Original post got removed on HEMA for some reason so have reposted the full thing:

Something which hasn't been advertised (and deserves greater attention) is the translation of sections of two treatises by Hamilton Parker Cook on Wiktenauer.

· The first is the translation of Matrakci Nesuhi's 16th Century Ottoman treatise "Tuhfat al-ghuzat" (Treatise dedication to the Holy Warriors): https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Matrak%C3%A7%C4%B1_Nas%C3%BBh

· The second is a translation of a 15th Century Mamluk treatise Kitab al-makhzn: Jami al-funun (The Treasure: A work that Gathers Together Combative Arts): https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Jami%27_al-funun

The implications of these for people who want to do research on these parts is substantial and unfortunately, though published, Wiktenauer as been silent on these issues.

These work deserve greater coverage and attention, and I wish more people knew about these.

Disclaimer: these translations are specific sections, and the whole treatises are yet to be translated. However for people who are interested in fencing within the Islamicate (North African, Ottoman and Iranian) world these are a must-have.

Additional disclaimer: Nesuhi's section on sword use is for mounted combat.

Today my fencing club Uppsala Historiska Fäktskola is hosting what we believe to be the world's first competition in Dynamic Montante. It is a bit of a beta-test, so we would love to hear your thoughts!

You can follow the live-stream here. (Once the stream is available in a recorded version I will update this post)

https://www.youtube.com/live/X59uCJRhpxQ

Just saw the good old cliche by someone of how he argues how weak and overrated Katanas and and literally believes all European swords are superior to Japanese swords (which going by his argument it implies he's assuming they are all katanas) because he saw a two handed sword thats smaller than the stereotypical Zweihander but still considerably longer than your common King Arthur Excalibur sword prop used in movies thats shown being use two handed in stuff like First Knight.... Basically it resembles the typical barbarian sword associated with the Arnold Schwarzenegger Conan movies (much smaller than great sword class like Zweihander in google image search I just did now but longer than the one used in the 1981 Excalibur film) cut a katana in half that was laid on two separate stands with nothing but air below at the center where it got cracked apart...........

The way he uses this testing he saw at the public San Diego Convention in a historical event already makes me raise eyebrows because......... Katanas are a different class from whats often classed as claymores in video games like Diablo and the giant Montante looking greatswords in same said games. Even said video games teat them as such..... So to use it as an example of how European swords are superior to Japanese swords is already a claim showing a disregard for common sense just by this fact...... Especially when the Japanese themselves saw it this way and the Samurai not only had much larger sword classifications but also smaller ones as well and emphasized if you want to fight against heavily armored opponents yo use something like the Nodachi and the Zanbato if you decide not to use pikes, hammers, and halberds.

I saw the poster dismiss this conterfact as well ss another response by another poster saying that even in the katana category, not all swords are equal and the best katanas basically use Chinese steel which can be comparable to European steel and later on actually imported steel from Europe around the same time they started getting musket weaponry to equip their most elite warriors. Again the guy who believes the longsswor dcutting the katana in half dismiss these claims and basically repeated over and over in a broken record that Europeans words are superior because he saw a the demonstration.......

But this does make me wonder about one thing? If a sword made out of pig iron or some other horrible metals like bronze was constructed to be a large blade say for this argument the size of a thats over 10 lbs such as the Chinese Zhanmadao design, would it still get damaged heavily by a generic smaller one handed arming sword because of the difference in metal quality? Or would the weight and size of a sword made out of the very crappy pig iron so common in Japan make up for it and actually damage the steel forced arming sword? Esp since example the Zhanmadao which was not only allegedly a an anti-cavalry weapon but there are tales of it literally cutting a giant horse's head off while its charging in full speed and even cutting a large front of the horses body in half up to around down in between the front legs?

I saw a video where Matt Easton emphasizes at all cost against hammers, axes, and other weapons to not parry and block and deflect but just side step or back away or dodge against them if you weapon is a lighter one like the First Knight Lancelot blade.... and it reminds me of an something I once read in Samurai training about doing the exact same thing against wooden training mallets and against a suburito which are made out of wood and are specialized advaned training equipment even if you are using dulled katana blades made out of modern day quality steel you're better off making footwork and avoidance your defensive moves rather than direct sword contact stuff like binding and deflection because the weight of the suburito wooden sword.

So I really ask based on all these mismatched and often apples and oranges comparisons, is metal quality really the sole factor in the battle of sword durability in battle esp prolonged clashes as all the katana vs Europeans words love to point out about pig iron crap? Or if someone forged a Zweihander class sword using bronze which is often stigmatized as being far inferior to steel and iron, would a bronze greatsword actually be the one doing some impactful hits on a smaller sword made out of the best steel like say a Napoleonic saber that visible damage will eventually take place and you who wields the lighter weapon should be worried?

As someone who's fenced on a casual level and recently started getting back into the hobby, I was asked the header question by a classmate recently who doesn't see the point of having epee and foil as two separate events because to her eyes they both just look like the same game except epee allows more target. While she also calls it inconsistent that the radically different saber is also a category of fencing events.

I couldn't respond because I only fenced and haven't studied the other elements of the subject like its industry or the meta-game and biographies of champions, etc so I had no answer.

But now that I think of it I am now curious as a result of her question.

Whats the reason for epee and foil diverging into two events despite being practically the same game to the eyes of non-hobbyist? And why did saber become one of the trio of events in modern sports fencing despite being so drastically different?

I was pretty disappointed at the dearth of historical fencing schools and HEMA clubs in Europe in general when I visited Germany and France in 2023 Because going by Youtube channels and online Swordsmanship message boards esp Reddit, there seems to be a real emphasis about the historical weapons art revival as as subculture in Europe.

That said since I'm visiting Wiesbaden annually the next few years and during my trip I was more focused on visiting monuments and landmarks (because I went around with my family), I'm hoping if there's any historical reconstruction clubs of old fighting system. Does one exist in the city?

This vid is what I'm referring to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRzc--zUjsk

Its 6 minutes so if you haven't seen it yet I advise you to do so to get the context of this post.

Now I was dong a friendly sparring with a scutum and rubber foam Gladius with a weight and feel similar to the real thing but designed in a way that it doesn't really send out hard hits when you get whacked by it especially if you wear protective gear which we both were.

Now I'll openly state out I never learned proper sword training before though I have held replicas of real weapons with similar weight and designs tot he real thing. Even wielded actual blades that can cut and stab to cause wounds at Renaissance fares and in dojos. So I'm not the best person to seek advise from.

However in our friendly "light whack" "light stab" play fighting (yes even with foam weapons and authentic protective gear we decided to be safe and just horseplay around), I noticed something. As my friend was whacking my scutum I felt secure enough to push in close enough that my rfoam gladius was close enough that if we were horseplaying with just our fists, I'd be able to do an uppercut to his stomach.

In fact I began to approach my friend with the shield in front of me like I'm an invincible tank and while he's flailing and poking at me I simply do a semi talk to push his weapon away and then rush straight at him like a football player except witha s shield in front of me. He instincitvely backs away and you cans ee panick in his face every time I do this. I don't simply just walk towards him, I speed up for an instant confident my shield is protecting me and close in enough to poke his upper body ranging from chest to down tot he stomach.

Now I noticed during our horseplay if I try to do thrusts faroma far distance, it indeed does feel awkward like Skallagram states and even outright hurts as my wrist gets bent in an in appropriate way while my hand is gripping the hilt but its stuck to grip in a hammer holding manner by default because of the hilt's design. So when I was watching Skallagram's video the first time days ago I immediately recognized what he meant about the wrong grip hurting you and my hand was doing the exact same hing as he was showing as incorrect because I was literally doing that because of the way the gladius forces you to hold a blade........

However I immediately had in my head the moment Skallagram brings up the Gladius specifically the though of "if he had tried using a Gladius with a shield and sparred a few hours, he'd know not only how to stab properly with it but why the Gladius was designed with that kind of grip". I already have an assumed theory that I think is completely correct and answers Skallagram's question at the end of the vid. But as I said I lack actual training with weapons which is why I am posting here because I want input of veterans in this subject. OK here goes.

The Gladius was designed to be at extremely close quarters. To be specific its meant to be used in the same range at which two boxers exchange punches at each other. So there's really no need to learn how to change grip and hold it in more precise manners because its meant to be a close weapon. And as with waht I seen w playing with the scutum, the shield basically protects you from other longer blades and allows you to quickly rush in for the kill with the Gladius. So over-extended thrusts similar to longswords and rapiers isn't really meant to be done with the Gladius because you're meant to close in and the a brute first stabs at exposed areas in the body.

If anything the grip of the Gladius which Skallagram criticizes int he vid and calls it unusual, citing that it prevents safethrusting technique actually was designed for safety! Because as we spared one thing I notice witht he Gladius is that as long as you come close for the stab, it is impossible to lose grip of the sword just by sloppy technique alone. The way the hilt with its large top guard and the ball at the bottom actually is designed to force you to hold it as a hammer grip. So you don't drop it as your fist is tightly clenched on the weapon while you do repeated thrusting. So it actually is a safety measure for the range at which a Gladius is supposed to be used. Not just that it optmizes effective stabbing and thrusting. Because A few times I unintentionally thrusted harder than warranted in friendly playing and while we were wearing full protection, my friend told me a few times He really felt my stabs and if it wasn't for the metals mixed in with softpadding and plastic underneath these replicase, he would have felt like he got punched , probably with a few bruises. The hammer grip the sword's hilt forces really does subconsciously make you stab in such a way that it'll be easy to penetrate someone's muscles possibly bons even if you have no training is what I got from using the foam items similar in feel to a Gladius.

Last but not least and quite heavily related to all that I said earlier.......... Roaen warfare was fought in square rectangular formation in interlocked shields. Just by this fact alone you're not gonna have the chance to really do a long thrust rapier style. In these tight formations you're pretty much gonna be locked ina tight space so pretty much the enemy barbarians who can't kill you because of the scutum's size and in tandem with the rectangular shield wall, will at some point find himself closing in on you..... Well guess who's gonna find himself with holes in his stomach? And quite releated once the Roman legion goes ont he offensive, you're talking about a primitive moving tank. As they start steamrolling over the disorganized barbarians, just like in my horseplaying, it begins to bake sense why you need a hammer grip as you're closing in poking out exits for blood spillage as you get near enough to punch them except you're doing it with a deadly sword.

So it all makes sense and I think this should answer Skallagram's question. If I knew how to make videos I'd even send a response video (unfortunately I don't know anything behind film making).

Just one more note from what I send from authors, sparing sessions between Roman soldiers and known accounts between a Legatus (Roman generals) and barbarian chieftains even a few famous Gladiator events, often the outcome decided by effective use of the shield and getting the enemy into close range. You'll find the winner does moves to knock the shield away and then runs in to get close enough for punching range and kills the opponent. Or lets the opponent attacks nonstop and using the scutum for stonewall defense until the enemy gets fatigued or makes a mistake in his barrage that leaves and opening. To get close in at punching or even clinching range and then do the lethal stabs. Sometimes not even blocking with the shield at all but simply stepping backwards or circling the enemy to get him frustrated until that vulnerable moment where you can get in to send a punch but with a sword that kills him instead of KO. Without a shield? I seen an account of a centurion literally grabbing a barbarian champions arm, pulling him in for a clinch and then stabbing himg.

Well tahts my personal hot take based on my sparring experience and wikipedia level reading into the subject. So whats your thoughts? What response do you personally give to Skallagram about his confusion near the end of the vid? Is his question stemming from not understand the nature of the Gladius (which is my presumption right now)?

The royal courts of TMHF and HEMAUC graciously allowed this fool to do a longsword bearpit for his birthday. The video and my antics are to the tune of Strauss's "The Merry Pranks of Till Eulenspiegel", the story of a mischievious little fool who went around pranking and flirting until he was executed by the town guards. Please enjoy https://youtu.be/C9vf5eZu0lY?si=kBKZE7FAcCpcWOjX (edited)

​

late edit:

To invite more discussion, I'd like to state plainly that I think these videos produced by the philosophy professor Hans-Georg Moeller are very thought provoking, and I was genuinely wondering if any people in reddit had seen them? Professor Moeller highlights the satirical undertone of the Zhuangzi by examining incongruities in the behavior and speech of characters from the text. Beyond that he does a fantastic job of introducing the text in an intriguing way to a casual, curious mind.

I watched those videos many times I enjoy them a lot. I then purchased his translation/interpretation of the Dao De Jing, and the symbolism throughout inspired the pattern on my fencing mask. The pattern is a whirl surrounding an empty circle.

I believe I understood three levels of analysis for the "somethings surrounding and central nothing" motif, although it was really the first level of analysis that I found fitting for my mask.

1. Representing an individual's identity formation process
2. What are the qualities of an ideal leader
3. Representing the way the cosmos unfolds

Finally, I am currently reading through his interpretation of the philosophy of the Zhuangzi, and what I've read so far is what inspired the fool's cap over my fencing mask. In this book he discusses how a child's ability to play pretend is something we often lose as adults, but it is a valuable ability to have. Just as the writing of the Zhuangzi can be interpreted as playfully parody of the roles of providing origin stories and moral exemplars, a person can learn (or unlearn) to playfully adopt the social roles expected of them and let go of those afterwards. He links this ability and Zhuang Zhou to the concept of the Jester and also to the wildcard, a card that in many card games can assume any role.

He also describes another theme from the Zhuangzi : The value of being useless. Being useless can of course lead to poverty and contempt from society. But being useful isn't always so good either. Being useful can lead to you being sucked up into any number of unscrupulous industries. It can lead to an early demise as can being useless. One of the more inspiring discussions was on the moral exemplar of horsehead hunchback. He was not particularly clever, good looking, talented, or good for much of anything. But without saying much, he was still trusted. Without being attractive, he was still desired. Without being talented, he was still valued. In this same way I think a fool could be accepted, too.I called myself "JesterJahima" because I expected more people to quickly understand what I'm going for with "Jester" instead of "fool". But actually, from his reading of the Zhuangzi I certainly would rather be a fool than a jester. A jester was a wise person who had influence over the royal court. Sometimes they could have more power than the king or queen. A fool is someone who wanders around entertaining, but trying too hard for the joke. A jester in training perhaps, or maybe a wildcard genuine pretender. It seems more Daoist to me to want to be a fool than a jester, like Zhuang Zhou turning down a job from the king Wei of Chu, or this quote from Ch1 of the Zhuangzi : "Hsu Yu said, ‘Sir, you rule everything below Heaven, andeverything below Heaven is well ruled. If I take over from you, Sir, won’t people think I’m doing it just for the fame?But fame is nothing compared to reality. I would be like aguest, wouldn’t I? The tailor bird makes its nest deep in theforest, but only uses one branch. The tapir drinks from theriver Ho, but only takes what it needs. Return home, mynoble Lord, for I have no interest in ruling the kingdom.The cook may not run his kitchen well, but the shaman doesnot jump up and take over."

I'm pretty new to fencing, but I also try embody a Daoist playfulness in my fencing and martial arts, too. To me this means not wrapping my identity up too much in my performance as a martial artist, and trying to value a playful exchange of technique in sparring rather than a competitive battle (there's room for this occasionally, though).

hello all

For those interested, this is a quick video about Aiki-ken (i have a second dan in aikido under sensei william Timms and Hayden Forster)

In summary, in my opinion, aiki-ken strikes are adapted to a katana and can deal with up to light cloth armour and the techniques are martially sound. 
However since we start from a cross, it misses the part where you breach the distance safely to arrive to the said cross (That could be extrapolated from jo and tai-jutsu but it is not explicit)

I used a modem katana (T10) made to the blade profile of the antique from Nanboku-chō period (uda school) and various replica and reproduction of medieval swords.

https://youtu.be/6LlMa94phoY

let me know what you think.

Phil

I am looking into various treatises and manuals for sword and buckler as many people of my newly formed club are interested. I hear that I.33 is hard to understand. Does anyone have any suggestions on what a group of newbies should start with? We have a year on Meyer and Lichtenauer longsword.