations, is what makes more sense to me of what would paint a more complete picture of how the techniques were developed.
The problem with saying "figuring out swordfighting in your backyard = HEMA" is that it's so broad that HEMA has basically no definition at all. There's also the 'martial art' part of HEMA - surely this requires some form of systematization or codification, something that figuring it out manually in isolation isn't equivalent to. Just because people figured out different styles historically by lone practice doesn't mean modern lone practice creates HEMA - you'd be replicating the 'pre-step' to the development of a historical style, not an actual historical style.
If we look at MMA as an example, it's certainly classified as a martial art, but incorporates many different unique and specific disciplines. As such, there is no singular codified "MMA". Creation and adaptation of techniques is also entirely encouraged (so long as you can test them at some point with resistence) and this can be seen in much the same way as figuring it out in your back yard. Although most martial arts are systems or codes, is not necessarily the case definitionally.
Your comment brought up interesting question - is HEMA more heavy for the "History" or "Martial Art" part? Martial arts can develop, but history is history and can not be changed. I personally see HEMA as a museum, there are some historical textbooks on unarmed fighting - and what a surprise, those are not moves that are winning MMA matches.
I think the issue here is that we know, quite precisely, that most people didn't utilize the manuals historically. Most were not in mass production to be used. Thus, certainly to some extent, the products of sparring with these weapons *must* be taken to a certain degree of martial credit, because it is highly likely that historical people found the same results.
@@saint3614 But in essense there is an underlying holy trinity or sorts within mma, a striking art usually boxing, kickboxing or muay thai, a grappling art usually bjj, and wrestling. Principally making a system of mma, not strictly defined, but existant. Then each of those individual arts being largely systemised as well
@@thomastucker7317 Very true, but I think the key is "usually", it's not codified. Also true that it takes from systemised martial arts, but there are individual moves that fighters have created themselves also. Most of the top fighters in MMA have unique aspects, stances, and approaches that they've come up with themselves. MMA is, ultimately, a collection of things that have been tested and proven to work with resistence (Many of which, as you say, are indeed from systemised arts, but crucially, not all). Which I believe is a fair parallel to what Shad was saying.
Maybe functional yet undocumented forms of historical European fighting should be called speculative HEMA or experimental HEMA. Art and culture can count but also count in favour of normal HEMA, so it’s moot.
The only problem with that is that even within Treatise study... it's still speculative. Two schools studying the same treatises will come to different conclusions.
@@hailhydreigon2700 Actually nowadays, mostly on details. The most researched treatises - German and Italian - have to a big extent very similar interpretations across the globe. That's because we pressure-test it and eventually, the things that work are mostly the same.
Everything we know is incomplete and speculative/interpretation. Whether written, drawn or otherwise. We lose A LOT of information due to the test of time. So maybe HEMA in general should be called, my favorite suggestion, LHEMA (Limited Historical European Martial Arts). Since everything we know historically, is limited.
I would think the distinction is mainly one of purpose. Two guys brawling in a backyard is not HEMA. Two guys brawling in a backyard, while being observed by a third party for the purposes of observing how untrained humans fight (and, historically, likely fought) could be HEMA (and probably also unethical experimentation, but let's not go there). Two guys having a 'swordfight' with boffers (or even feders) is not intrinsically HEMA...but it could be HEMA if it's performed for the purpose of experimentation, determining what works/what doesn't work, and generally improving in their use of the weapon. Many people probably did learn that way throughout history, it would just not have been recorded as such. In general, I agree with you, but I think the people in the comments saying that "well, in that case ANYTHING is HEMA" are missing the point. Any kind of historical combat with historically accurate weaponry - performed mindfully - can be HEMA. That doesn't mean that every fight (whether involving sword-like objects or not) is intrinsically HEMA.
It's a little sad that there are so many people in the comments that simply watched the beginning and rage quit or watched it through the lens of their bias and didn't actually listen with the intent of understanding, merely to prepare rebuttals and arguments, that essentially are all appeals to straw men, false equivalencies, or no true scotsmen. This video is formatted as a video essay, as such the visuals are a guideline to provide a visual example of the words and arguments that Shad is making. At no point does he state unequivocally that the videos of him sparring with his mates in the yard is historical, exactly how the common medieval man would, or representative of battlefield combat. They are meant as placeholders for his arguments. For those who tl;dr-ed his video, Shad is making an argument that the actual meaning of the acronym HEMA is not apparently true in the way many of its members are using it, framing it in a response to Matt. While he is one of the creators of the term and thus one of the primary authorities on what it means, words have connotations, denotations, and etymology for a reason. Matt's video that Shad is responding to apparently slants very heavily to literary sources, while acknowledging that not all historical sorces are such. This is a weakness in the argument, and many in the community according to Shad- and many in this comment section- take this viewpoint further and ignore sources that are not treatises entirely. Shad never once said that Matt was one such, or that he argued such, merely that his own framing displayed the bias towards written sources while acknowledging that weakness in a slightly hypocritical way; likely unintentionally so. Shad then draws parallels to others who are attempting to actually recreate martial techniques in a historical way and respectful way for periods and regions that simply do not have many treatises or literary sources, and makes the argument that if they are doing so in a factual, period correct, and tested way, one cannot call that ahistorical, though he does not call it the 100% factual way it would historically be either, merely that it would be historically plausible or even historically likely, but certain members of the HEMA community still seem to look down upon them or call such endeavors, "not *real* HEMA" and that such thoughts are uncharitable and frankly untrue. I am not a member of the HEMA community, though it interests me, so I cannot speak to his examples of such, but like any essay they are *examples* of his arguments, not the totality of them. Finally, many argue three particular rebuttals: that Shad's view invalidates HEMA because then all historical combat/ dueling would have to be included; that Shad is merely whining that he isn't an authority or included in the HEMA space; or that this already exists in HEMA and thus his argument is invalid and pointless. To answer: Shad mentions thise who would study *European* martial arts, with at least some basis in primary sources such as art, artifacts, and yes literary sources, not anything historical or anything martial; Shad never called nor asked to *be* called an authority, he even called himself not particularly good, he simply said that if HEMA is truly historical there are many who are ignoring valid historical sources due to them not fitting their biases and views in the community, and that that should not continue; and finally Shad never said that Matt was ignoring sources or even that the majority of the community were, simply using Matt's video as representative and representation of those that he- and apparently many others- believe to be espousing such views. HEMA appears to be a hobby with many participants, some who don't fully agree what is and isn't "pure", and Shad was speaking out against those that wish to unfairly limit the hobby due to the parts they don't like not meeting some arbitrary standards while meeting the factual criteria for being HEMA, not those who rightfully believe that those who want to be revisionist, or want to smack each other with Buster swords and Muramasa should not be HEMA. Thanks to those who read, sorry about the rambling, and thank you to those who are actually discussing in a rational manner, hope this helps clarify some points.
Why is Matt Easton so adamant about what HEMA means? Because he and few other coined and created HEMA and have a clear vision about it.
On one hand you declare that you are not part of HEMA and on ther other you try to define HEMA new. Sorry, a lot of sentences repeat themself and make the same logic error. That if you hold the object and/or do at least some based "historic" moves you practice Historical European Martial Arts. I am sorry, but that is untrue. The moment you don't rely on the martial art itself, but divert from it you are creating a sport. That is exactly what the japanese dojos fight against for decades now. People who do what they want have no martial background, because the martial background comes from the treatises or the living tradition of such art. Simply when those where created or written it was used in a martial context. Just using martial arts as a bases does not create a new martial background, but rather a diversion from the actual martial art. What is called sport and that is why sport fencing exists. It may be true that you could call nowadays everything under the sun as historic, but surely not martial. If whatever you do diverts slightly from being a martial art, historic or from europe, it is not HEMA.
PS: If you do for example a pose from a historic european painting and it is indeed a true martial pose, what is not always a given. You do HEMA as long as you only do this pose. If you add now your own poses/moves/sequences too it, would it still be historic or martial? It would be experimental that is for sure. You may come to the idea of mixing different poses from different paintings together and for the sake of arguement those are all martial poses. Is mixing random martial poses still historic? We will never know. What should give a hint that it may not be so easy and why it takes years of research, where multiple sources are taken into account.
I still don't get why people just don't start EEMA (Experimental European Martial Arts) for example and use HEMA as bases for what they do. Everyone would be happy and I am sure most HEMA people enjoy doing for times EEMA too.
@@cod4mike810 Again, not the point. If Matt Easton, who created the term, wants to discount historical sources that do not fit his narrative- which I repeat he did not actually say, simply for the sake of argument- then the name he chose is not quite accurate, and as there are others that consider themselves as HEMA leaders that do this the point is valid because again Matt did acknowledge that other primary sources are valid, he just was unwilling to acknowledge them in the video that Shad was speaking about. Sorry about repetitions or errors as I was half asleep when I was writing that, but you brought up another great inconsistency I have seen; yes HEMA stands for Historical European *Martial* Arts as you specify, and it is true that when you start to create something for yourself it starts becoming a sport in martial arts, I was a Jujitsu practitioner for several years and I understand that argument. The flaw is this: by using martial arts that were used in combat in non lethal forms for competitions, are we not by definition creating a sport? So you're objection is again slightly a straw man and hypocrisy. Once again, while it cannot be said that it is exactly true that movement, katas, and attacks that someone recreating a historical martial art may find are logical, viable, and stress tested were unequivocally used in historical combat and context, the same can be said of some of the manuscripts, as the meme spawned by Skallagrim shows. No one is arguing that experimental recreation needs to be superior to the treatises, is 100% accurate to the historical practices, or is as plausible or as another commenter put it confirmable, simply that it is equally valid if done correctly and with the right purpose and intentions. Does that need its own term? Maybe, but since HEMA is supposed to be *Historical* European Martial Arts, the way it is currently practiced is essentially a sport that is derived from historical literary sources that no one can be 100% certain their interpretation is the correct or even only way of performing the combat maneuvers and styles, and Matt Easton himself- as repeatedly mentioned one of the creators- did acknowledge that other primary sources are valid, even if he did not provide ways to include them for whatever reason he had, it can be said that those who recreate a martial art from European history from primary sources with the intent to be as historically accurate as possible and combat viable as possible, regardless of use of treatises, is performing HEMA, and that is all that Shad was arguing for. Thanks for participating civilly, have a good day/ night (I live in the US).
Also; thank you for the heart and pin Shad, was just irritated by people misrepresenting your actual argument to create a moral or intellectual high ground, discussion should be exchanging and attacking ideas, not people, and there is a reason misrepresentation of someone's argument, intentional or not, is called fallacy. Have a great day and keep making great Content!
@@cod4mike810 "I still don't get why people just don't start EEMA (Experimental European Martial Arts) for example and use HEMA as bases for what they do."
Imo that's exactly what Matt Easton tried to convey! He gave a sensible lecture about what 'history' and 'ahistorical' means in a academic sense. It's not about what you do or not do to be part of the "elitist" HEMA-Scene. It's about whether it fits certain criteria to be called 'historical' for that purpose.
When people hear 'academic', I guess, many think of elitism and exclusivity to a small circle of "worthy" insiders. While there are annoyingly always individuals in research, who think of themselves this way, for the whole community of academic research (be it inside or outside of institutions) these allegations couldn't be further from the truth!
'Academic' simply means a certain scientific standard and procedure on how to put a theory or a thesis, how to gain data and how to share this data with others in the community and the broader public. By experience, it's the best way to gain new information, have a civilised discussion and to tackle bias on the way by constant cross referencing, debate and peer review. And everybody can be part of it, regardless if you have a degree or just study in your free time, as long as you comply with the scientific standard put up by the community.
Now to come to the semantics: History and 'historical' means not everything what happend in the past but whether there are written records of those events. Historians also always use other sources than written (pictures, archaeol. finds) to cross refference and further validate their subject but they are strictly bound to the timeframe for which they make a statement. I.e. you couldn't use a 2nd WW combat manual to write something about the army of Napoleon. That is what the 'H' in HEMA stands for. The treatises are the primary source. Everything else like fragmentary accounts, depictions and artifacts from the given time are for further check or confirmation.
And finally to the 'Experimental' part: If you want to make assertions about a subject in the past, be it in 'historical' times or in prehistory, where you don't have written records, you have a whole toolbox on hand other than history. You can use Archaeology (study of human artifacts), Physical Anthropology (human remains), Sociology, Art History, Ethnography, Material Physics a.s.o..
If you want to recreate a fighting syle from before the first written treatises and still want to be close to any source you can get hold of, it's Experimental Archaeology. Archaeology is more free in it's interpretations than history and can use a wide range of data inside and outside your timeframe, but always under the disclaimer that every theoretical conclusion is temporary and open to debate and new information. Archaeologists are even more obligated to meticulously present their thought process behind a theory and every single piece of data and still then it may fail the test of time, when there is new conflicting data or others find flaws.
So if someone experimentally tries to recreate a fighting style, they have even more work to do in planning experiments, get exact data, try to falsify their theory through changes in the setting, reevaluate, make it imitable and communicate their results for peer review. So much I like Shad personally, this is not what I see in what he and his lovable rascals are doing with their figthing. It's neither a 'historical' approach nor a strict and verifiable experimental setting and therefore not HEMA in it's 'academic', research oriented sense. Sorry to say that, but this is a mere "show and tell" with medieval clothing and sword replicas.
This whole debate is imho just about semantics. That's what I think and many critics in the comment section as well. Shad simply wants to push his broad definition of history while the majority in- and outside of HEMA is happy to use the scientific definition. That's not elitism or gate-keeping but simply one way to avoid misunderstanding and gain a certain structure for all to profit from. Roland Warzecha and other experimental researchers ARE part of the HEMA community. Although they don't practice HEMA in that moment, they adhere to the scientific standards, put their findings up to debate and therefore create a lively interest and respect from other HEMA-practitioners who might want to parttake in the research. In the tournaments (this is what I get by anecdotes) there are combatants who never studied the sources themselves or came up with a style by mixing and trying other styles and they successfully whoop as*es. They also are part of the community, just don't doing 'historical' EMA in that moment. It's always good to call out elitist and narrow minded behaviour of individuals in the Hema-scene, but this whole discussion, from what I learned, is not about it.
Hope I could put across my points half-decently. Sincere appologies for the long read.
Also I want to recommend the reply of "Schildwache Potsdam" to Shad's video: ua-cam.com/video/bxYR6jCjlrc/v-deo.html&lc=z23ddh4ibv2rwrvpw04t1aokglenfuvlyao4kloajk0rbk0h00410.1627056467499772
They make good points and clear some misconceptions. Also don't let you deceive from the ornate backdrop! It's not a expression of elitism but just a public park in the city and a nice scenery to make videos ;)
people in 3059: "I practice HEMA"
"oh yeah? what do you fight?"
"reddit agrumentation"
Scratch 3059. They are already doing this today.
@@ct7567CaptRex that’s not historical tho is it.
@@maxdavis7722 It's written and cataloged
I'm just going to assume reddit was created in America and say that ought to be HAMA.
HEMA - Historical Electronic Modern Arguments.
Person in the post-modern era, circa 3059
You just need to look at modern manuals of warfare used by the military. They will show many of the basic battle drills amd ways to use a weapon, but when you are actually getting trained, shit changes, we use these manuals as a guideline, a base, but things are almost always added to the Manual’s “correct” way, wether it’s in shooting,is wing equipment,
Shooting, etc.
These treatises are basics, guidelines, and probably where taught with a lot of oral advice and knowledge on TOP of them.
Yes doctrine doesn't restrict what you do it just gives you a framework to help analyze a situation and come to a decision.
Exactly. Sure they could show them how to use a sword and fight in battle but shit changes when your face to face with thousands of enemies the opposite side. Also it depends how your enemies fight. All your training is ok if your fighting someone with a similar style and tactic but against someone who used different weapons, styles and tactics all together then you better start adapting
If it's your life on the line you use what works, not stick religiously to what the "proper" forms might be. I'd presume that experimenting will not produce anything that wasn't actually used by at least some people during the centuries when it is something that really does work in a fight.
@@pohjanakka4992 well I mean that's why we mock fight to see how well things in thoery work in practice
I left a much worse version of this comment. 😂
Gentlemen, it is clear that this contest of HEMA definitions cannot be decided by the power of your UA-cam responses, but by your skill with a medieval sword replica..
That was suggested for the machicolations debate. They chose to talk it out instead.
Star Wars reference
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! MACHICOLATIONS FOR THE MACHICOLATION THRONE!
Even better we each have a solid Stick whoever draws first blood/first serious injury is correct:)
@@andrewmcguinness1845 I dont think khorne cares about whether the technique is historically accurate or not.
This feels kind of like a lingo issue here. For a lot of historians "historical" takes on a connotation of 'confirmable'. Which in an academic setting kind of makes sense to me, if only as just a useful shorthand. In this case we can understand the broader HEMA as on a spectrum of confirmability. Combat based off of manuscripts are more confirmable simply because of the available evidence. This differs from more experimental learning where there is less evidence. But that doesn't mean the method is necessarily ahistorical, just that we need to be more comfortable understanding this spectrum of confirmability. While I'm not sure this comes from elitism in the minds of academic historians, rather a noble respect for getting to the most factual understanding of the past. Where it ends up becoming elitest is the manuscripts were not always available to those in the lower classes of society, or those who happened to be antagonistic to those with the resources to create a manuscript. So, in terms of 'experiment' style, due to its lower amount of primary sources could be thought of as less confirmable, even if we acknowledge that these techniques still likely existed somewhere in the time period. And truthfully even when we think about those who learned directly from the manuscript teachers, it would be ahistorical to assume that these people learned the same way, followed instructions to the t, or that the author didn't have the kind of academic integrity we would look for today in terms of heavy bias, ignorance, etc. Which I mean European aristocrats? No they would never write with heavy bias and no one to check. . I don't know if all of this was said in the video because I started writing this 2/3s of the way through the video but yeah. There's my 2 cents I guess. Final message, never pretend that you can know the entirety of a time period if you haven't lived through it. Even then, we are probably in the matrix and this is meaningless lmao. Peace
@@witalian1 You can use as a base, you know that a punch hurt, so you know someone on the past can and most likely did punch smt, you know that wrong sized plate armor lock your movement so you know a the number of people who used it would be kinda limited, a long bow back them punched like a recreated longbow made today, so you can have a reference of effect, it's possible to make a historical research with experimental learning, you just need to know how to used it and don't bias youself, let's say, the longbow example "look, this gambeson stop this arrowhead with this poundage, that means that cloth armor can stop arrows" this is a partial truth, the complete truth would be "look, this experiment show that this arrowhead with this poundage CAN be stopped in THESE circunstances" and even if the info is not a 100% replica of what happen, example is Tod's workshop longbow vs plate armor, it is still a reference, with that video made today we know that the top knotch armor can stop arrow fire from high end bows, but we too know that mail would be made into butter, not just that but looking at the damage caused by the arrow, and even the speed of the horses, in Agincourt we can say that thinner armor CAN be penetrated by arrow fire, that would explain how that many people died in that battle (horse stomping can do only so much). A cross between a experiment done today to clarify or contradict historical events is still historical study
@@witalian1 Let's say Vincenzo del Tutti over 200 years ago (made up name)came up with a recipe to cook tomatoes into a paste, specifying temperature, time and ingredients, and called it "del Tutti paste.
Now imagine Margie Seward (also made up) last week perfected her tomato paste recipe after several trial runs, and had never even heard of Vincenzo del Tutti or his paste, and her tomato paste has very nearly the same ingredients, taste profile and consistency as "del Tutti paste" but her cooking times and temperatures were a little different.
-
Has or has not Margie made essentially the same tomato paste?
And what if Margie's tomato paste is better than del Tutti's?!
The reason why history starts with a period in which stuff can be confirmed to be written down is because history does mean to make testimony, bear witness or to recount. Writing is a way of making something that would otherwise be uttered to be more permanent. it isn't about being confirmed or true, it is about listening to or observing something and being able to tell it to others.
@Junior Read You make a fair point, but HEMA seems to be the tradition, where those who do the experimental archeology or practice to understand medieval weapons are more so the ones developing an art and utilizing a craft. And since HEMA is mostly restricted to dueling it should probably be called HED or HEMT. That being that stuff like battle of nations and the experimental archeology have more aptly developed a practical art or craft in weaponship. Meaning such pursuits would be better served if called HEMA over the practice of studying historical dueling traditions. Especially when martial is more pertaining to war and warfare and not dueling.
@Junior Read The thing is, the common source of martial arts in Europe (the art of combat) is not the manuscripts, they are only for a minority, the nobleman and rich who could afford them, with this logic we should follow the way that the majority of the soldiers learned, we should ignore the manuscripts, bc most soldiers woldn't be able to acquire them and use only common sense to fight, bc that's the historical way, the way that most people would've done
I think the actual key to this argument does not lie in the word ‘historical’ but the fact that it is connected to ‘martial arts’. For many people, ‘martial art’ means a system of fighting - like judo/BJJ/boxing etc. and wouldn’t consider something a system until it’s actually codified and taught as a discrete system. So while you can learn about general swordsmanship from reconstruction, art, and sparring, you aren’t learning any of the actual historical ‘martial arts’ - i.e. one of the actual systems that was codified in the period.
A reconstructed martial art is a modern martial art simply because it is being codified right now. But if it is based on historical evidence, then there is no reason that it shouldn’t be able to coexist as a historical martial art (in the sense of using historical martial techniques and weapons) with the traditional historical martial arts which practice actual historical systems from a manual.
Here's the thing though: Shit like Systema are called martial arts but it's just "how to fuck a guy up in the most effective way". Or Kenjustu, which is just the art of swordfighting, is classified as a martial art, despite lacking a consisten, codified system or rules.
The term martial art is far too ill defined to use it this restrictively.
No the key point being “Historical” because many of these fighting traditions have died out and weren’t written in manual scripts but we know they existed so that’s why its “historical”
I see your point, but I have a counter. HEMA isn't like Judo. Judo is a specific system, however, from my understanding of the term, HEMA is European Martial Arts. Europe is a big place, and has many martial arts.
If, for example, I made a new category of Chinese Martial Arts, you would likely agree that Kung Fu and Tai Chi are both Chinese Martial Arts. However, if someone came to me with a style that combined Kung Fu and Tai chi into a single style, a style that has never been systematically codified... it is still a Chinese Martial Art, is it not? The only thing that hasn't happened is that it hasn't been written down, but the moment the person writes down their thoughts on how to combine these two styles... it is codified.
And I think Shad has a very real point in discussing that many people would have been taught, not official styles with official names, but by an older warrior who gave them a weapon, told them which end was sharp, and then made them focus on what would keep them alive when using that weapon. And as such, it is completely legitimate to take the same equipment, and just figure out effective ways to use it. Because that is most likely how many of the common people learned how to use their weapons.
@@Chaosmancer7 good points! It’s been six months since I made that comment though, so I’m not super invested in the discussion anymore, if I’m honest 😬
I personally used the term "experimental archeology" to refer to the kind of "build knowledge from the historical object" you masterfully describe through the video, in opposition to "historical studies", which indeed wheighs upon books and treatises, or primary sources. It's just a terminology misunderstanding to me. Archeology is more relevant to what you describe to me. But then again, yes archeology is a part of history, so I have to agree on the broad conclusions you draw here.
Definitely agree here. I think history should encompass what can be inferred and discovered from artifacts or writings as a base. Every source will be inherently limited in the information they contain; writings and art can't fully capture an entire art that requires much practice and experimentation based on the source to make it work. Often there won't be sources as Shad says, so experimentation is far more necessary but equally valid as a study. Even just the weapons themselves can give an idea of how they were probably used, it's still historical to explore that process.
"There is nothing new under the sun"
I think his best response would be to emphasize European. Across all history they learned by picking up a sword and trying. But that's not specifically European martial arts. It's kinda HMA. But I agree with you personally.
I love Shad, but to be honest this video is kind of a mess. The first 20 minutes (I'm not watching the rest) is just rambling, I don't know what he's trying to say. He's fitting in a lot of facts and definitions that don't really mean anything. A good example is at around 15:00 he says that he learns from people who study treatise and you said it was HEMA because it is influenced by the treatise which makes total sense. Then, Shad says despite what people say, it is HEMA because it is influenced by the treatise secondhand, as if you didn't just say that. This type of messy thinking is not professional, he's just getting himself riled up and is saying a whole lot of nothing. I have to say, this video is of really low quality. There is so much filler in it, and there is no focus or main idea. I believe that most of what he is trying to prove is something unrelated to what you are trying to say, such as the example I gave. Does anyone else feel this way? I love Shad, but as someone who cares about him I think we need to reel him in when he gets off the rails.
@@chalichaligha3234 I get that, however so much of weapon fighting is similar. Like anything you can do with a stick you can do with any sword, but thats not specifically European martial arts.
Add new categories "Aristocrat"-HEMA and "Peasant"-HEMA :D
Aristocrat: you get tutor and you need follow exactly what he say
Peasant: you get metal stick and need to survive battle
Both approach are historical :)
still looking for battlefield HEMA with long pointy sticks but this i can get behind with xD
a different school of HEMA that is more exploratory might do the community good :)
This is actually a very good way of distinguishing what somebody is refering to
But the peasant version is not an defined art. Just like "streetfighting" is not an martial art just because Kimbo Slice wrote it as reference.
@@Narguhl MMA isn’t a defined art either.
Really HEMA is ‘peasant HEMA’ and the elitists who want to practice a certain SCHOOL/STYLE of HEMA yet want HEMA all to themselves, are just other peasants with the rest of us.
Time they accepted that fact...
@@Narguhl Don’t lie is pathetic mate...
Or maybe I’m jumping the gun, and you actually accept Shads definition of HEMA?.. that ‘peasant HEMA’(reconstructing through experiment without written sources etc) is real HEMA.
It is good to see that the primary parties, Easton and Shad, are respectful and considerate, even accepting, of each other's perspective. Pity that not everyone is. Thank you, gentlemen.
Historians can get pretty brutal. Especially when blades are involved.
It's also worth acknowledging that the treatises definitely have things in them that are just plain wrong- whether they were included intentionally like the 'trap streets' of mapmakers to catch plagiarists, or as exclusionary tests to ensure only the 'proper sort of people' learned certain styles (or skill levels) of fighting, or because whoever wrote them just made a mistake.
As a musician I have to somewhat agree with Matt on this one. Don't get me wrong, experimental archaeology has tremendous value, especially when paired with other historical sources. However, standing on it's own you simply cannot confirm that any of your assumptions are historically correct. I like to use a musical analogy. Throughout the past hundred or so years, experimental archaeologists and musicians have paired together in many projects to learn, study and approximate the music of the past. The main struggle faced however is that we have relatively few written notations for music, especially when compared to the immense amount of time that music has existed. That is why a significant portion of it is experimental archaeology. 2 great examples are the reconstructions of the Deskford and Tintignac carnyx's and the reconstruction of the Divje Babe flute. In both cases, extremely accurate reconstructions were produced to the highest level of accuracy achievable. Significant thought and time was put into accurately recreating the dimensions, materials, etc. They then got experienced musicians to experiment on them and recorded it. Don't get me wrong, as a musician I find this exceptional and amazing. The problem with this though is while it may give us some ideas of what the music played on the originals sounded like in relation to tone colour, timbre, range, etc, they unfortunately can't and will never be able to give us the full picture. They don't really confirm anything other than the realms of possible sounds. We can't use the music played on them by musicians as confirmation or evidence for how music was approached and played nor does it explain music's relationship with the culture during the period and location that the originals existed. This is exactly how I see this hema debate. Merely holding a longsword and swinging around, even with the best intentions of learning and approximating historical fighting, just simply cannot be used as evidence or confirmation that a certain technique is 100% historical.
Shad is arguing that the methodology that these arts use to create new melodies/techniques are historically accurate, not the result melodies/techniques. He is arguing that even though the end result might not be historically accurate, the end result is. Even in todays music the melody is created by playing random stuff until it sounds good, just like how people used to do it in the past.
@@mustardjar3216 Right but just because I am noodling around on a historically accurate replica of a medieval lute doesn't mean I am making medieval music. I can't call any of the music I come up with historical. I can call it historically inspired or something along those lines but I can't call it historical. Go and ask the people who actually created hema and Id wager that they would tell you that the Historical in HEMA refers to the techniques and results,.
@@mustardjar3216 "Even in todays music the melody is created by playing random stuff until it sounds good, just like how people used to do it in the past."
This is not even close to how music is made, nowadays or back in the 1700s. Musicians do not throw shit at the wall until something sticks. They carefully spread certain amounts of shit on certain parts of the wall, following some pre-determined formulas (depending on genre, desired effect, etc.), and then see if that sticks, followed by experimentation on what parts of the wall should be covered in shit or not. People throwing shit at the wall do NOT make music, despite what some parts of the academic musical establishment believe. And John Cage's 4'33" is NOT music, no matter how hard some people try to make it so.
Shad's argument that a historically extant sword can be swung about by a person today and then considered a "historical source" and the effect of said swinging about a "Historical Martial Art" is ludicrous.
If I give you a brush, an easel and some paint that are all confirmed as historically extant in say 1600s Netherlands, and then you proceed to paint something using that material, would you say you're practicing "Historical European Painting"? Or are you just playing with brush and paint?
A person practicing personal experimentation today, having all the idiosyncrasies of the time (including material stuff, such as shoes that grip the ground FAR better than historical shoes/sandals did, or protective equipment that makes certain moves harder/easier to perform, etc.), is NOT practicing any Historical Art at all. This is, by the way, a clear limitation on HEMA itself, since most people wouldn't be caught dead practicing some of the moves without being encaged in a protective cocoon, but at least the HEMA practitioner is basing his practice on something more concrete than "I picked up a mace and started hitting the wall."
The guy that I respect the most is Roland Warzecha, who tries to reproduce as much of the material and mental circumstances of the period in which he focuses. But when he advocates a certain use of the Norse Shield because of biomechanics, he is clearly not doing anything historical. He is producing modern experimentation that may or may not have anything to do with the price of fish.
People tend to behave in all sorts of interesting and wonderful ways when their ass is on the line. We know this because we have been able now to see and study men in actual combat. Some of them follow their training to the best of their abilities. Others panic and make huge mistakes. Yet others revert to caveman behaviors when pushed to extremes. Shad would have you believe that just because you can approximate the behavior of the guys that revert to cavemen, you can say you're practicing modern battlefield techniques or fighting styles. Drill Sergeants the world over will let you know how unreal that is.
@@keyboardmamma There's a major difference between music and fighting. What people find pleasing to the ear can change over time and across cultures. Biomechanics are a constant that impose much stricter limits than the possibilties on a musical instrument do.
Combat treatises would depict combat through a filter. Most periods had some sort of code of conduct for fighting, and the author of a treatise on fighting would rarely would have gotten away teaching tactics his contemporaries would have considered in violation of said code of conduct. However: When I went through basic training, I was taught when not to use lethal force - and a couple of seconds later the instructor said: "In actual war, shoot to kill. If you get questioned just say: 'It seems my sights need re-adjusting'".
And there's another factor: Leonardo daVinci is known for many techincal drawings of innovative machinery. However: If you build them as they are depicted, they don't work. That's because daVinci deliberately put mistakes in those drawings to protect his intellectual property. This way he showcased his idea without giving the recipient a chance to build it without him. It is plausible the illustrations in the treatises do something similar - this is what can be done, to properly learn come sparring with me.
Based on that the stance "the treatises don't show it, therefore it wasn't done" seems to be an idiotic one to take.
@@MrAranton My argument still stands as the historical instruments in question do in fact have significant limitations in terms of the possible notes and sounds that they can produce. The Deskford carnyx is not capable of producing the melody to a massive portion of music that has ever existed. The Divje Babe flute is only capable of producing roughly 4 notes. These are very limited compared to modern instruments. Does that mean we can say for certain that a piece of music created by a modern musician on these instruments is a historical piece of music? No. It can give us an insight into what the actual music would have sounded like but we cannot use it as evidence or confirmation that a certain piece is historical. These instruments are far more limited than you seem to understand. The realm of possible techniques is comparable to that of fighting techniques. I mean, jist look at how many different fighting styles have existed across the entire world. How can you be at all certain that what you come up with experiementing in your garden is both historical AND distinctly european which it has to be in order to be at all considered hema? Much like it's impossible to be certain that a piece of music you come up with on a historically accurate instrument is at all historical, even if the realm of possibilities is relatively small.
Aren't most of the manuals used by HEMA based on German and Italian styles? Those are pretty limited fields of studying given how many countries and societies there were throughout Europe. Then there's the way European martial arts were influenced by interactions with Middle East martial arts, North African martial arts, and even when Mongols interacted with Europeans. HEMA also seems to primarily focus on melee fighting, not even the exceptionally important cavalry martial arts of medieval combat
"What do you mean you don't do cavalry charges?!"
No, another large portion of treatises were from 18-20 century England and Scotland.
And Iberian sources. And as we move more towards 18/19th century stuff we see a ton of other countries manuals. As to cavalry.. thats just a money issue and skills issue.
Cavalry manuals do exist
I wouldn't even call them martial arts. It wasn't a in depth study as much as this is how you stab a guy with a spear. Sure there was a need of proficiency but not every aspect of combat is necessarily a martial art. Rifle shooting isn't one.
Historians and Archeologists may be connected, but Historians today are mostly very conservative compared to mostly progressive Archeologists, some have to fight for years, to get their research accepted, especially if those findings challenge the existing image of something. In fact, challenging findings are a Historians nightmare.
Things that only had "ceremonial use."
Well considering that archeology is in part art history it's hard to put them on equal footing as archeology has a lot more interpretation because you don't have the people's words
This is so true. Egyptologists are the worst in my opinion. To this day they still will only accept that the pyramids were cut from a quarry miles away and then dragged into place. Because of that they had to overestimate the population of slaves and the amount of years they took. All while real researchers like those at the Geopolymer Institute have made break-throughs that have gone widely unnoticed. (I dunno if you are interested but) The evidence actually suggests that the pyramids were actually made of a primitive concrete mixture that made use of limestone, sea shells, and salt water. Essential they just had to use bags to collect the concrete mixture and pour it into place using molds of some kind. They even tested it out themselves and were able to replicate the results exactly; which they used devices to examine the surface of a brick from a pyramid and the one they created and it matched. They found similar methods in other areas of the world like the Mayan temples, with a different set of ingredients, like bat guano. You can check it out yourself on their UA-cam channel or they also have their own website.
But as you can imagine this conflicts with historians teachings. It'd have required way less people and way less time to accomplish. But it would have taken quite a long time for the bricks to dry. But it makes much more sense than what Egyptology has been pushing for nearly a century now. And this is just one example of historians not embracing discoveries when they contradict old theories. Even now you find new articles talking about how they found ramps, and so those ramps *must* have been used to move big blocks into place... Or maybe they were just used to allow workers to walk up the pyramid with their bags of concrete easier. Humans have always been masters of efficiency. I doubt Kings really wanted to out-live the pyramids they commissioned. They would have found the most efficient way possible to have them built in their life-time.
@@shinobi-no-bueno I mean, it's not. It very much depends where you live. Archaeology and anthropology are very often the same degree in most American colleges. I'm aware that it differs in Europe, but many places have it part of history, sociology, or anthropology
And also, that's how most research goes. You have to present your findings and they must stand up to scrutiny when examined with a magnifying glass. That's how research and understanding goes in every field. Just because you think you have something new that disproves the old way, does not mean it will be immediately accepted. If that happened, entire fields would be in chaos. Yes, it can be frustrating to get your new research across, but if you conduct solid research and cite your sources along with a logical explanation of how you got there, then it enters the body of knowledge. Just because that isn't apparent to your average enthusiast doesn't mean it's not happening. The same things happen in the scientific fields every day.
To be fair here, archaeology is infested with progressive ideologues who can't be arsed to keep their biases in check. Large parts of archaeology (and anthropology) are basically commie pseudoscience by now.
I actually find it very, _VERY_ unlikely that the written treatises were the means from which even the nobility learned swordsmanship. As with everything else at the time, the main method of formal learning of a skill at the time would have been through apprenticeship and/or from a tutor - be it one-to-one or in a group setting. And the further back we go, writing becomes less and less the principle form of record-keeping (instead, it being oral traditions and - where skills are involved - hands-on learning from someone else). Even if and when the written materials would be used or were made available, they would not have been the main form of instruction but at best a reference point whilst receiving instruction from the tutor instead.
Consider how we learn any martial art today - it is still again through instruction from a tutor. This remains the case any number of formalised disciplines. You're still learning it from a tutor and I can almost guarantee that the vast majority have not cracked open the manual that had been originally developed when the discipline was first formalised. And when you are learning from a tutor, it likely will not be an exact reproduction of the manual. Instead, they are likely to introduce their own variation and spin to different techniques and to deviate from the manual at one point or another.
Very true.
We can also take note of things like celtic and gaelic martial arts. Both are noted for not having many written sources, and certainly not many surviving ones (carving lines into rocks is writing, but its a very impractical way of learning anything). Most of what we know of them is from roman sources, and esspecially when talking about the martial arts you'd have found in what is now Ireland (not just saying Ireland because there is probably a historical name for it which i Don't know), the Romans wouldn't have anything written down about how to perform or learn them. So some very definitely historical European martial arts cannot be learned from manuscripts. But we might very well see examples of them in things such as artwork from the times, even if it can be difficult to discern exactly how they were performed because its just static images, and probably not even enough to make a short flipbook out of.
You're right, but we have very few oral traditions remaining for most weapons dating more than a few hundred years ago. If we had easily accessible longsword tutors from unbroken lineages that'd be great, but unfortunately we don't, so we use the few written versions we have. It's a tiny sample of what existed then, but it's far better than waving swords around trying to recreate sword combat from scratch.
I don't know any martial art but it reminds me of how I studied music. Yes, I had a book with pictures and instructions but I either couldn't reproduce it correctly or couldn't understand it at all, so everything I really know I learned from my teacher. At the same time, my teacher got his techniques from his teacher and not (directly) from the books either.
And I played a slightly obscure (to the general public) traditional instrument.
So, if no one teaches how to play this instrument, in 100 years there will be debates on what is considered "historical" and "correct" way to play it
@@KingdomOfDimensions It depends on what you see the purpose of HEMA is. If it is simply a new sport that you're trying to create a standardised set of rules for, then you would be correct. However, if the purpose is trying to develop an accurate understanding of combat techniques used in history, then it's a very definite no. Restricting oneself to just the written treatises is cherry-picking the evidence and very likely to lead to a very incomplete and inaccurate picture.
@@evilwelshman I'm not sure what you're suggesting as an alternative. Artistic depictions can give us some hints, as can mentions of combat in any number of sources, but neither of those would allow you to recreate whole systems of combat, just as those same sources can't inform us on every detail of medieval life.
Mr. shad. I’ve been watching your channel for a number of years. I’ve always enjoyed your information and your opinion, but I must say this video has made me your biggest fan, bravo young man.!!! Salute to you from everyone here on the mothership!
Manuals and treatises and other first-hand accounts are definitely the best resources to study historical martial arts. If we have them? Even with thorough and credible sources, there's no way we can possibly know everything unless someone invents the time machine. Written sources can only provide a glimpse into what historical combat was actually like. I agree with Shad that experimentation definitely has and continues to play a role in the study and development of any historical martial arts.
That is not what Shad is arguing though. He is saying that just experimenting with the weapons of the time without referencing any other sources should be enough to be considered historical. All HEMA interpretations have to bridge the gap between what is shown/written down and the steps between, there is no one denying that. What some people view as elitism is seems to be what initial source the reconstruction is based on.
@@MrQuickben Most of the "elitism" in HEMA that I have seen is based more so which interpretation is the "correct" one. You can have 2 different groups studying the same source and they can reach different conclusions and each claims their interpretation is the superior one. Like, I said, unless you can go back in time there is no way of knowing 100% for sure. Some HEMA folks can be very dogmatic about their interpretations while others are more open-minded and not afraid to deviate from the source material.
It all comes down much to the epistemological debate on the subject of history as a science. HEMA, is in some ways similar to retro-coloured footages from the 1900s. They are equally not historical since they are presently reflective fragments of the past and subject to many factors outside history, and in our present. I can understand Shadi's take and pride in this matter, but if you open the Pandora's box of 'free the term of history' it provides space for really dumb narratives to emerge - not just in sports - but it segues to different debates. In the end I don't see HEMA or Shadi winning this, since on the epistemological level the topic has been debated and won in academia in the last 80 or so years.
34:00 false argumentation. If you develop and adjust contemporary firearms to your shield, would you still call it Hema? I highly doubt it. The video showcased a present technique.
@@MrQuickben >He is saying that just experimenting with the weapons of the time without referencing any other sources should be enough to be considered historical.
Yes, because whatever works in combat, works. Is it helpful that it's in a treatise? Sure. Does it have to be? No. If you develop something that is proven to work, then you're actually improving on what the entire sport is about. No one is crying about Chess with the level of play being so high compared to the past due to being able to simulate millions of games with a computer. What works, works. And the point of treatises were to teach you the martial art and improve, and become for example a master of the longsword. If that mastery can improve, why the hell not?
I feel like if there's historical grounds for a fighting technique then it should be allowed in hema plain and simple
The "Wrap Shot" has entered the chat
Yes. Now, please, define historical.
I don't think there should be any question if something is "allowed" or not. There is no authority of sufficient skill today to make these determinations. Beyond learning to use swords and weapons there is historic soldiering which most of the gatekeepers ignore based on their own body composition. Just have fun.
If it works with the historically accurate equipment, someone probably did it in the past.
@@merpius Yes, and that is experimental archeology.
This feels like a older vid and i like it
"In the parameters of armed martial arts, there's nothing you can think up that hasn't been done, historically, before."
What a beautiful quote to give credit where its due: To historical swordsmanship.
Almost everything has been tried.
Some of it has been tried only once.
Oh yeah? Someone has tried to use three swords at once by holding one in each and and one in their mouth?
@@TheTakato122 I bet there has.
@@TheTakato122 honestly not even that improbable. I could imagine some berserker doing that
@@TheTakato122 .....*anime*
People like to ignore the fact that throughout time that trial and error have always been the greatest teachers. Those all important treatises of theirs is simply a written record of the results of others using trial and error. The idea of a written sources such as this is to save time by not requiring everyone to start from scratch every time. This increases the total amount a single person can learn by giving a foundation to start from. That is the entire point of the concept of history, to record what you have learned so that others don't have to learn the same things first hand as you did.
This is the comment I searched for! Please get pinned.
No one in HEMA ignores that. Shad clearly does, despite the fact he claims otherwise in his videos.
It's not about swordsmanship though, this is about historical documentation. It's all well and good if you become a badass with a sword on your own with no teachers, but you couldn't then walk into a museum and give a talk to people telling them that's how it was done by Knights back in the day, because it's "your way", not their way. (A great example is Chinese longsword vs European longsword, almost identical weapon, but very different applications and manners of using them).
Maybe you'll come up with something similar or the same as the Knights by yourself even, but it's all about confirmation and historical vadility for the sake of documentation, it's not just about the sword and being good with it, that's what people are getting confused. It's not about the skill, it's about the accurate authenticity.
@@Mr-Tibbster HEMA is not specific to how knights fought. It is an umbrella term including all martial arts in Europe throughout history up to a certain point. It doesn't say it must be effective, it doesn't say it must be well known. It simply means that if it qualifies as a martial art and was done by any person at any point in Europe's history then it is HEMA. If you want it to be more specific than that then you need an acronym that reflects that.
So if accuracy or authenticity is something you wish to make a requirement than that must be included in the acronym.
Close, others have hit the nail on the head:
"History" as an academic discipline is in fact focuses on analysis of documentation (which of course would be primarily written documents until the advent of recorded sound/video).
*Archaeology* is concerned with analysis of what is called "material culture" (artifacts and the like). Then there's other related but separate disciplines like anthropology, material science, etc etc which are relevant to people's *conception* of HEMA but is not actually *history* proper.
I would suggest one of two approaches for the HEMA community:
1) Ditch the "Historical" part of the name, and be more explicit that what most practitioners really want out of the sport/discipline is not really to be confined by 'history' in the academic sense. Incidentally, its abundantly clear to me that HEMA was founded by those focuses on "history" in the academic sense, there's no way the sport would *accidentally* become so concerned with written sources had it been created by non-academics.
2) Work with those concerned with "history" in the academic sense- this is my preferred solution.
I was a history undergrad up until the point a couple years in when I really started to appreciate just how restrictive the field is, both intellectually and career-wise. Had I known about HEMA I absolutely would have stayed in the field, because its a brilliant way to expand the study of history. What makes HEMA actually useful to the *academic* discipline of history is its focus on written documents, and it is *especially* useful because it subjects such documents to practical tests.
To be clear: if HEMA were simply about "the best way to fight someone using a longsword", it wouldn't actually be useful to historians (again, within the confines of "history" within academia). To the extent that it allows historians draw conclusions about DOCUMENTS, it is invaluable. I would imagine "HEMA" (that is, as most practitioners imagine it) could be similarly valuable to archeologists, etc etc in testing theories prevalent in those fields provided links can be maintained to the more narrow academic focuses (eg, whether an axe found composed of a particular alloy was practical on the battlefield or instead more of a ceremonial weapon)
I have to say Shad, 1m 30 into the video and you've already misinterpreted (deliberately for drama?) two entirely clear videos I put up, as well as a lengthy private conversation we've had on this topic. This seems like a bad faith foundation. Note that I have always (across over 1000 videos on my channel) been clear that we can draw on all historical sources in HEMA, including art, oral history, living tradition etc. But obviously without a tie in to historical data somehow, we cannot affirmatively claim something to be historical. And that's essential it, in a nutshell. The study of history requires evidence. That's what history is.
As for the name HEMA, we've been using this for over 20 years to describe what we do. If you don't like the name, that's fine. If you don't like treatises, that's fine. But after two decades everyone doing HEMA knows what it is, just as people doing living history or LARP knows what it is. There is no need for people outside those activities to trouble themselves over the names we use for our activities.
Love your videos Matt but you might find it more beneficial to watch the full video as Shad addresses these things later on
@@scholagladiatoria Sorry you feel that way, please understand that I truly did not do this for drama, this is a genuine opinion of mine that I've had for a long time. If I wanted drama I would have acted very differently. I hope you can see that I tried to be as respectful as possible. I do not feel I misrepresented your videos or our conversations. If I've misunderstood anything from them, I'll accept any correction you would like to put forward regarding what you meant. As always I have tremendous respect for you and your views and wish you the best.
About halfway through the video you assert that two people using no source input, but experimenting with steel longswords is HEMA. This I hard disagree with, because they are not using historical input. A replica sword does not count as history by itself. If I train with a katana for several years, there's no hard connection point between what I devise and Japanese history. It's just Matt's katana style. It might be awesome, but it's not historical without historical input.
I should also reiterate that the name HEMA has come to define a specific type of activity, involving historical research with sources. People don't NEED to appropriate or hijack that name to give their activities with other types of swordsmanship validity. I could start a new stick fighting sport, but I don't need to call it escrima, Kali, or SCA. I can just call it stick fighting and that's fine (in fact lots of people literally do that). I wouldn't call my activity karate, if it wasn't. So aside from debates over the word historical, the fact is that HEMA is a defined and we'll known thing. HMB/BotN people don't call what they do HEMA. It's a different activity, even if it's related. That's not gatekeeping, it's just naming a hobby, which literally every hobby does :-)
9:39 "they don't tell us about battlefield combat"
Purposely ignoring this point is strange to me.
It's like basing one's understanding of Napoleonic military history solely on saber fencing manuals.
We don't purposely ignore this point, but unless you are a member of military, this is an experience you cannot get/understand. Anyone that's ever been in a war will tell you that nothing can prepare you for the actuality of being there. Which is why every military on the planet drills and drills and drills and drills...
Y'know, like people studying Napoleonic military saber do. No one's ignoring battlefield stuff, but until you come up with a good way to find 1000+ trained soldiers to take the field, all armed with swords and horses, we'll keep drilling the same way the historical soldiers did.
@@technicolortornado I think his point is more to the fact that it is still HEMA based on the idea that while you are drilling they are attempting the equivalent of practical application to the best of their ability. You can keep drilling, they can keep fighting. It doesn't have to be a divisive issue.
HEMA is purposefully ignoring that. It's not ignoring it at all.
@@LordDarkhelm The problem is how it's gone about. HEMA is specifically the focus of a weapons system, not mass combat. In large part because 1. it can't be studied effectively, 2. like all battles, you can't write down what it's like, and 3. we just cannot recreate those conditions. So we don't focus on them. The people who *do* focus on them by and large tend to not bother learning the weapon they're using with any effectiveness. Reenactors, SCA, BUHURT, whatever do not study the weapon as it was used (typically speaking - obviously some people do, but my experience is typically no). Those people go do the activity, beat the snot out of each other and then make definitive assertions on how that weapon should have been used.... except that they don't have any real foundation on how it should have been used anyway.
Also, at least in the US, people that study mass battles got into it BEFORE HEMA existed as a way to fight with historical weapons. They (often) do not cross over to HEMA to learn more because adults are adults and we don't like feeling vulnerable and learning new things (or being told our preconceived perceptions are wrong). So that's another large reason why we prefer to stay separate. Reenactors and SCA can have all the pitched fun they want and when they want to learn how to use the weapon more historically, then they can come take a class.
Additionally, a note: just because it's not considered part of HEMA doesn't mean it's ahistorical. A lot of useful knowledge has come from SCA and reenactor mass battles, but because they don't often more rigorously study what they're doing and why, it has to be taken with a grain of salt.
On the flip side, just because it's historical doesn't mean it fits in HEMA... and that's okay! We're studying the *martial arts* of Europe, nothing else. In the same way that modern militaries study their own martial arts separate from their battlefield tactics. They inform each other, but are two different approaches to find a similar answer.
I know absolutely nothing of this drama, but it is worth noting that, academically speaking, written history is by and far supreme, given that any other source is far too vulnerable to speculation or other corruption.
Also, as a History major, yes - History as the study of sources is absolutely true, as history is narrative based. You cannot construct a historical narrative purely around, say, arrowheads and weapons and skeletons - but you can use those to evidence something otherwise recorded by a person. Like, if some chronicler writes "A battle took place here on wednesday", the presence of battle remains would obviously lend some credibility to that account. By itself, however, all one can do with the archaeological remains is speculate.
I have a very limited understanding of what this debate is all about, but from the video I will say that it is very fair to say that, at least from an academic basis, if you pick up a sword and train and fight with it "naturally" (never having read some source on medeival combat or what-have-you), your use of the weapon is not made "historical" by the use of a historical weapon, as there is in fact no way of knowing (without sources) that your conclusions in training with a weapon 'in your own way' are the same conclusions that would have been made in centuries bygone.
On that subject, the most effective use of a weapon cannot ever be assumed out of hand to have been independently developed in the past - especially if it does not end up being recorded as one would expect in such a case. If you want an accessible example, look into the theories of pistol combat and see how drastically things have changed in only the past few decades.
Archaeology - the basis of historical approach for most of what is mentioned in your video, it seems, is mostly linked to anthropology for a lot of these reasons. Speculation made over artifacts, much less reproductions of those artifacts, carries relatively little historical weight by itself, because the past is a very foreign place than the present, and our speculations are subconsciously tainted by that.
Anyway, Ive no dog in this fight, but I think the disconnect here is the divide between history as an academic process and history as a popular interest.
Also, I wrote this comment up basically while watching the video, so the layout is rather rambling and disjointed, and I apologize for that.
When you say history is the study of sources, are you meaning only written sources? Genuine question, because literally every definition I've looked up, and I've looked up a lot, academically verified and all, defines historical sources as anything, material objects included, verifiably coming from a period that had a writing system.
@@shadiversity I suppose I cannot speak for the internet at large nor history as a practice at large - I have only a BA, after all. I would say that while anything can be a source in theory, to be interpreted as part of the historical 'record' - or rather as part of a narrative, the effects of a nonwritten source are inherently limited.
For example, going back to my talk about finding a field of skeletons and weapons, we could obviously infer from the battle remains that there was in fact a battle that took place at that location, and by the make of armor and weapons and clothes we could probably make some fairly good estimates about who fought it (that is, what factions) and when. You could even make some pretty good speculations as to exactly how it all went down.
However - and this is where the written source bit and academia all come in - in a field where there exist a plethora of such artifacts and historical speculation as to their use, written record is generally the king of all primary sources and assumes precedence unless the credibility of the source can be seriously questioned, because it is contemporary - the writer knows *something* happened, at least, and most our other assumptions based on the presence of those material sources are themselves ground in written record.
I apologize if this answer and explanation is insufficient, but this is why I see some merit in the HEMA side of the argument - theirs, as far as I know from my limited insight here, is the standard that would largely take precedence in a more academic setting
As a fellow historian, I have to disagree with several points.
1. Historical narratives do not need written sources. Like ... at all. Our modern technology enables us to gather so much information out of material sources, that their worth can and oftentimes does exceed that of many written accounts.
And you can absolutely construct a historic narrative on nothing but the physical remains of a battlefield. It's been done quite a bit.
2. Written sources are not inherently more reliable than material evidence. That is just factually incorrect, as written accounts can be deliberately biased or misleading. The historical worth of a book does not exceed that of say a battlefield strewn with artifacts by the mere merit of being written.
3. By the simulation of historical circumstances and reasonable extrapolation upon known factors, it is entirely within the realm of academic history to claim historiocity for the results. If a weapon's use is simulated under conditions that match our current scientific knowlegde, the resulting techniques can be understood as a very likely simulacrum of the historic thing. And do you know why? Because that's how the scientific method works and like it or not, the field of history isn't exempt from it.
History is the study of the available sources to find a RECONSTRUCTION of the past. And that includes ALL sources, literal and material.
I was looking for a comment like this, and I think you summed up my feelings quite well.
Experimentation is fine-but it often won’t result in something as historically grounded as it could be. In the absence of written records, of course we must rely on other methods of discovery, but if we have them we should use them.
When I first started practicing HEMA, I had the bad luck of having a terrible coach who banned his students from looking at the treatises until they were “ready” (which was never), but it quickly became clear that he wanted to be the only source of information, and he was afraid of being challenged on his interpretation. The treatises are no replacement for drilling and sparring with other practitioners, but they’re also an invaluable tool that anyone can access if they put their mind to it.
I find historical music a good parallel for HEMA, since we have no recordings of how anything sounded back then. However, we do have music that was written centuries ago, and there is no reason to pick up a lute and guess as to how it was played when we have pages and pages of John Dowland. Simply using the tool does not reveal its historical use any faster than if we start with a source. That’s not to say that our interpretation is ever 100% correct, but it’s a really solid start.
All that being said, I probably care less than some about what is and isn’t HEMA. After all, anyone who fences, whether it’s HMB or international HEMA competitions, probably has a job and a family and doesn’t want to get maimed or killed. We can never safely take this practice to the extent of its intended function, so there will always be a lot of speculation. But we might as well get it as accurate as possible, and treatises are a great start.
If you get hurt in practice you could get a HEMAtoma.
Badum ts...
@@ct7567CaptRex I have to keep my sense of humor. My kid brother is in legal trouble. He got involved in an investment opportunity to finance a trampoline park in Prague and got arrested in America - for bounced Czechs.
@@1jimmarch Wishing you well.
@@1jimmarch 😂😂😂
I got one for you: what do call a dog without legs?
Doesnt matter, he aint comming...
There is actually an event that's called HEMAtoma. Lol
A squire learned from a knight. In every city, at least in Germany, there was a fencing teacher. And in huge parts the fighting with the long knife ("langes Messer") was practised in the villages learning from the older ones, while the possession of swords was prohibited. So they didn't learn simply by doing. The treatises, especially Johann Liechtenauers 'Zedel' ("slips of paper; notes; leaflet), were written as advertisement. They usually don't tell the whole thing, keep secrets and presuppose a lot of knowledge.
I really like the calmness. It's a nice change of pace from Shad's usual energetic narrating style in my opinion. Not that I don't like the usual videos though.
This feels like old school Shad. I love it.
Fav video in a long time
For shad
Having only discovered shad last year I was imagining early shad being even more untethered than he already gets in some of his videos (esp all his "almighty stick" vids XD)
Was pleasantly surprised to see it as more calm and coherent XD
I don't know Shad, what about dragons ?
How do they factor into this ?
I’m sick of people gatekeeping dragons from HEMA tournaments. It just ain’t right.
Im imagining someone bringing an actual dragon to a HEMA fight and someone yelling "There is no historical record of this! Get that dragon out of here!"
@@Svoorhout85 oh gods, this had me on the floor
@@Svoorhout85 there are plenty of historical written records of knights fighting dragons though 😉 if you bring one, that means those records are real
It sounds like they are trying to use "history" as a way to justify the rules for their combat competitions.
because the "martial art" comes next
I am being humble when I am telling you that I am the most powerful strongest coolest smartest most famous greatest funniest Y*uTub3r of all time! That's the reason I have multiple girlfriends and I show them off on my ch*nnel all the time! Bye bye la
But the actual HEMA competitions allow any technique from any martial arts, Matt says this himself in his videos.
Most times you are not allowed to throw weapons, the force equally matched weapons, no blows to the body or throws
@@AxxLAfriku play in traffic
I personally joined HEMA because I treat it as a martial art. I gain practical benefits from it: learning basic self defense, doing exercise to stay active, and having fun with friends.
That being said, I also have a similar mindset as Shad, where I'm not interested in reading verbatim from the manuals. I just feel a lot more engaged when I have really good mentors teaching and coaching me on how to fight effectively. I don't really see the point in being anal and strict about "if it wasn't in the manual, it's not HEMA" because at the end of the day, the manuals aren't omniscient and it's the duty of a martial artist to APPLY knowledge, not just memorize it. What good is having knowledge of fighting if you limit yourself only to extremely specific moves for specific circumstances?
Besides, I never focused on one treatise; I like to have fun looking up random techniques from across the board and experimenting with them to see what works for me and what doesn't. I'm not tall, and many of my friends are significantly taller and bulkier than me, so I clearly have to adapt my style(s) to spar with them.
I've been involved in HEMA since before it was HEMA - way back in the heady days of the early Nineties when it was called Western Martial Arts. In fact, when I started in '94 we didn't even have a name for it.
All I can add to this debate is the skeletal remains of a long-dead horse which you are welcome to keep beating.
Carry on!
Not gonna say anything more about the discussion, but I do think it is simply showing us how both of you are different and awesome in your own way: Matt is a HEMA instructor who delicates himself to the study of detailed history since before UA-cam even existed, always taking context into account. Shad is a writer who loves history *and* history based fantasy; he's an inventor and loves to take into account what others wouldn't.
Think we have a Tony Stark/Steve Rogers situation here (?
As someone who professionally engages with history on an academic level, I have to disagree. Matt's approach to what is and isn't historical would quickly get him into hot water with scholars of history, as it is exceedingly perscriptive and contradictory, as Shad pointed out several times. I'm not fully aware of Matt's background, but a lot of the arguments he brings for his narrow definition of HEMA and history can be defeated with even a basic understanding of the academic concept of history, stuff you learn in you first year at university.
@@draochvar9646 I know a lot of academics who know next to nothing compared to what Matt has to offer (maybe it's because of my country). Shad did an excellent job pointing out what he thinks Matt failed to explain, but as someone who has been a part of his channel since a long time ago, i can attest to his dedication and experience when it comes to the field he knows best.
Historians rarely agree on anything completely, and everyone is free to decide what fights they want to fight. I'm just a big fan of both Shad and Matt; i appreciate what they do and how they explain their own takes on the same subject.
It is easier to criticize when someone else has already done it masterfully. Aside from knowing you are a professional, I'd be more interested in knowing what arguments you have *besides* the ones Shad's already listed.
Regardless, Matt has been studying history since a long time ago, and is experienced in a lot of the subjects he has talked about. The fact that some of his points of view can be wrong or controversial doesn't diminish what he does know or the fact that he's a dedicated instructor.
@@addictedtochocolate920 that is fair. It is just, that to dismiss anything that isn't written as ahistorical is grade-A nonsense, especially in a field that so heavily relies on non-literary sources as the study of History. Especially since the veracity of a source isn't guaranteed by the mere fact, that it was written.
@@addictedtochocolate920 "Historians rarely agree" Yeah that's generally because historians tend to be the text book teacher types... Very similar to teachers throughout our school systems. They like things to be linear; They read history from a book or writing, accept it as fact, disregard any study or discovery that disputes or otherwise proves that historical events did not happen the way they were taught, then they teach others what they want rather than what's most likely true at the time. I'm sure you can find a myriad of things taught in high schools right now that evidence from the last 10 to 20 years already contradicts.
Historians like the narrative they were taught. I don't care how dedicated an instructor someone is, if they are very limited in what they teach and they aren't open to new discoveries or different ways of thinking, they may as well just call themselves preachers. Some people have to ask themselves if their goal is to inform to the best of their ability or is it to indoctrinate a cult following into thinking a certain way.
"It is easier to criticize when someone else has already done it masterfully. Aside from knowing you are a professional, I'd be more interested in knowing what arguments you have besides the ones Shad's already listed."
Boy that's a loaded question. Either you said this out of contempt or just genuinely want to trap people in order to shut down dialogue because you are a fan of Matt.
First of all, if we don't follow Matt obviously we weren't going to come out with criticism against him. Second, yes Shad laid out a long video voicing his concerns over Matts way of thinking. Pretty sure he covered his bases. The conclusion being that Matt's way of thinking about History is very limited. I didn't even need to get through the whole video to see that for myself because Shad showed us clips from Matt's video. I reached the same conclusion as Shad probably 13 minutes in. What other arguments does there need to be? Or could be?
The entire point is that HEMA stands for HISTORICAL EUROPEAN Martial Arts. And Matt cherry picking Martial Arts, even though they are both Historical AND European in origin, is fundamentally a flawed way of thinking. That is just an objective observation. You can still enjoy Matt's content and recognize that. This is not a Shad vs Matt war. Honestly Matt isn't even the only person in HEMA to think this way. But so long as they do, they shouldn't call themselves HEMA. That's far too broad for what they cover.
@@draochvar9646 I suggest you watch my video, because your comments suggest you haven't seen it :-) I am a history AND archaeology graduate, a former archaeologist, and have worked for several museums and institutions. I am a former head of arms and armour at a London auction house and a professional antique dealer. I include ALL sources in my study of the past, including art, oral history, experimental archaeology etc. The fact remains that in order to call something historical, we have to use historical sources. Waving a sword around (say LARP for example) does not qualify as history by itself. History is based on evidence.
As somebody who has a degree on European History I have to say, you are right. Selecting your sources based on your liking and disregarding everything else is wrong as your results will be biased and only capable to justify your agenda.
EDIT: I just hate to see that HEMA is slowly but surely became the same cult like organisation as the majority of the martial arts schools. "The only truth is mine and everybody else is wrong..."
Can you elaborate? Which sources are being disregarded?
@@EntropicEcho pretty much all the material sources and non-codified descriptions of combat, be they written or pictographic, as well as the results of simulation and logical extrapolation.
As a fellow historian, I can only agree with Victor, disregarding sources cause they don't suit you is really grinding my gears.
@@draochvar9646 Ok, but I know of absolutely zero HEMAists who "disregards" sources that way, so this feels like a straw man.
@@draochvar9646 I mean, except that we absolutely take into account those things. Simulation and pressure testing is done all the time at tournaments and sparring matches, people discuss finding pictorial sources and how they might line up with other written sources, etc. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening. In fact, there are a pile of good HEMA researchers on YT that explicitly talk about their research and methods.
Sources aren't just discarded and I have no idea where/why that keeps popping up. The handful of times I've even heard of people putting aside a source is if it is so different and incomplete to not be rendered even a little bit safely or accurately. If you can't import "frog DNA" into a source that is wildly incomplete for context, then there's not really any value in trying to recreate it until something else like it comes along to give you a hand (think trying to decipher Linear A).
As a historian then, you know that artistic sources aren't often 100% accurate either and are often done with a goal or a patron in mind (and sometimes to hell with accuracy) which is why recreating a physical, moving martial art solely from pictorial sources can be dangerous at worst and incomplete at best. The written sources make up the foundation of the various martial arts that HEMA encompasses with pictorial and verbal evidence making up the rest. Evidence, after all, is the foundation of any research field, but especially any historical pursuit. Without it, we have nothing.
Even assuming the broader definition of historical in HEMA, how would experimenting with sword replicas by yourself constitute a martial art? Or even by written accounts of fights or duels or battles? How would that constitute a martial art? If I pick up a sword and swing it, guaranteed many many people throughout history have done it exactly in the way I just did, but that doesn't make it a martial art. The great thing about the treatises is that they are complete systems, with techniques that abide by consistent principles and approaches to the fight. That idea definitely much closer fits the bill of martial art, while still also aligning with the historical and european aspects of the acronym.
HEMA named itself after a goal, not after what it can actually achieve. HEMA aims to recover historical European martial arts. But it can never truly recover these arts. Rather, it tries to reconstruct them using historical sources and judgment. There will always be an amount of active speculation involved, as well as inaccuracy that manifests in the reconstruction tacitly due to the art being taken out of its original context. Studying artwork is just as historically valid as studying the treatises, but artwork gives less information than treatises and therefore the reconstruction is necessarily more speculative. Reconstruction based solely on artwork as its foundation will almost certainly be of lower quality (less accurate) than reconstruction based on treatises. That is presumably why many HEMA practitioners want to exclude such endeavor from being considered HEMA. A name was picked that claims to sit on the crest of a hill. Instead, however, it can only reside entirely on the slope of that hill, from the place where it joins the flat ground to somewhere partway up the hill. Despite everything being described by the name lying some distance from what the name implies, many HEMA practitioners want to create some sort of cut-off point so that things barely off the level of the ground and most likely wildly inaccurate are not included. That of course makes sense to do. The problem is only that they are named with broad-encompassing terminology that has an unachievable goal and so carrying out such an exclusion becomes somewhat hypocritical.
except that isn't what shad is saying, at all, in even the slightest. as he stated, when describing his worldview of what he thinks HEMA is, many hema have gone hm, yeah, that's hema.
so shad isn't, at all, in even the slightest, saying disregard the treatises. he is saying study that on top of other things. cause as stated, the treatises don't paint a whole picture and are largely incomplete and don't take many factors into account. they mainly deal with dueling, which you wouldn't do in combat, so how is dueling relevant to a battlefield?
thats why shad is saying study those AND other sources, that way you get a more complete picture. its not going to be perfect, because much information is lost. but by studying everything, we are practicing real, legitimate HEMA.
but then you get to the HEMA elites saying either study these things or your fraud or are not welcome here and your a fake. that's completely incorrect. that's why if i were ever to practice swordsmanship, I wouldn't call myself HEMA, i would call myself a swordsman, cause i would learn from HEMA, but i would also learn from other sources, which by their logic makes me fraud.
so dont put words in shads mouth mate. he isn't saying even remotely what your describing.
@@scorpionlord9175 Only he is not studying the treatises and instead presenting a bunch of hog-posh which is a combo of his own inventions and glimpses of actual fighting arts. He doesn't follow what he preaches, according to you.
@@scorpionlord9175 And I would add that the idea that HEMA practitioners don't study other sources outside the treatises, historical and archeological, is complete nonsense and patently untrue. Which anyone in HEMA would know.
@@borislavkrustev8906 um, you didn't watch the video obviously.
He did state that he follows the treatises as well. If you had actually watched the video(it now obvious you didn't), you would know that he does indeed practice them, along with outside sources.
So your either purposefully lying about shad to push a narrative or your exceptionally ignorant.
Which are you? Cause you can't say that and have a third option. Your either a liar or ignorant.
And btw, if you had also watched the video, you would know he didn't say ALL hema. He said there are many though(such as the guy he is responding to) who believe that if you practice other stuff outside of the treatises, you are not practicing hema.
So no, your wrong on both counts and just like the commenter above, your putting words in shads mouth.
So I ask again: which are you, a liar or ignorant?
@@borislavkrustev8906 lol. Someone obviously didnt watch the video.
I would have though the more difficult to define term in HEMA would have been "martial arts" not "historical". If guys figuring it out themselves in the garden is technically HEMA, then is two guys brawling in the backyard technically "martial arts"?
Buy this definition, yes. And as people brawled during historical times, it would also be HEMA. It would also be Pre Historical Martial Arts. And also Future Martial Arts as people will no doubt be brawling in the future too. It would also be every other form of martial art as people have brawled everywhere in the world. With such a broad definition the term loses all meaning.
I would say to classify as a martial art it must consist of techniques, striking or otherwise, for defeating human opponent/s in melee combat. No need to complicate it, if it’s something that can be learned to help you defeat your enemy then it counts. If the guys brawling in the backyard are keeping their hands up to protect themselves, using footwork, striking weak points, using throws and grapples to get the upper hand, absolutely a martial art.
The difference is fists are universal. Swords are specific to a certain range of history.
I have took interest for HEMA since last year, but in my country, it's like learning martial art mix with witchcraft lol
Oh cool. So you're a battlemage in training.
@@chriscock6584 I think we need to toss a coin to the Witcher
I did as well and there are actually two practicing groups around me. And they hate each other.
The first one does sword fighting after manuals, the other one puts on armor and they smack each other with flails and hammers.
The first one accuses the other one of not being HEMA and just being dumb brutes drunkenly clashing into each other.
The other one accuses the first one to be full of weaklings who wouldn't survive actual historical combat.
I decided to stay out of it.
@@qwesx I personally would favor the second group myself. Both have validity but the second is more my speed.
@@qwesx
Sports or War?... I would prefer War than Sports since Sports has its limitations in both practice and execution... Adapt, Learn, and Overcome.
I think the biggest issue with that approach is that it is highly speculative. There's simply no way of telling whether that's really how people did it back in the day or not because there are no points of reference (except medieval art, but that teaches us very little).
And yes, while swords are historical sources, they don't teach anything about swordsmanship in and of themselves. The only thing you can do with only a sword in hand is speculation.
History isn't the study of speculation. Yes most people most likely didn't learn from masters, however, we don't know how culture affected each Kingdoms and regions swordsmanship. It's very likely that the attitude of a city-dweller in southern France in the 11th century toward learning swordsmanship was VERY different from that of a modern 21th century French man.
Sure evolutionary convergence might help to reconstruct it, but it's just as likely that we'd get everything wrong, even the parts people back then would get wrong (as in, we wouldn't fuck up in the same way). As such we'd learn very little from that kind of practice.
Now if that speculative practice is done on top of the study of ALL the sources we have at our disposal (ie. treatises, etc...), then you can base your speculation on a medieval person's perspective on swordfighting, although that also has to be put back in its context (we mostly have only German and Italian sources, and they are geared toward a certain class of people during a certain time).
Even then, it's still an educated guess.
As for what we don't know, we will just have to admit that "we don't know". And any speculation would be just that, speculation.
With all that said, I absolutely agree that experimentation can definitely add valuable insight into what we've learned through archeological, written, and artistic sources. Buhurt will definitely inform some things about how medieval group fighting could be like, and trying out new moves could definitely help make a better picture, especially if those things are made with respect to the sources, and while those things will always remain speculative, the use of period weapons and armor, as well as glimpses of past martial traditions, makes them reliable enough in my opinion.
I will, however, still firmly believe that smacking your opponent with a falchion instead of a mace is silly, but I've just read a tournament account talking about just that, so who am I to judge?
@@astrophobia6049 except the evidence is in the efficacy. If someone comes up with a technique that beats out the historical techniques it is a better technique. In combat the only thing that matters is efficacy, and you can tell that by who wins. So the proof is in the pudding.
The only issue with what you've said is the Convergent Evolution part of Shads argument. If someone who is seriously dedicated to finding effective ways of fighting againt others with a sword, the same way people did historically and tbey figure out some extremely effective way to fight then it can be asssumed that people did historically as well. If it is truly effective then the odds are that someone did it historically based on convergent evolution.
There's only a set amount of ways you can effectively use a sword, there isn't an infinite number of effective things you can do with it, so via trial and error you will narrow down to the most effective things the same way people did historically, with no direct sources even being used.
The fact that these weapons and martial arts were used for hundreds of years by a huge percentage of the population, combined with my previous points, basically guarentees that any effective thing you learn with a sword was done historically by someone at some point. No sources or anything needed.
@@BananaMana69 And yet swords were used in different ways in Western Europe, China, Japan, India, etc. this even though some sword designs were very similar.
Even in Europe, you can look at saber-fencing, which is very different from medieval fencing.
Same goes for unarmed martial arts. Nowadays the norm is boxing, karate, etc. Even though we have the same bodies and search for what's most effective what we practice is very different from what medieval people did.
We don't live in the same world, which is why if we use "convergent evolution" to try to figure out medieval fencing out of thin air, we'd most likely converge in the wrong direction.
So no, searching for what's most efficient wouldn't necessarily lead you to medieval fencing. It would just make you very good at using a sword.
@@johnathanera5863 How does making up a better technique today make that technique historical? I'm really confused. Also, making up a technique today, would still leave out most of the context necessary to understand the historical techniques. (footwork, shoes, context of the fight, etc)
Fighting to win a match and to survive will always be very different.
Most people who carried swords in the medieval period rarely used them in combat and when they did, it was only a few times in their lives. Most of their skill with them came from training, not direct combat experience. There are of course exceptions to this, but they don't represent the majority. Contrary to the misconception, mediaeval Europe was not constantly drowning in war and physical conflict.
@@shadiversity sorry... But I didn't know how else to send this to you than to reply to one of your comments... My husband of 11 years passed away last month of a unexpected massive heart attack at the age of 38. Your the only thing I've been able to bring myself to watch this past month and I wanted you to know how much your helping me without realizing it... Hope all your family is doing good. THANK YOU for being you. The way you connected with your wife... You are one of the few who would understand the loss of my sole mate.
PS sorry noleenote for you having to see this
Did you know that people in history rarely fought for their lives and usually fought in sport competitions called Fechtschule with one another?
There were competitions pretty much every week or so. For example to big marriages they held a competition.
@@shadiversity Yes, the same is true of modern gun ownership. Shooting matches and training is very commonplace but those who participate in those activities very rarely, if ever, actually use there weapons in an actual life-death gun battle. This even includes most police officers and military personnel.
@@nicopetri3533 Exactly! See my above reply to Shad comparing modern weapon (gun) ownership to medieval weapon ownership.
Time for a new acronym. Swordsmanship: Historical, Archeological, or Documented (SHAD).
🎉 I heard in the street sometimes it’s called put your sword where your mouth is
😂😂😂😂 bless all the swordsmen and women in the world
I greatly enjoyed this addition to the dialogue. You articulate a well-considered and internally consistent position.
If it works in combat, it would've been used in history at some point. It may be fun to clash swords around with your friends but if your life was on the line, you would use ANY strategy you could think of to gain the slightest advantage.
This is akin to saying one does not need to study grappling/kickboxing because in a life or death situation your instincts will kick in and you'll "fight dirty". These people get knocked out almost every time this is tested.
@@shinobi-no-bueno he's saying it's fine learning a sport like boxing or Karate and having fun/competition with friends, but in a chaotic streetfight, what you've learned is rarely apliccable, and you need both expirience and flexibility to survive. hence ''unorthodox'' moves and strategies, not the rigerous code of conduct from a sport
an ancient Phalanx or Roman infantry line would need the training and conduct, but if the line breaks and it becomes a chaotic melee, the line infantry training advantage dissapears and the expirience of each individual soldier of what works becomes the factor
@@shinobi-no-bueno
Except he's not saying that at all. What he's saying is to not restrict yourself to one specific set of techniques.
An untrained individual would get their ass handed to them by a purist kickboxer. But a kickboxer with additional background in other martial arts that complement their main style would curbstomp that same purist kickboxer, because the purist won't have an answer to them.
@@shinobi-no-bueno
It’s more like saying that you should actually learn grappling/kick boxing aside for sword fighting as someone with experience in both would beat someone who only trains with one.
@@shinobi-no-bueno That's not what I was saying at all 🤦😂
Sometimes peasants would've been dragged into combat with little to no fighting training... Someone with no sword fighting experience will do the weirdest and worst techniques - But that still means they were used historically does it not?
Edit: I doubt you'll find a treatise that says to bite the enemy as it would likely be seen as un-chivalrous. It still would've happened in a grounded struggle, thus, realistic.
The treatises are just what survives in written form, a handful of sources that capture a piece of the art as practiced at specific points in time by specific individuals.
They cannot be confirmed to represent a region or historical period as a whole because they were written by specific masters, who all had their own individual perspective compared to other contemporaries whose perspectives did not survive, or were never written down.
Treatise study is hard history, from written sources and therefore can be said to have a certain level of accuracy based on the evidence.
But the hard historical evidence only ever captures a small portion of all that existed, to only base practice upon those sources would seem very strange indeed to people from the medieval/rennaisance periods.
What was lost must be reconstructed and the only way to do that is through practice, experiment and debate.
Otherwise HEMA had better be content to stay within the bounds of a handful of sources, a shadow of the living tradition it wants to revive.
>They cannot be confirmed to represent a region or historical period as a whole
No one claims they do.
>But the hard historical evidence only ever captures a small portion of all that existed
No one in HEMA has ever claimed otherwise.
> to only base practice upon those sources would seem very strange indeed to people from the medieval/rennaisance periods.
No one in HEMA does that.
>What was lost must be reconstructed and the only way to do that is through practice, experiment and debate.
You are describing the world-accepted approach in HEMA.
@@borislavkrustev8906 I know I'm trying to say Matt Easton was oversimplifying when he said the treatises define what is considered to be HEMA, by pointing out the limitations of the sources.
You could easily argue that the sources give a highly biased and incomplete viewpoint, very specific to individual people or places, and times.
The sources are an important starting point, but debate, practice and experiment are valid ways to do history too.
You need the sources and the practical stuff to get the most understanding, so Matt saying that sources alone make something into HEMA was oversimplifying a lot.
@@GiordanoBruno42 >the treatises define what is considered to be HEMA
Well, that is absolutely true. Most good fencers who study Viking swords also study later treatises. Without the sources we wouldn't have HEMA, they are the backbone of it.
>You could easily argue that the sources give a highly biased and incomplete viewpoint, very specific to individual people or places, and times.
There are literally hundred of sources, so now, you can't say that. You can argue they give an incomplete viewpoint, which every HEMA practitioner knows, Matt included.
@@GiordanoBruno42 >The sources are an important starting point, but debate, practice and experiment are valid ways to do history too.
Matt has said that before in older videos and in online discussions. Again, that is something every HEMA practitioner says. He probably didn't see the point of repeating something obvious in an already too-long video.
@@borislavkrustev8906
Bro stop lying please... 😂👌🏼
18:40 Yeeeah, but I agree with Matt here. If you have two people sparring without any historical inspiration whatsoever, then you are doing exactly that... Just sparring. Sure, you might come across some stances, strikes, etc. that people from history used, but that's a relativist argument at best and disingenuous at worst because you could just as easily find your own unique way of fighting that ain't historical at all.
The point of HEMA is looking at how people back then fought. It's a study that also happens to be a sport. If you aren't looking at any historical inspirations for how to fight, then you are just sparring. The one exception I can think of is the example of if someone is trying to not look at historical stuff, written or otherwise, to try and learn on their own as a person from medieval times might try and self teach, then I can sort of see it. However, I think that's a flawed categorization because... We are never going to have the proper context for an experiment like that to be fully accurate. We, in the current year, cannot replicate that kind of life and pain an accurate portrayal of how that might be.
As a fun experiment for just seeing how you might learn on your own and self teach? Go for it! But I'm very hesitant to call it historical in any real way because you aren't learning from history, but personal experience based on only your personal experiences.
Which is fine. I don't think anyone here is trying to say that's a bad thing, but don't call something what it isn't. I agreed that "historical" shouldn't only be labeled to written stuff, given there's enough reasonable evidence to back it up of course, but this doesn't seem right at all. And that self teaching to drive example is a false equivalence: its learning a modern practice for practical sake. Now, if you set out with the hypothesis of trying to learn how people in the 1920s drove cars, then sure, maybe. But I'd still point back to what I said earlier about this "self taught" example not being really historical, being only barely if so.
And regards to the "using the sword" argument, it's a tool, not information. HEMA isn't about the sword itself, otherwise we'd be in a class talking about the sword itself. HEMA is about the "martial arts", not the sword itself.
Huh History student here, most historians I know would absolutely not use the prehistory/history distinction. "Prehistory" itself is kind of an outdated word in academia, people generally talk about "proto-history" to explicitly imply that the study of cultures without writing is still history.
Also archeological evidence are obviously historical sources. Today, if you study the Middle Ages, you HAVE to use archeological evidence whenever possible.
I completely missed the point, but what does this have to do with HEMA? HEMA was invented when prehistory and history distinction existed. When talking about HEMA we infact talk about living history. Don't history students learn at the beginning of any studying to not use present views on history itself?
you are both wrong here. Pre-history (at least in the academic field of history) refers explicitly to pre-civilization or pre humanity. put simply basically anything before humans started grouping up and building things. anything prior would be the territory of paleontology. you could say the field of history is more specifically the study of past stories. prior to civilization there isnt much "story" yet.
as for mike there....completely aside from the fact it is damn near psychologically impossible to separate the modern lens from the study of history because personal experience is the lens from which we determine anything and everything in our lives. what is known about history is a changing thing. the field of history is not like math, where 2 will always = 2 . 50 years ago as far as historians at the time were concerned the city of troy was as fictional a place as the elysian fields in the greek afterlife myths. but then one adventurous historian taking the Iliad more literally, through his more modern perspective, found the city. so now we know that Troy was a real place that fought at least 2 wars with Mycenean Greeks. the as the perspective changes what we know about history changes.
thus, what does this have to do with HEMA? well them excluding bronze age fighting styles because there was no writing and called "pre-history" by the hema elitists, is frankly... horse shit they arbitrarily decided upon in spiteful opposition to any actual historian.
As someone who works with military technological treatises (not late medieval fencing books though) I will just throw in this point to consider: treatises present theory and ideals. And the audience of these were probably noblemen. They might have learned fighting from that, very orderly, according to strict rules. But this has probably little to do with practice on the battlefield. Most soldiers wouldn't have learned from these books, I believe.
Here is the thing, when you talk about "martial arts" I would say you refer to something developed which has rules, which is worthy of the term "art". I wouldn't call all combat an art. The thing is, it needed to have been considered an art in its time, and the fencing books are a good display of considering fencing a martial art. The focus on the meaning of the word "historical" is not as important as considering what a "martial art" is. I would just call it "historical combat techniques", the term "art" I would consider a bit problematic. Because martial arts simply refer to systems like kung fu or karate.
Here's the problem though: martial art does not have that meaning.
Both Systema and Krav Maga are classified as martial art, both of which were deliberately designed for and used in modern combat (by the Russians and Israelis respectively). Kenjutsu, as a martial art, encompasses all forms of japanese swordsmanship and is understood to be the battlefield application of it, whereas Kendo is far more limited and regulated. Muy Tai is a martial art, and was 100% conceptualized and used in combat.
So the definition of martial arts is by no means as limited as you might think.
@@draochvar9646 There is a current definition of the German equivalent "Kampfkunst" though and it contains the following requirement: needs to have technical systematisation and be taught professionally through paradigms, needs to be part of a normative framework.
This is given through the fencing treatises for example. But couldn't be reconstructed through experimental archaeology.
Maybe that makes it clearer why I think the focus should be on the use of the word "martial arts", not "historical". The examples you named are also named systems, somewhat normative frameworks. Of course these techniques can be used in actual combat, but not every soldier would have learned like that. There is also combat that doesn't follow the rules and that's what can be discovered through practice and experimenting.
So, basically I think one should differentiate between HEMA, a sport based on late medieval fencing books that tries to recreate that system, and on the other hand just trying to figure out how people fought in the past, how they used weapons.
Question is whether there was a fencing sport with strict rules such as today in which people were using blunt swords or so. If yes, then it is valid to reconstruct that sport.
On the battlefield though one doesn't do sports, one tries to survive. That also includes such techniques as backstabbing and so on...
@@kadda1212 I can agree with that differentiation. Especially if we apply the Kampkunst definition, since it's a lot less ... mushy then martial arts.
I primarily took issue with "I wouldn't call combat an art" since martial arts like the aforementioned Systema is a fighting style that lends itself to nothing but combat. It's like saying a gun isn't meant to shoot things.
The japanese actually kinda have that, with things like kendo referring to the reglemented 'martial sport', whilst kenjustu referrs to the actual combat use of the blade.
@@draochvar9646 What I meant is that I wouldn't call just any kind of combat on the battlefield an art. I don't like the use of the term "art" being applied to killing anyways, and on the other hand actually wouldn't apply the term "martial" to fighting sports. It's not the best term, but it derives from the fencing treatises itself and was then applied to Asian fighting styles. But the term has Renaissance written all over it: Let's make reference to an ancient Roman god, and let's use the term "ars".
I find it nonsensical to use this term at all when talking about fighting systems of other cultures.
Hey Shad!, When are you gonna make a video about slings?
I think he already made one
@@TheHumanPerson9753 never found any
@@TheHumanPerson9753 Skall and Lindy have, but I don't see any from Shad.
Hmmmmmm Ok now I need to find all these "rejected" martial arts and start a HEMA school with them.
Maybe test them first!
WackyStick
that's how you become a supervillain, and also why I sometimes prefer supervillains
Or even better start a hema school and teach both, just because they come from treaties doesnt mean it should be ignored because current HEMAists do
@@DarthAxolotl this here is the better idea of all of them posted to my joke comment.
Shad, you bring up an excellent point and that is the fact that (in my own words) one should not get so bound up in narrowly focusing on treatise techniques when how those techniques actually perform in practical application is the most important aspect of keeping any martial art pure. This is a huge problem in non-European martial arts, leading to McDojos and crap techniques that are ineffective in practical application either in self-defense, mma competition, or actual life & death combat. Sure, one can study the techniques simply for the sake of studying them with no intent to do anything with that knowledge, not even sparring, but WHY do that? If, as many have said, HEMA is meant to be an accurate recreation of it's acronym then why not discard the rubbish, garbage, or dangerously ineffective techniques? And why discard the crap techniques? Because they'd have gotten someone killed 500 years ago, or at least beaten, defeated, wounded, or maimed. That Mark guy that Matt mentions, that whoops everyone's arse at Brit HEMA tournaments, IS a HEMA practitioner because he's picking up a historical weapon, using it in the best biomechanically sound manner to defeat the strictly by the manual crowd, and THAT is what real medieval etc people did. It's what people do to this day! We see it all over youtube too, fake martial arts/artists exposed and long-practiced martial arts found useless as anything other than physical fitness techniques. (That's only a slight exaggeration, even considering that those "arts" can only prevail against the untrained lol).
Yeah. HEMA needs to check itself lest it go down the historical path already laid out in the martial arts world that lead to McDojos, Frank Dux, and the like.
Great video!
I know of one HEMA McDojo and funnily enough they believe they are doing the 'real' historical longsword. It fulfils McDojo criteria because they have a very long grading system of levels and classes, never compete and never interact with other schools as everyone else does things the 'wrong' way. The founder runs it as a business and makes a lot of money. He took me aside when I visited and told me point blank that what I am doing sparring in full gear is not the real deal (tournaments and sparring..). He is somewhat correct in that modern protective gear produces artifacts and people are less careful, but it was a bit weird.
However what they do in their school is not so good in my opinion - it is basically poorly-interpreted stage fighthing that is never pressure tested wtih protective gear - which is not at all historical as longsword Feder fencing in the style of Meyer was a bloodsport so you do need protective gear to avoid giving people brain damage and bleeding heads. To do Liechtenauer and recreate duels you definitely need gear as you can't practice thrusting and cutting with full force without it.
Everybody else I have interacted with generally accept that what we do is try to be as historical as possible but use modern safety gear so we can enjoy real, full-intensity fighting as that is what is most fun and tries to be the closest to using an actual sword. And the vast majority of people don't make any money out of this, in fact it is quite expensive to maintain. We are just lunatics who do it for pure enjoyment.
I don't know. it seems to me that you are more or less arguing semantics, but largely agree with Matt Easton. I think what he says has merit. If I take a sword, and go around swinging it with no training whatsoever, is that HEMA, just because I could get lucky and come up with something that is actually viable--without studying any historical sources whatsoever?
I daresay no, and I don't think any reasonable application of the word "historical" would apply to that. While "historical" should definitely include anything we can study and glean information regarding historical arms and their use/techniques, I do think there has to be some sort of standard that counts as HEMA.
That whole argument reminds me on the reenactment/living history debate that spurs up when someone asks "nice clothes, do you have any sources on item X"?
So often the answer is "no, but they weren't stupid back then".
@@Glimmlampe1982 That makes sense to a degree, but when talking about historical combat, at what point do you draw the line of "plausible technique" and "making it up?"
@@shawnwolf5961 that's the point. If you want to call it 'historical' you need to base it on historical facts (like treatises, descriptive accounts or images).
Which are always changing with new sources, so it's always "to the current knowledge"
The line between what's historical and not is hard to draw, since it's a matter of accuracy rather than black or white.
I don't think a sword tells you enough about how to use it. It tells you some about how to use it (and only the specific sword you're physically holding) from your modern point of view, so if anything you'd end up with a modern type of martial arts that you can name after yourself if you want.
Hi, archaeology student at Universitiy of Zürich here
We actually learn experimental archaeology as a valid method, as is reasonable. We of course also lern about th problems of the method, just as we learn about the problems of for example typochrologogies. Another method which I actually regard as pretty bad...
Using guns as weapons can be a martial art as well.
We're also ignoring the usage of firearms in a historical context.
More broadly, there's nothing that says "martial arts" is limited to melee combat. Archery, the use of slings and other projectiles are examples that count as well.
Looks like the wider misconception is that people think that HEMA is just swords/maces/polearms/shields/etc.
Tbh i don't even know what Martial art is, what should or shouldn't be included within it.
The misconception is that HEMA applies to more than _Historical European_ Martial Arts.
Mostly, this is incorrect. Lots of us in HEMA also study missile weapons, for which there are also treatises and plenty of sources. I study bayonet for example, but I also shoot the firearms of the same era. I also shoot historical bows and consider that HEMA and yes there are some very cool archery treatises. Where there are not treatises available, if course we have to rely on other historical sources for research, but using historical data is what makes it HEMA.
Ohohoho, Shad is getting rightfully, academically cross here!
I love your take here. The manuscripts aren't perfect, they are just one lens of the history.
It's really similar to modern US History textbooks in certain areas referring to "state's rights" being the cause of the US Civil War. Historical texts are very often intentionally misleading and/or biased.
@@internetuser8922 So by your example of United States history, someone can take a drawing of a US battle and then recreate it and then decide in their own mind the historical tactics used? Shad makes no sense here. If you aren't studying written texts then what "history" are you drawing on?
@@shinobi-no-bueno 28:50 that's basically his explanation
The treatises indeed are not perfect historical sources, but for the late medieval period they make up about 90% of what we know about the use of weapons in close combat. If someone doesn't like the treatises, that's fine. But to ignore the treatises, when they are clearly the absolutely primary source we have surviving, would be very silly. I can't imagine a person being genuinely interested in historical medieval combat and not wanting to study the treatises (or learn from someone who had studied them).
Luckily he never said ignore the treatises!
My dad was in SCA and he often tells me about using and facing wrap shots, but until now I wasn't sure how they worked. Thanks
Always a fun shot to throw, not as much to take
The Scuba Commando Attachment?!?
@@shinobi-no-bueno It's mentioned in the video. Society for Creative Anachronism.
I'm gonna have to disagree on this one. I'd not consider a sword on its 'own' a valid "source" of martial knowledge, you'll gain accurate understanding of how the sword "acts", the mechanics of the object, its balance, weight, etc, but that's just the object, it does not validate the person who swings it around randomly (whether he successfully wins a bout or not with an opponent) to be doing an actual historical form of swordsmanship, because it's non-confirmable. The object on its own doesn't neccersarily tell us how it was used, beyond the very few "obvious" things (ie: it has a point, it was most likely used for stabbing, etc, but even then, it's a guess at best and isn't a good measure of what a fully developed technical system of fighting would have looked like).
Using an historical boat is not a good example to compare it to, because all you need is the object to recreate it. Historical sword remains tell us what they looked like and what they were made out of, and those artifacts DO tell us how to make an historically accurate sword (in apperance and material at least) as an object, but now how they were used physically by the people who held them. In the same manner, it would be wrong on the basis of recreating a modern Viking boat alone to claim you knew how the boat was 'operated' and how the crew arranged themseves, (for example you'd not know about seating arrangements, sail operation, how they held the ores, the rhythm of rowing, nor the drum they used to keep pace. All these things had to be learned from other sources outside of just the boat itself as an object to give us a complete and accurate picture of Viking boat operation).
To say you're doing "martial art" or even a single "move", that is at least somewhat historically valid, you need to have a source (whether in writng or otherwise, pictures, artwork etc) of the "technique" used with the object, in order to say you're doing something historically authentic when it comes to the "movement" of how you're wielding it. The definition HEMA uses for "historically authentic martial art" at the minumum standard is; a 'collection of moves' done with an historical weapon confirmed in a source which shows or hints the physical movement of the 'individual' holding that object.
Remember it's call heMA because it's "martial art". Using untrained people from the period as an example and stating they did whatever they wanted or what worked does not classify what they did to be a "martial art", if we were to include such, then we'd no longer call it HEMA, we'd call it HEPA (historical european peasant arts) or HEWW (historical european whatever works).
"Martial art" refers to a series of physical actions performed by a human within the continuity of a system. A weapon alone does not show us physical actions of the people who would have used it. It's like picking up a stick in a field and whacking someone on the head and saying "that's how Robin Hood did it, I just confirmed it by doing it!" (I know he's fictional, but you get my point). You may have discovered a valid way to use a stick, but it doesn't confirm anything about Robin Hood and how 'he' used the stick. It doesn't mean he's not a good stick fighter, but he can't call himself "a Robin Hood" stick fighter, and this mentalilty extends to the historical periods and weapons in "general", and especially so of their "martial arts".
Now you can fill in gaps and move freely I agree, once you have a basic "premise", system, framework or collection of historically valid principles to operate from. As waving your weapon in any way physically possible, IS historically "feasible" (and I'm sure many trained swordsmen had to to fight peasants just flailing their swords about like crazy people), and therefore should not be discounted, but neither should it be seen as historically valid as the "professional art form" of swordsmanship, but rather, an action people "could have freely done" if they wanted to, and so allowing modern day practioners to operate on the same logic, but it would be "catergorised" as such; someone being random with their sword, and it certainly is the responsiblilty of a professional HEMAist to respond to whatever an opponent throws at them (skillful or unskillful), using the martial knowledge they have to the best of their ability (adaptation to the situation is an important and universal martial skill within all systems, and therefore is historically accurate, so long as it's launched from a confirmed historical base 'first').
IMO, the only... "validity" a person could claim by swinging the historically accurate weapon around without sources detailing any techniques, would be HEPA, that he was an historically accurate untrained peasant learning to fight and creating his own art (which of course how all these arts began in the first place, experimentation and experience). Now someone doing HEPA, may actually come up with a really good sword fighting system! But that would be regarded a modern creation based on his own modern day experience and orginality, and not something that was an historical system confirmed by source. But of course, the irony is, if you did that 700 years ago, wrote it in a book, and people studied that book today, THEN it would be authentic HEMA. (Ahh semantics).
I think this is the main confusion/fallacy Shad is making. The METHODLOGY one is using to learn/create the art of the sword is historical, but the ART or end product he CREATES through that method would be a modern day creation, not an historical one, and therefore not HEMA.
A good way to see it is, sewing, you might use a sewing machine from the 1800s, but if you sewn a Pikachu picture on a shirt with that machine, it would not be an historically accurate shirt from the 1800s, but rather it was just "made" in an "historical way", and this is how we view HEMA and the arts of these weapons. Using an historical "method of creating" a sword art does not confirm that's how "sword arts" would have looked back in the day.
Humans have used swords for thousands of years. Any single
technique, that anyone today try to use has at some point or another been used throughout history. So I find this entire situation just funny.
I've seen the argument in the comments that it should just be ema as then we don't have to rely on 'what was probably done in history' and can focus on what works
@@DarthAxolotl If that's the case, why not PEMA (Practical for P)?
@@nicodalusong149 that works well
Yeah people forget that we have the exactly same body plan and biomechanics as our ancestors, if it works for us, definitely one of them figured it out.
But the "since you can't prove it wasn't done like this so they must have done it" is a completely unscientific way of approaching ANYTHING.
Oh man I’m excited for this one!
Don`t you love when two gentlemen have a disagreement ? I honestly love it ! it build so much knowledge for both of the parties involved and for us the observers ! with the greatest of respect for all of you , i say ! keep " fighting " keep searching and lets get to the bottom of this !
Shad has two sides; the soft-spoken, level headed Teacher Shad & the aggressively assertive “NUNCHUCKS SUCK” Shad
his teacher mode is just as savage, slaying em with the facts
Nunchuks should be part of HEMA
@@fran3ro Im sure there are historically used weapons that were just inferior, however I dont think anyone wants to see them used..
@@ThatPianoNoob Suddenly I imagine "light saber" nunchuks haha
@@fran3ro they are one of the things that we can say with some certainty were NOT used historically in Europe.
As a Scadian that's used the wrap shot in combat both tournaments and on the field, there are actually different techniques between the shot used in tourney vs on the line (field combat). And I trained, as most medieval soldiers did, with a small group of highly skilled fighters that learned from their knights. Knights passing down skills to their apprentices is ABSOLUTELY historically accurate.
And you wanna know how effective the wrap shot is? I started using it with no instruction, and our knight paused the fighter practice to break down how effective it is and why. It's just something you naturally pick up. It's very intuitive. If I, a then-18-year-old pleb, could pick up this technique all on my own, so could literally any skilled martial artist.
Have you ever tried to cut anything with that wrap shot? Particularly a target with some kind of clothing on it?
You know, that's an excellent question. We used rattan swords in place of steel. They're about the right weight, stength, and density to approximate sword combat. So no. I haven't tried to cut anything with it. But I have a nice ding in the back of my helm from my sparring partner getting me with a wrap shot. It's a good steel helm, again, not perfectly accurate, but a good approximation. I'd love to see a demo of it with live steal and more accurate armor.
@@alethearia If I may offer some advice from the point of view of a gatekeeping HEMA elitist: see about getting your hands on a decent quality sharp sword and try to cut something with your wrap shot. Ideally, try wrapping your target in some kind of textiles and cutting through it. You might be surprised as to the results.
Sounds like a worthy experiment. But I wonder, why cloth? If the goal is to damage or disorient the opponant with a shot to the back of the head while helmed, why does it need to cut cloth?
Been waiting for this video since I first watched Matt's (whom I also respect and am subscribed to).
This was my comment on his video,
"Some approaches to history requires a great deal of filling in the blanks left by missing sources. What I mean is, the number of existing HEMA sources probably comprise a tiny fraction of the number of actual techniques that have existed throughout history. It seems that some people who take issue with only using sources, would rather use the existing sources to extrapolate what might have also been, through testing and experimentation.
Just my two cents."
I have to say, you did a better job explaining than I did.
Will you do a review of Ghal Maraz, the titular weapon of Warhammer Fantasy?
I'm not involved in HEMA, and so have no opinion of it myself, but you seem to be missing the point of what he's saying.
I would compare it to, say, Judo. If you were to hear people describe it, especially as "trips" or "throws", you would be very unlikely to be able to recreate it in any accurate way. In addition, if dealing with sources that are not directly tutorials, you are likely to be sifting through embellishment and fictional accounts recounted by those without actual training or combat experience (such as the authors of manga or anime).
And so for something like HEMA or whatever, it seems valid to question what modern recreations are actually _historical,_ and which are modern inventions based on a misunderstanding of a possibly fictional tale. In this way, we can only know that things from "the Manuals" are actually historical, as they are written with that purpose at that time, and so have a minimum of modern interpretation or invention.
In this case, it seems you're focusing exclusively on the definition of "history", when based on the clips you played of his, that seems to be a minor point for him. In particular, the reason he is dividing "history" from "archaeology" is probably because, while archaeology can inform us about artifacts, locations, times, and large events, it can't tell us about techniques or methods - for that writing, or at least oral tradition, is really required.
It would be like trying to recreate a dance from olden times. We might know what kind of shoes they wore, and so what dances would be fitting. We might have pictures of people dancing to give some idea of what it might have looked like. We might even have a story describing people dancing. But we can't actually know to any degree of historical certainty what the steps to the dance were or the pacing or music it was danced to without sheet music, instructions, and the like.
Yep, this :-)
I also know nothing about this stuff, but I agree that shad seems to be misunderstanding the people he is discussing.
With Judo you have to look at where it came from. Judo is basically a "modern" sport from of Jujutsu. Where students could practice grappling without breaking an opponents bones and having a "win" or ippon (killing blow) without killing - it also had a name change and ended up as BJJ in Brazil when Japanese Judoka emigrated there. There are many arts around the world that have sprung up around the world that are much like "Judo" even though Judo itself has an historical element. Old Irish Wrestling (Coiléar agus Uille) has many techniques that are the same as Judo, Mongolian Bokh wrestling again similar techniques to Judo, Georgian wrestling basically brought about a number of changes in Judo, Shuai Jiao from China could be confused with Judo if you didn't know better, of course Sumo has a huge number of throws from Judo and Jujutsu.
Couldn't you learn about techniques from an artifact, though? Like, if a bunch of swords at a battleground burial have cuts on the same part of the blade, that could mean the people using those swords probably were trying to hit with that part of the blade. And other such inferences...
@@thedanielhicks You could make guesses, but whether anything you recreated from that were historically accurate would be a craps shoot. Was that where they struck? Is that where they blocked? Is that where a completely different culture was trained to block the blade? Did they favor side cuts, overhead, stabbing with an occasional cut, diagonal cuts? What was the footwork like? What kind of grip did they use on the blade?
Some of these you can make guesses at to a degree, but overall an artifact cannot tell you about what techniques definitely were used with it, or in what situations.
Just wanted to thank you for inspiring my newest video! Your discussion on "Bikini Armor" was very informative!
Steel sharpening steel moment right here
I’m glad you finally called out NRS’s hypocrisy with the censorship crap they did for mk11
@@zzodysseuszz
Facts
Planning to do a video on MK9 kostumes I see .... don't forget they weren't afraid to show femininity just a few days ago while still being strong and compelling characters
Great video! I don’t think Matt’s opinion has change, but rather that he reframed to a more strict definition of HEMA. As you demonstrated, he obviously agrees that is all Historical, just not “Historical” by some stricter definition. Any HEMA practitioner I’ve learned from describes how we fill in the gaps - experimental archeology, other martial arts, and modern sports science. Also, the first thing I did when I first held a sword, was study how it moves in my hand. So many times I’ve come up with a sequence on my own, “the Chad move” 😂 that, later on, when I’m reading the sources, trying to interpret a play, something clicks and I realize that what they’re describing is what I was already doing! The effect is that I’ve learned to trust my intuitions, and the intuitions of others, especially when the source material echoes my own experimental archeology! The great benefit of the treaties, is that they often come with the wisdom of experience, that I don’t always have, lending me the context, warnings, and ways to compensate for the weaknesses of, “Chad’s move”, ultimately making it more effective. A perfect example for me, is the “Rose” as described in Meyer and Mair Longsword and Dussack - It took me and my instructor experimenting with it a lot before we were confident that our interpretation was, if not correct, then something valid. I think the confidence we have in a source is part of the muddying of these waters. Labelling something historical has been conflated with tangibility and confidence that it’s true. Confidence is really difficult, even with a treaty or manual, and the irony is that the addition of experimentation to the sources is what ultimately gains you the confidence to believe it may have been historical. The next conflation has to do with assuming that a sequence working makes it historical, but I let that one go, as historically accurate, but you don’t really want to do that, but know how to exploit it! 😂
I watched Matt's video and I'm pretty sure I heard him say that the treatises are not the only sources for HEMA and that studying other documents, paintings, carvings etc could also fall under the HEMA umbrella. Looking at it as impartially as possible, I have to say that if I were to use the Bayeoux tapestry for example, to try and replicate Norman combat techniques, I would be using a lot of quess work, personal interpretation and experimentation. Nothing wrong with this but it has to be acknowledged that this is not the same as a, if he does this, I do this type of manual. The more personal opinion one has to put in, the further it grows away from what we know was done in the past. I think someone crosses an ethical line when they say they are teaching an historical art, when they are purely instinctively taught, this was done to death with ninjutsu and how long did that argument go on for! This type of debate is only of worth to those who care about others judgements of them, be happy and swing away!
You and Matt should have a live debate and post it on both channels.
or rather a duel to first blood
I'm not sure what would be gained. Shad is ignorant and not afraid to show it, and is just fishing for controversy to generate views.
@@ivanharlokin cringe take
@@bensul9979 that would be like a fight between Ser Matt Gregor and Lord Tyrion Shad.
@@darthkek1953 ahahahaha more like sir matt barristan or someone less brutal but very skilled xD
If I buy a katana and try things to see what works, I'm not practising Iaido or Kendo. The same things applies here. Experimenting with a sword is fun, but it's by definiton not HEMA. That's not gatekeeping (everyone is MORE than welcome to come and train with us). If you are painting impressionistic art and calling it bungee jumping, me being a bungee jumper and pointing that out to you is not gatekeeping.
Here's the thing though: Neither of those arts make the broad sweeping statement of representing all asian martial arts that have been historically practiced, whilst HEMA, BY ITS VERY NAME, does. Add to that, both Iaido and Kendo are hyper-ritualized forms of martial arts, with very little connection to the actual combat application and the entire comparison fails.
So yes, if you were to swing about a historically accurate katana and would become so proficient at it that you could win a fight with it, you wouldn't be doing Iaido/Kendo. But you would more than likely do Historical Asian Martial Arts.
@@draochvar9646 Would I not be doing "martial arts"? There would be nothing historical about it as I'm creating it as I go. I wouldn't even dare call it Asian, because I'm not Asian. (If I were, Asian Martial Art would be okay I guess. :) )
This
Exactly, Patrick. Well said :-)
@@EntropicEcho I'll pick up a club-like stick and start practicing Historical European Caveman Martial Arts!
And then historical MMA was born
Yes we need a new sport called hma "historical martial arts", there is arabic and persian manuscripts and Chinese ones so why not
Exactly, if you don't like the defenition of HEMA the come up with some other name for what you are doing
I often respect your views and you do admit to things being wrong or whatever ^_^ glad you make these videos
Exactly Shad. I have spent over 200 hours in blade and sorcery before ever swinging around a real sword. Obviously swinging a controller around in VR is not the same as swinging a real heavy steel sword, but it did teach me a lot about sword fighting in that game. Like how to anticipate strikes, how to block and parry, to some degree... and also how to counter their sword movements and shift the weight into my favor. There's much more to sword fighting than just "how to swing your sword." There's a mindset that goes into it. Knowing when to strike, knowing when to respect your opponent and not be risky, and so much more.
If playing around with foam swords or sticks in your backyard helps you learn some of those principle, I would say it's time well spent if you ask me. Let the gatekeeping stop. Let's let people embrace their enjoyment of the sport and art of sword fighting, it just means more people who may be drawn to the craft, and thus increasing our hobby more and more!
this is the most serious drama in the community since edge vs flat parries
Which won (running for cover)
@@alanrickett2537 Both, parry with sharp if you want a bind, parry with flat if you don't. ;)
@@EntropicEcho I remember when I started, there were much more edge on edge contact due to poor edge alignment. I have not seen that in years now that the people in my group learned who to properly control the bind, meaning trying to get on the opponents flat instead of just pushing against their edge.
@@MrQuickben When fencing with feders it doesn't really matter because they're blunt, with sharps you can choose to have the swords "bite" into each other a bit, which allows for easier manipulation of the opponent's blade. However, for some parries like Lecküchner's Bogen you want the opponent's blade to slide off your own blade instead.
History was very experimental. I think HEMA should be exclusionary as to streamline it in the pursuit of it being learnable and especially teachable (learning a base and a few special things works better than learning the base and all special things especially on a higher level, that's the reason we have different teachers for different classes in schools) for a regular person with intrest in it
There are good reasons to do that, but if it is to be that way, it needs to be named/defined differently. There shouldn't be historical european martial arts that don't count as Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA).
Also pretty interesting thing about history in general is how many historians argue with each other. Reading the debates in regards to Trojan Franks is a back and forth spanning hundreds of years between historians that didn't live at the same time
@@bluesun5429 yeah, that's fair. IMO the name change would just make more sense than the change into basically everything goes. The name is kinda bad for what it's trying to be
@@mykulpierce that's in nearly all sciences if you dig deep enough. My favorite example is that how I speak is considered German in Germany and Dutch in Belgium with the Netherlands considering it an entirely own language, all of which are based on some linguists (and applied for political purposes)
That's a valid reason for classes to be exclusionary, but not the definition of HEMA. To continue with your school metaphor, just because a class is not taught at your school does not mean it doesn't qualify for the title of school.
The issue, Shad, is that you want probability to be the deciding factor of historicity, when in reality, we can't even properly quantify that probability. Even when probability can be properly quantified, in many cases, it's still a terrible way to determine reality and history should be about what happened, not about what we think could maybe have happened based on nothing other than what is happening in the present. You can't call it historical unless you can confirm it through a historical source.
Hi Shad, great video as usual!
I think we all know this is largely a battle of semantics. I'll give you my opinion as a HEMA practitioner, hope it's useful :-)
I joined Rosa e Spada in 2008. We practice I.33, Fiore and the Bolognese school. We also do 11th century reenactment so you might say I've experienced both sides of this "dispute".
I joined the club in 2008 because I was curious whether we had any martial arts in the western world during the middle ages. I can see now how stupid I was at doubting it since the expression "martial art" is Latin in the first place, but regardless of my stupidity I was really curious XD
I went online and quickly learned about my local club and how they were studying the teachings of ancient masters. I joined the club for the sole purpose of learning a martial art, as in a "figthing system". I was curious about that, I wasn't really trying to learn how to fight with a sword. That perspective has dominated my life as a HEMA practitioner. For instance I don't particularly like tournaments. I have competed in some, and I had a lot of fun, but I have always seen them as ultimately pointless, because my main interest was always in the fighing systems, not in the effectiveness of the techniques or of my fencing. On the other hand I have also enjoyed the conversations and experimentations with my friends during reenactments about how we should hold a spear, how we should use that particular axe etc.. It's a lot of fun, and intellectually stimulating. I always saw these two activities as complementary but different. To me when I'm wearing fencing equipment I'm doing HEMA, because I'm doing a martial art, a fighting system. Whereas when I'm wearing norman maille, sword and shield I'm experimenting, I'm doing a historical investigation.
But again this is my point of view, based on the fact that I'm not really interested in being a good fighter (to me that is just a happy by-product :-D), so whether Fiore's teachings are useful or not is irrelevant, and that to me the expression "martial art" has always meant "codified fighing system".
I would love to hear your thoughts about this :-)
Excellent rebuttal. I didn't understand Matt to be excluding art; but perhaps I missed that. In any regards I agree with your point about history, as Matt uses it, including art. While I find practical archelogy of the utmost importance in understanding the past, I don't see it as having the same weight of accuracy as records (texts, art, etc). It shows how it could be done, not how it was done. I do take your point that Matt was flippant in his rejection of practical archeology. Showing how it could be done, is a huge bit of evidence as to how it was done. It shows us what type of records to look for.
I think a good rule to keep in mind is “If it works it was probably used”. Just because there are no writings of certain moves or techniques doesn’t mean that they weren’t used. If you were in real combat you were going to use whatever worked best at that moment.
Please show me a move that works and I will easily find you a source where it (or its variation) is shown.
@@witalian1 this is I think the biggest issue. As hema gets bigger people are getting more and more interested in competition, in actual fighting. But that isnt what hema is, as you said. If people want to learn sword fighting, and perhaps relearn the skills of the past in a more practical and utilitarian manner, there needs to be a different term for what they are doing.
@@witalian1 With this mentality we should just use manual techniques, and use only exact measures ignoring all common sense, nothing is HEMA then, you need the exact same armor with no divergence, the number of rivets should be always the same, the fighters should be limited by the height of the knight at the time, the colours should be the same, at this point is just an act
@@borislavkrustev8906 as a counter to this find me any modern martial art that is based on treateses rsther than experience and what amounts to an prał tradition. Many moves in martial arts come from specific practitioners thst popularized them in high exposure events, so tournaments. The modern equivalent is video. However not even videos will teach you or explain how Mike Tyson or muhammed ali fought and fight. Youd have to go to them, train under them, to learn their specific way of foghting and then you being someone different will adopt what you can and create everything else.
Any good martial artist realize thst the tradition gives you all the basics in the world and you must then Express yourself in that art, or eventually be destroyed for being too orthodox.
And the treatises were written by the survivors with the best social standing, while successful fighters of lower standing just went back to work.
"Nothing you can think up"
Allow me to introduce to you Jörg Sprave...
But they could have build it with medival tools. So it is historical to Shad.
@@Narguhl Refer to Tod's workshop.
@@Narguhl "Could have built it" and "Actually built it" are two completely different things, ancient people they could have done a lot of things and yet they didn't so it's not how the word "historical" is used at all (and I know you said that's Shad's opinion)
@@AscendantStoic But Shad said if they could have done it that makes it historical!
Or maybe his definition is bullshad.
@@AscendantStoic Excellent point.
I think it should be called HEIMA historical European inspired martial arts . I stopped trying to practice with others a long time ago while still taking advantage of texts and translations provided by dedicated scholars in the community.
One of the big problems is that people in general have low spatial reasoning. And this confused to me to the point where I did some research on the subject. There are studies in both architecture and medical professions about training spatial reasoning in order to develop the ability to interpret 2D images into 3d mental abstractions. Basically for a person's ability to take a flat image and correctly interpret that into reality. It's a skill that does not come naturally to all. I blame this basic principle for why there are so many interpretations based on Old historical texts. That so many people can look at the same thing and walk away with a different interpretation.
Also footage of cane fighting from 1800s and early 1900s seem to indicate a very different type of style in Europe then the idea of trading blows often associated with Hema enthusiasts.
Sword fighting specifically is likely a continuous flurry of strikes that take the momentum from the last strike in the next. But this brings up another point is the overemphasis of the sword over other implements!
@@An.Unsought.Thought not just for the artist but also for viewers. Works both ways! It goes to show as well that with any sort of combat proficiency there must be sparring. There must be practice and experimentation with body mechanics. Just like how learning to box from a book is not sufficient.
It seems to me that, even though that's not how people are phrasing their arguments, the whole debate actually hinges more on the martial arts part than on what is historical. I think that saying that you practice a martial art will, in the mind of most people, equate to the study of a specific established system, as opposed to trying to discover what obviously works and was very likely done by others trying to use the same tool for the same purpose. You're absolutely right in saying that HEMA, taken as a field of research, should include experimental archeology, but as a writer, I'm sure you'll agree that language evolves towards the most common interpretation of words and expressions by average people instead of remaining true to the words' initial definitions (which I happen to find very annoying). This leaves us with the current situation, where we argue not over if people should be doing one or the other but over which of the two is meant when we use the HEMA acronym.
Good response. Maybe I will jump into the fray on this topic as well.
Why does this remind me so much of the "ArrOwS weRn't uSeD oN tHe rIgHt siDe oF thE Bow!" - debate
It isn't that at all, there was evidence of that, this is just semantics bollocks and no one cares
@@Obi-WanKannabis From your comment i must assume you are one of those people that take the 1 Google Search Result for "Vaccines causes autism" and ignores the 99999999 Results that say the contrary.
@@Guderian2 that makes no sense with what I said
Because it's a strawman argument and this whole discussion is already over. Shad is pulling things out of his ass and expects everyone to agree.
You seem to have made a lot of connections between terms where there does not need to be any.
Possibility of something happening is not the same as something happening. For instance just because I have means and time to fly to another country doesn't mean I actually did it. If I did AND I had a ticket to prove it then someone in the future can use that as a solid evidence that it happened. Otherwise they won't be able to say conclusively.
Even more to the point: effectiveness is not the same as historical. It's possible that someone have done something in the past that was ineffective. It's possible that they even taught other people that and wrote it down. Just because they could have done that thing effectively doesn't mean that they did it effectively. It does however mean that it is historical.
HEMA doesn't try to be some total descriptions of all fighting done in the past in Europe. It simply focuses on the parts of the fighting that are well sourced as most likely what happened and doesn't claim that other things that could have happened actually happened. Just because we don't know exactly how some skirmish in some isolated part of Europe looked like doesn't mean it didn't happen or that we can't speculate how it happened. It just means that we simply don't actually know how it looked like and most likely never will, and that is fine. I think you just need to accept that there are gaps in knowledge that without proper sources will never be filled.
Just as you can assume and come up with techniques that are effective and therefore could have been used, someone could come up with all sorts of unwritten rules, customs, beliefs that could have influenced different techniques and ways of fighting. Even simple things like different shoes and being used to completely different way of walking could have changed it drastically.
I love both your and Matt's videos and I think you both belong in HEMA!I think the disagreement here boils down to level of certainty about historical accuracy and the threshold one uses to merit something as "HEMA." Those in Matt Easton's camp would prefer the threshold to be high (basically written sources and pictures only). This is understandable, especially from a scientific standpoint. However, from a more practical standpoint (like experimental archeology), it can appear exclusionary. Anyone who sincerely researches and practices historical European martial arts should be welcome in HEMA conditional only on the understanding that different tactics/methods have various degrees of historical certainty.
I think the biggest contention for me in this debate is HEMA is both a historical reenactment and a Martial Art.
The few martial arts I've seen like Taekwondo are based heavily on one strict technique taught through specific manuscripts (which is what the "strict" definition of HEMA seems to stand for).
However, practitioners don't seem to just be interested in learning these techniques but to also try to dress and live in a similar fashion to their historical counterparts, which seems far more akin to historical reenactors.
And so we are at a crossroads as some prefer to follow the strict "dojo" approach, wheras others simply want to research the environment and attempt to recreate both the sword techniques and the methods to combat in the interest of preserving that knowledge of history.
These two disciplines seem quite different, and perhaps a separate definition of the reenactment side could help to clear things a bit?
I am technically a HEMA Practitioner since I do WWII Combatives, but I am not so sure that I want to just come out and claim it. I do agree with Shad on this. One thing that I have learned is that pressure testing is a better tool for research and studying martial arts than reading a treatise or even watching a video.
Have to side with Matt here.
Which Matt- the one in his recent video, or the one from four years ago?
@@markfergerson2145 both. I don't see the contradiction. The way I see it, if someone who has a deep understanding of body mechanics and he finds something that works against experienced fencers, that's HEMA too, but if you find something that works against your average joe, it doesn't mean that's a valid technic someone actually used to teach.
Interesting to see HEMA getting some fresh examination as of late.
You realize that HEMA isn't a universal or homogenous thing, right? We all study varying things with varying definitions on techniques. Frankly, people within HEMA don't identify each other as having done "HEMA", we identify what sources and time periods we work with. The broad classification of HEMA is a convenient one, not an all-encompassing one. It works to better broadcast to the public what we're doing - we're not just some schmuck waving swords around in the backyard, but rather it implies that we're dedicated to teaching a martial art that is based off of historical sources, we're dedicated to a level of safety standards to keep people from getting injured, and we're ready and willing to pressure test those various techniques with other members of the community to see if they work or not.
Also, like all group terms/language, it lets a person know what the focus is: if you want to learn how people lived and that includes weaponry, then you pick reenactment; if you want to experience medieval life with a vaguely fantasy lens, then you choose SCA; if you want to focus on horsemanship, then you pick jousting; if you want to focus exclusively on the weaponry of a time period and their techniques, you pick HEMA.
@@technicolortornado are you replying to someone else, cause i cant find anything in your beast of a comment thats specifically replying to my original comment, which didnt truly make any real statement itself anyway
@@cyrilgigee4630 you said, "it's nice to see HEMA getting some examination of late" as if HEMA is some huge institution that sets standards and needs to be brought down/examined. Like the term HEMA is literally a sheet we cover ourselves with to disguise how many things we cover/examine/argue about/etc. It's not one homogenous thing that requires fresh, quirky, anti-authoritarian outside perspectives to, IDK, show us how wrong we are? Like Shad isn't doing any of that. He's a frankly terrible fighter that appears to have no regard for actual sources, especially when asked what his sources are. And playing around in your backyard isn't a source. We all did that, congrats.
@@technicolortornado Matt Easton says it's not a sheet or blanket, it *is* a homogeneous organization, and needs rigid and clearly defined rules, standards and guidelines (history only runs up to 1945, does not extend to pre-history, needs to be based on specific treatises, etc) for lots of reasons that you would need an organization to be clearly defined (insurance, competitions, etc). I think the issue is language and individual perception - Matt, as a founding member of the HEMA Organization and as a HEMA instructor will have a different perspective of what HEMA is than someone who's been going to a club once a week after work for three months... the difference between historical European martial arts as an activity and Historical European Martial Arts as a specific organization, if that makes sense...
@@technicolortornado i said "interesting", not "nice", which i think makes my comment a lot more neutral than what youve taken it as. and i may as well admit that the reason i made a comment with so little of any real statement was simply that i was trying to comment on the video early with anything slightly more creative than "im early"
This is the content I've been waiting for: less clowning around, more interesting stuff.
What you're talking about applies to all fields of study, but what makes combat interesting in particular is that this experimentation is constantly being pit against itself. This creates a sort of ecosystem of techniques, as well as a wide variety of styles.
Combat in one location can be totally different from combat in another. The initial stages of combat experimentation become the foundation for an entire country.
"There's NOTHING that you can think up that hasn't been done historically before."
...He says to a digital camera, in a repeatable recording, on an online service, ultimately addressing more people at once, than the total people of at least two medieval centuries combined - and they thought the earth was flat!
Do we even have an approximated numner on how many living, breathing swordsmen there would be on this planet at any medieval date? Do we have an approximation of how many sword enthusiasts that are alive in this very second?
People have (historically) been incredibly resourcefull and inventive over the years.
Now there's A LOT more of us. Each with thoughts in our heads.
"There's NOTHING that you can think up that hasn't been done historically before."
-Is that a challenge? I wouldn't bet on that statement.
Anyways, I still totally agree with Shad, I just wanted to write a long comment.
I demand you guys meet halfway in Egypt and duel to determine who‘s right.
On top of the great pyramid
@@MrRourk Using the mighty stick
Is this a jojo reference
Yooo, did you just make a Jojo reference
I’m here for my obligatory appearance as a lesser jojo
Me a Filipino simply brandishing a european poleaxe while doing kicks & grabs here and there..
Careful what you're grabbing here and there. You could get in legal hot water!
At least you can have a poleaxe. People look at me funny for carrying an Eskrima stick for self defense
HEMA people: “noooo that’s not real you can’t watch this on UA-cam it’s not accurate!!”
Me: “hehe look they’re bonking each other with sticks”
sharp stick
STICK!!!
Stick?
*Shad has entered the chat*
Me: "Will HEMA save your life in a sword fight?... No?... I thought so."
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 You can be very sure that a HEMA fighter will perform much better in a sword fight than every non practiced user. Just like a MMA fighter will perform better in a fist fight.
The way you can train in HEMA is pretty effective concerning wielding a sword.
btw. making stuff up wihle wielding a sword does not make the made up stuff historical.
There are a lot of people had made some good points in the comment section, I would add a few of my own.
The first thing is the purpose of ‘HEMA’ movement. Is HEMA about ‘reconstruction of the martial arts tradition that used to prevail in Europe’, or ‘finding the effective way to fight with historical European weapons’? Different people who practice HEMA would have different goal in their mind of course, but in terms of the purpose of the movement itself, I would say both are important. And I want to emphasize the former, which is about to bring a subculture that has almost completely died out in modern day (we still have things like modern fencing, classical fencing, some form of folk wrestling, some stick fighting systems, etc. But most of the European martial arts traditions had already gone, and by ‘gone’ I mean there is no unbroken lineage last until today) back to life. And by learning the arts, we can have a better insight of the culture surround martial training of that time. For this part, I would argue that it can only be achieved by looking at the sources.
And here I want to discuss another important concept of this topic, that is, the concept of ‘martial art’. In a broader sense, any effective methods of fighting can be classified under this category. But things get different when it comes to the well-established, codified SYSTEM of martial art (which is what HEMA study primarily focuses on). Because they are more than just some ‘collections of techniques’ but also the underlying principles that thread these techniques together (e.g. preference of certain type of moves under a situation where other viable options exist). How these principles are codified (or even the very creation of these principles) are deeply affected by the culture of the time when the system is established and can’t be understand through ‘experimentation’ as it has little to do with the shape and function of the weapons themselves. A relatively simple demonstration of that would be making a comparison between rapier system in Spanish (Destraza) and the contemporary Italian rapier system. Despite the facts that they coexist in the same time period and are dealing with very similar weapon, the way they put those concepts together are significantly different. We can only have such insight by learning the system itself, and the best way to do so right now, is to read through and try to understand the source material. There is no way to learn that by sparring alone.
That’s not saying activities like this (I.e. sparring without getting into any established system) or ‘experimental archeology’ are worthless or somehow inferior to HEMA. If the purpose of your training is simply ‘trying out and see if you can find an effective way to use certain historical weapons’, then such activities would be perfectly valid, and I think that could be a good sport for people who just want to learn about how to fight with historical weapons and have little interest in history and culture. My point here is, since it doesn’t achieve one of the most important goal of HEMA movement, maybe we should put such activities into another category? (again it is not to imply that they are inferior to HEMA, they are just different enough to be classified separately)
Art historian here, just wanted to say I strongly agree and I have a non hema example to show why this is a fallacy.
Sigmund Freud came up with a long theory about Leonardo da Vinci involving the interpretation of Leonardo's notebooks which can be easily debunked merely by viewing the painting in question. Basically Freud argued that Leonardo's account of a dream of a bird's tail tapping his mouth that had showed that he had latent homosexuality and you can observe this in the painting of the Virgin and Child with Saint Anne. Then Freud arbitrarily drew a line around the drapery in this painting to show a silhouette of a vulture.
But anyone looking at the painting with or without Freud's outline would probably say that Freud was seeing exactly what he wanted to see, based on the writing being his primary source instead of looking at the painting first.
Also, Freud mistranslated the word as vulture because he wasn't a scholar of 15th century Italian as a language. Vultures were seen as a feminine/homosexual principle by Freud, but Leonardo never said vulture and probably had no such association anyway.
Also this basically has nothing to do with Leonardo's practice as an artist and yet Freud's argument eclipsed other interpretation of the painting for decades.
Historiographically speaking this is laughable, but Freud was so influential that people just accepted this as fact.
The truth is, you don't need to read Da Vinci's notebooks to paint like him. In fact it would be counterproductive. It would be better and faster to try to imitate the painting techniques by watching painting videos on UA-cam. Written sources are written by an individual human who are always going to have bias.
Anyway, good job!
20:44
That doesn't sound entirely true to me because practicing yourself is only part of it. An iterative process of practicing, theorizing, and sharing information with other people, throughout a long period of time that spans multiple generations, is what makes more sense to me of what would paint a more complete picture of how the techniques were developed.
The problem with saying "figuring out swordfighting in your backyard = HEMA" is that it's so broad that HEMA has basically no definition at all.
There's also the 'martial art' part of HEMA - surely this requires some form of systematization or codification, something that figuring it out manually in isolation isn't equivalent to. Just because people figured out different styles historically by lone practice doesn't mean modern lone practice creates HEMA - you'd be replicating the 'pre-step' to the development of a historical style, not an actual historical style.
If we look at MMA as an example, it's certainly classified as a martial art, but incorporates many different unique and specific disciplines. As such, there is no singular codified "MMA". Creation and adaptation of techniques is also entirely encouraged (so long as you can test them at some point with resistence) and this can be seen in much the same way as figuring it out in your back yard.
Although most martial arts are systems or codes, is not necessarily the case definitionally.
Your comment brought up interesting question - is HEMA more heavy for the "History" or "Martial Art" part? Martial arts can develop, but history is history and can not be changed. I personally see HEMA as a museum, there are some historical textbooks on unarmed fighting - and what a surprise, those are not moves that are winning MMA matches.
I think the issue here is that we know, quite precisely, that most people didn't utilize the manuals historically. Most were not in mass production to be used. Thus, certainly to some extent, the products of sparring with these weapons *must* be taken to a certain degree of martial credit, because it is highly likely that historical people found the same results.
@@saint3614 But in essense there is an underlying holy trinity or sorts within mma, a striking art usually boxing, kickboxing or muay thai, a grappling art usually bjj, and wrestling. Principally making a system of mma, not strictly defined, but existant. Then each of those individual arts being largely systemised as well
@@thomastucker7317 Very true, but I think the key is "usually", it's not codified. Also true that it takes from systemised martial arts, but there are individual moves that fighters have created themselves also.
Most of the top fighters in MMA have unique aspects, stances, and approaches that they've come up with themselves.
MMA is, ultimately, a collection of things that have been tested and proven to work with resistence (Many of which, as you say, are indeed from systemised arts, but crucially, not all). Which I believe is a fair parallel to what Shad was saying.
Maybe functional yet undocumented forms of historical European fighting should be called speculative HEMA or experimental HEMA.
Art and culture can count but also count in favour of normal HEMA, so it’s moot.
The only problem with that is that even within Treatise study... it's still speculative. Two schools studying the same treatises will come to different conclusions.
@@hailhydreigon2700 Actually nowadays, mostly on details. The most researched treatises - German and Italian - have to a big extent very similar interpretations across the globe. That's because we pressure-test it and eventually, the things that work are mostly the same.
Everything we know is incomplete and speculative/interpretation. Whether written, drawn or otherwise. We lose A LOT of information due to the test of time. So maybe HEMA in general should be called, my favorite suggestion, LHEMA (Limited Historical European Martial Arts). Since everything we know historically, is limited.
Quite good points! I really wish Matt don't take that personally. I would hate to see such a rip between my favorite youtubers!
I would think the distinction is mainly one of purpose.
Two guys brawling in a backyard is not HEMA. Two guys brawling in a backyard, while being observed by a third party for the purposes of observing how untrained humans fight (and, historically, likely fought) could be HEMA (and probably also unethical experimentation, but let's not go there).
Two guys having a 'swordfight' with boffers (or even feders) is not intrinsically HEMA...but it could be HEMA if it's performed for the purpose of experimentation, determining what works/what doesn't work, and generally improving in their use of the weapon. Many people probably did learn that way throughout history, it would just not have been recorded as such.
In general, I agree with you, but I think the people in the comments saying that "well, in that case ANYTHING is HEMA" are missing the point. Any kind of historical combat with historically accurate weaponry - performed mindfully - can be HEMA. That doesn't mean that every fight (whether involving sword-like objects or not) is intrinsically HEMA.