Studying treatises is not the only way competitors prepare for HEMA tournaments. Some competitors prefer to focus on being more athletic than their opponents while others may enjoy discovering how to use a sword on their own. These competitors do not necessarily use the conventional techniques found in treatises. These type of competitors in tournaments highlight the drawbacks and limitations that can occur when studying treatises to learn swordsmanship.
​
Today we will be exploring the disadvantages of studying treatises to prepare for HEMA tournaments.

Sometimes studying treatises (and especially when studying modern interpretations of them), can teach a fencer bad techniques.

When studying history, it is a common practice to not discredit or disagree with statements made by a primary source. However, when interpreting the validity of a historical martial art, it can be useful to question the techniques presented in these sources. Not all treatises are created equal and some may exist without the author truly having a martial background.
​
For more on the discussion of errors in sources, see the following discussion by Matt Easton:

It is also important to remember that the treatises studied in HEMA were written by people, translated by other people, and interpreted by a different set of people. Techniques could be lost in translation that unfortunately can lead the general HEMA community to the wrong conclusions when attempting to recreate these systems.
​
For some sources, such as the Lichtenauer lineage of treatises, it is easier to cross-reference the source with other sources interpreting the same technique. This allows for a higher degree of confidence for the interpretation of the techniques. However, this is not a luxury for other popular treatises such as I.33. For sources like I.33, a number of secondary interpretations are used to cross-reference and discover the true intent of I.33. This can lead to a higher risk of misinterpretation based on false-assumptions.

The mindset of only doing the techniques a manuscript includes can lead to disadvantages in HEMA tournaments.  

Sometimes students feel that if a technique is not included in the treatise they study, they cannot do it. One example of this is sabre fencers who do not use hanging guard because it is not taught in their system. However, there is a difference between not doing a technique because the fencer is not familiar with it and not doing a technique because it is not in the sources they study.
​
It is important to remember that no one can include everything in their writing, even the authors of fencing systems. For example, I.33 does not include a technique on striking someone in the face with a buckler nor does it include a technique on how to prevent this. However, Paulus Kal’s treatise on sword and buckler does include this technique. If a fencer rigidly applies I.33 against other sword and buckler fencers, they will be vulnerable to buckler strikes while also limiting themselves to not delivering buckler strikes to the opponent’s face.

A number of variables can dramatically impact the validity of certain techniques taught in treatises.

The sources studied in HEMA come with their own historical context for implementation. If a competitor in a HEMA tournament attempts to use the unarmored combat techniques of longsword when fighting in armor, they will not succeed. Without recognizing the potential variability in a fight, a fencer may improperly use a technique and end up on the losing side of a tournament.
​
In HEMA tournaments, fencers are required to wear a certain amount of safety equipment. This equipment such as heavy protective gloves and HEMA fencing jackets can change how effective a technique in a treatise can be by limiting the mobility the fencer. Another variable that can impact technique is different heights between fencers. Differentials in heights create new angles of attacks a fencer must deal with and also can change what technique is required to defend against a certain action.

The goal in HEMA tournaments is to hit your opponent without getting hit. This creates a fair amount of flexibility in what techniques will be used.

One of the best attributes a competitor in a HEMA tournament can have is adaptability. It is important to remember that there are many different types of fencers who will use the techniques they feel are best suited for themselves. Sometimes, those techniques are less effective than your own. Other times, your opponent will have the advantage and you will need to adapt to defeat them.

Studying fencing treatises does not necessarily encourage adaptability. Fencers may assume that the treatises are infallible, or that all scenarios are covered in the treatise, or that the techniques are not impacted by gear. These are just some of the ways treatises can limit fencers.
​
It is important to remember that the manuscripts are meant to be guides for the use of the weapons they teach. If left to just theory, these treatises can fall short in practice. It is the responsibility of the fencers to adapt the treatises to what suits them and to hit their opponent without getting hit themselves.

There are many ways to prepare for Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA) tournaments. Competitors may study from manuscripts and other historical sources in order to learn swordsmanship. These types of competitors can range from people that dedicate themselves to a single system to others that pursue a general study of multiple systems to understand a weapon as a whole.

However, studying treatises is not the only way competitors prepare for HEMA tournaments. Others put more emphasis on the physical aspect of tournaments and swordsmanship. They may also take a trial and error approach to learning techniques and tricks that work to aid them in a tournament.

At one extreme, the competitors who study the manuscripts bite their thumb at those that ignore the sources. On the other extreme, the competitors who focus on the physical aspect believe that treatises are limiting and prevent fencers from adapting in a fight.
​
Today we will begin a two part series on the advantages, and disadvantages, of studying treatises to prepare for HEMA tournaments.

The first and most useful advantage swordsmanship treatises provide is structure. A treatise contains a series of actions, vocabulary, definitions, and other teachable objects that allows for everyone studying the treatise to speak the same language. In the case of British military sabre systems, this is demonstrated with numbered cuts and sequenced plays. (Roworth, 1824) In the case of I.33, it is the terminology and plays that help illustrate techniques to perform. (Manuscript I.33, Early 14th Century (2018)) In Meyer’s longsword system, the sword actions are named to help assist in understand ways the longsword can move. (Meyer, 1570 (2015)) Even loosely structured systems like George Silver’s system contain terms like variable, open, and guardant to define how a fencer is to conduct themselves in different scenarios. (Silver, 1599)

Another advantage to studying treatises is the ability to learn from the past. In many cases, the treatises come from a history of learning from prior masters which continued to develop and refine what they believed to be the proper way to use their respective weapon. For the Bolognese sidesword and buckler system, Achille Marrozo and Antonio Manciolini learned from the Dardi School of Fencing. (Wiktenauer, 2021) For German longsword sources, there is an entire lineage of sources developed in the Liechtenauer Tradition. (Wiktenauer, 2022)

Specifically for the Liechtenauer tradition, the Fellowship of Liechtenauer listed in Paulus Kal’s manuscript contained seventeen individual names that were involved with the development of the system as a whole. Later, Joachim Meyer would continue the Liechtenauer tradition adding even more literature to study and learn from.

​Even in the cases where there is not a clear lineage like I.33, competitors can learn from the lessons that are taught. These treatises serve as a way at least one person believed a sword should be used. By studying these treatises, modern competitors can learn what worked, and did not work, from previous fencing masters. 

Studying treatises as described in this blog post is not just reading manuscripts. Drills, peer reviews of techniques, practice, sparring, and other tangible activities are all required to properly study a treatise. However, with practice and a scholarly approach to learning treatises, a fencer can learn to become a competent competitor in HEMA tournaments.
​
There is no doubt in my mind that given enough trial and error, HEMA tournament competitors could re-create the systems written in the treatises. However, by studying the treatises, HEMA tournament competitors can immediately learn practical techniques which can take a bit of the guess-work out of learning swordsmanship.

Manuscript I.33.(Early 14th Century (2018)). (D. J. Forgeng, Trans.)
The Medieval Art of Swordsmanship: Royal Armouries MS I.33
Meyer, J. (1570 (2015)).
The Art of Combat. (D. J. Forgeng, Trans.)
Roworth, C. (1824).
The Art of Defense on Foot with Broad Sword and Sabre.
Silver, G. (1599).
Paradoxes of Defence. Retrieved from http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/paradoxes.html
Wiktenauer. (2021).
Filippo Dardi. Retrieved from Wiktenauer: https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Filippo_Dardi
Wiktenauer. (2022). 
Johannes Liechtenauer. Retrieved from Wiktenauer: https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Johannes_Liechtenauer

From time to time I come across people speculating that the purpose of first ward is to have a ward that can draw from the scabbard to attack. This argument seems to stem from first ward being similar to a sword position used in Japanese sword systems. This hypothesis would indicate that first ward could support techniques like the Iaijutsu, a quick-draw attack intended to strike an opponent when the sword starts in a scabbard or sheath.

However, there are a number of features lacking in the first ward that makes the attempt to quick-draw like the Iaijutsu difficult, if not impossible. This blog post will explore my rationale on why I do not believe first ward is intended for fighting when the sword starts in the scabbard. Rather, first ward is its own guard and practical within the I.33 system and intended for use when the sword is already drawn.
​
Before we begin with this analysis, I would like to give a huge shout out to Charles Turner of East Texas Historical Fencing who discussed this topic with me at Gesellen Fechten 2022. He highlighted a number of points about drawing a sword from a scabbard that supported my argument presented today. His comments, specifically on Fiore and the assistance of the off-hand to draw a sword, are presented in this blog post.

​To begin, we must first aim to understand the Iaijutsu. The Iaijutsu is a quick-draw attack designed to strike with the sword when the sword begins in a sheath or scabbard. Examples of this technique can be found in the following video:

While performing the Iaijutsu, the sword is drawn forward. Upon analysis of this technique, the practicality of it becomes evident. The ability to attack when the sword begins stored would be an effective defensive (or offensive) action when in a sword fight. If I.33 could include a technique like this, it would be a useful technique indeed.
​
Unfortunately, there are a number of features that prevent first ward from being the desired ward for this quick attack. There is further evidence to support that first ward is intended to be like any other ward in I.33 where the sword is free and ready to attack.

The first problem first ward encounters when trying to be used for drawing the sword in combat is the positioning of the hands. First ward is holding the sword hilt close to the armpit which is much higher than a scabbard would be worn for a medieval sword. However, assuming the sword were in a scabbard in this position, the buckler hand presents the next biggest challenge.

The buckler is shown in two different positions in I.33; one where the buckler covers the right side and the other where the buckler covers the left side. While the buckler hand may be holding a scabbard when facing the left side, it would become a hindrance to the draw when facing the right side because the buckler arm crosses over the sword arm. Both of these positions of I.33 are used to show the same technique, falling under the sword, where the sword is extended forward to bind against the opponent’s blade. It seems more likely that the sword is already free from a scabbard and the fencer has taken the position of first ward to bind safely against the opponent’s blade.
​
Furthermore, the fencer in I.33 is advised to place their blade against the opponent when falling under the sword. The motion required for this bind would not support the forward drawing motion of the Iaijutsu.

Just like with the Iaijutsu, the Fiore manuscript shows the use of the off-hand supporting a sword draw from a scabbard. In this manuscript, a play exists that shows how to use a sword in a scabbard to defend against an aggressor with a dagger. At the start of this play, Fiore is resting his longsword on his shoulder with the scabbard covering the blade.
​
While the opponent is holding the dagger high, Fiore grabs his scabbard and extends it forward to block the opponent’s arm from being able to deliver the plunging thrust with the dagger. Again, similar to the Iaijutsu, the scabbard is held while the blade is removed.

​In 2021, a quick thought experiment was conducted at VBHF involving drawing a sword from a scabbard while under threat of an opponent. The scabbard was belted to me while my buckler was hung onto the hilt of my sword with a simple rope loop. The exchanges for this experiment can be found in the following video:

In some cases, I was able to draw my sword without the assistance of my off-hand. However, to achieve this, the sword had to be drawn high and up towards my right shoulder to clear the scabbard. I was able to delay the exchange by defending with the buckler while I drew the sword from the scabbard.

In other cases, the scabbard was either held with the buckler hand or pinned against my body using my buckler arm. These actions appeared to be the fastest ways to draw the sword and engage the opponent.
​
Interestingly, instead of engaged the sword quickly, I preferred to defend with the buckler. Further experimentation would need to be conducted on whether defending with the buckler was the safer action, or if holding the scabbard and drawing the sword similarly to the Iaijutsu attack would have been a better option. For the Iaijutsu attack to have been feasible, the buckler would need to be secured some other way to the person as opposed to hanging off the sword hilt.

There is no question to me regarding the value of being able to attack with a sword while drawing from the scabbard. Unfortunately, based on the evidence presented, it does not appear that first ward is designed to support this action. While first ward is an effective ward in I.33, it would be dramatically limited if the sword were still in its scabbard. Instead, first ward and the techniques presented in I.33 appear to assume that the sword is already drawn and ready to engage the opponent.