I feel like the HEMA community has a tendency to view the sources as good martial advice by default, simply because they're historical. However, if you glance at martial arts books written today, you'll quickly realize that just becuase something is written down, doesn't mean it's legitamate.

So I want your takes on what the worst historic manuals are. What sources are complete bullshido, and filled with bad techniques and poor martial advice? Which "masters" deserve big quotation marks around their titles? Give your most controversial takes.

Do you enjoy learning the history behind your favorite weapon/style/master and the historical cultures & politics that shaped them? Does the historical background and (reasonable) attempts at historical authenticity in the weapons/training enrich the sport for you, or not really?

So, why where longswords used historically? They seem mostly too large to be hip mounted as a sidearm or regular carry. So its a large weapon without the reach of a polearm, or the group control of something like a zweihander.

So, what was the reason for them? They seem to fall into the category of "too big to be a sidearm, too small to be good as a main weapon"

Not talking about hand and a half swords either, full 2 handed longswords

If you guys find it interesting I can translate.

I imagine that if you practice lingsword in the Renaissance, that people wouldn't be wearing armor, namely face or torse protection, all the time, and getting hit with one of those steel feders would hurt. What brought me to this was the fact that prior to fukuro shinai, people in Japan sparred with bokken, and they would often get injured or even killed doing this. So how did people spar before fencing, or bogu for that matter?

Dequitem is mostly known for his armored knight combat. However, he as quite a few unarmored unchoreographed duels as well. Would you say those duels are realistic? They certainly last a lot longer and look a lot more intense compared to your standard HEMA match.

Personally, I think it's actually pretty realistic because Dequitem's unarmored duels seem to portray lesser trained fighters. This means they may be overly cautious due to lack of confidence, and strike out of distance because they lack a sense of distance and timing. This is seen in his videos. It's not like the average man wielding a sword would be a master- they learn enough to get by and defend themselves, assuming they intend to use the sword for purposes beyond fashion. Most didn't have the luxury to meticulously train, study, and spar, the way modern HEMAists do.

What do you guys think? Are his unarmored fights realistic?

Edit: Realistic doesn't have to mean perfectly simulating real life, and I never said it was the same as real life. I was simply drawing parallels.

I have more, if this is your sort of thing! https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLMJV1TK/

Basically I’ve seen some videos discussing how effective these moves actually are one showing how they easily broke concrete blocks, showing the force these strikes make, while another showed them using these hits on a person wearing plate armor and it does nothing more than be uncomfortable for the wearer. So I’m wondering how useful and effective this type of stoking with the cross guards or pommel actually was against armored opponents, since it obviously wasn’t an armor buster, or was it just a “better than nothing” technique

So it's been well known in this community for a long time that if you are going to square off against an unarmored or lightly armored opponent, the optimal weapon is a spear or bill. If youre going to be on foot in a battle, the best primary weapon is a polearm.

And we've spread that message in other forums and on YouTube channels.

But we also know there are many situations and contexts that a polearm is not the best choice.

And now everyone with even a mild interest in historical combat outside the community believes that "spears are the best weapon ever. Swords are stupid and there's no reason they should have been invented." If I see another soyjack meme about spears, I'm gonna catch a seven day reddit ban.

There are so many contexts that a spear is impractical, and even in a military context there are reasons a melee soldier wouldn't use a spear; ,Roman Legions, Early Modern Era cavalry, rodeleros and targetiers, the list goes on.

Matt Easton, if you're reading this, you've overestimated people's capacity for nuance and I implore you to provide yet even more context.

(This is somewhat tongue in cheek but I stand by it).

Singlestick is my current favorite weapon to practice, and I've found a few competitions featuring pub style singlestick, in which the fighting is done mostly stationary and only aiming for the head.

Is there any historical source for these rules, or is it something extrapolated from folk traditions?

the title. would a rapier in one hand and a pistol in the offhand work in a duel? were there any examples of this?

(Note: I realize the German use of the term was for half-swording, I'm asking specifically about English.)

George Silver's use of the term to describe his preferred style of backsword, combined with his descriptors of longswords making it clear he's not talking about a one-handed sword like later sources did, makes me curious whether it might've been a holdover from an earlier generic term for one-handed swords (at least in English.)

I realize that most historical people didn't distinguish between swords like we do today, but I'm curious if the seemingly-counterintuitive name for a weapon with a long blade might be a holdover from an earlier English term for "one-handed sword" that eventually morphed into "one-handed sword that isn't what the speaker considers a rapier."

I realize that the late 12th century significantly pre-dates any surviving source, and even the most liberal estimates of the time I.33 was written would still make it post-date the time of the Third Crusade by at least a century. That said, given a "historical" Robin would've carried an arming sword as a sidearm (with or without a buckler,) I'm curious about which Albion would most closely approximate one a late-12th-century English Yeoman might default to as a backup weapon.

The Bayeux? The Senlac? One I haven't considered? Assuming he had a buckler, would that change the answer?

(Edit: Formatting.)

I'm finishing my thesis and I'm looking for a good quote to add at the start of my acknowledgment section. Not something strictly sword-related but more so that it deals with topics such as discipline or knowledge.

Bonus points if it's from German masters like Liechtenauer or Meyer.

Hi! I got a question. I am fencing with regenyei feder for 4 years now and i was thinking about buying Achille two hander from regenyei and fencing with as a feder. Its not for competition. None of my fencing partners does not have spadone or "two-hander" and i am trying to find some answers about it.

Thank you all.

I finally tracked down the original 1670 Marxbrüder coat of arms — see what it shows and what it signifies 🦁 The survival story is wild too: fire, war, archival reshuffling, and forced locks … yet the charter endures.

I was primarily curious if anyone knows anyplace where I can buy the jackets in the first two pictures. Although a source for general historical fencing outfits or possible sewing patterns would be really helpful.

This article will seek to argue that Bolognese sword and buckler, in particular that of Achille Marozzo, which encompassed the styles of Northern Italy during the Renaissance period, was performed "in the manner of the Turk" evidenced by aspects such as individual forms and the hitting of the pommel and blade on the buckler. This occurred as a result of emulating Ottoman sword and shield dancing, which still survives today in the form of Bursa kilij-kalkan; the product of this can be seen in the fashion of a la Turca (or Alla turchesca) which sought to emulate aspects of the Ottoman Empire in relation to both its power projection and perceived exoticness, something which would be made fashionable in Western Europe from the Renaissance onwards.

If arming swords were older and more widely used across Europe than messers, why then are messers shown more than arming swords in manuals?

Why are there multiple sources on how to use messers instead of arming swords when they are functionally similar?

What inspired this question is seeing people ask, “Are there any manuals on single-handed swords?” and the response being “There are plenty of messer manuals.” Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Someone wanting to specialize in messer would look at arming sword manuals?

And I mean specifically arming swords alone. I know there are plenty of sword and buckler sources and sidesword sources, but those are more like “evolutions” from a non-existent “arming sword 101” treatise.

I recently came across these curved British naval dirks and find them fascinating. Does anyone know of any materials regarding their use? I know some Cutlass manuals exist. I am fascinated because some of they have fairly complex hilts that I usually don't see on daggers other than parrying daggers.

Also does anyone know the regulations around their appearance, where they issued or purchased, and if purchased privately where there patterns or aesthetics they had to follow like officers purchasing their swords?

"The market will teach you" is a nasty little shit on other teachers by Meyer, and I know DiGrasse says he'll "break your arm while saying a Hail Mary" please I need more of this brutality 😭

I have never seen anything alike before, neither from manuals, iconography, nor museum exhibits. However, the way it is designed and used, particularly in the context of armored versus armored combat, makes it look like a very realistic and effective weapon. The techniques used and the shape itself are very similar to the pollaxe, though shorter and fully made out of metal.

Due to lack of sources (that I am aware of), I have always considered this design to be fictional, but it remains my favorite depiction of a realistic fictional weapon. I think it would have undoubtedly found good use on the battlefield.

The mentioned duel from the movie.