A short Autobiography in reenactment fencing This was intended as first part of an essay about historical swordfighting in my personal view. Meanwhile I think there has been written about that too much already - especially on the WWW. Instead of contributing to the confusion, I encourage everyone to try and learn for himself. I try to do anyone mentioned here justice as good as I can. Nevertheless, points of view stated here are purely personal and might be regarded as offensive by others. Be assured that I do not mean harm to anyone or that I try to discredit any form of fencing school/form/tradition. I do not discuss any kind of superiority of any tradition over another. Points of view are quite that; therefore they have to be stated. 1. Recreating Sword & Shield Fighting from historical sources   There are many ways of delving into the hidden and mysterious art of medieval sword-fighting. For this several reasons apply. The first and foremost one is this: That no written or other document remains about the fighting techniques of our forefathers up to about 1300. We know some things about practice drills the Roman legionnaires had to do, we have of course some commentaries about historical bouts and some artistic remains, trying to show us how medieval fighting did look like - the Bayeux Tapestry, for instance. Yet we have no treatise whatsoever concerning individual fighting skills prior to Royal Armouries MS I.33. This one deals with sword and buckler techniques, which are very interesting in their own appeal, but do very little up to nothing to bring light into the field of medieval warfare and individual combat from the time the Romans were driven from our homelands by our barbaric ancestors - the term barbaric here being used as a proverb of excellence, not by any means derogative - to the time the English under Harry V. massacred the French gentry at the battle of Agincourt. This spans nearly a millennium of European history and martial art, and a vast field of interest for the reenactor, martial student and historian alike. As an illustration, all the great epic pieces of Dark Age and medieval literature from Beowulf, the History Of Gododdin, the Icelandic sagas, the Nibelungenlied and its  historically more correct predecessors, the exploits of Arthur as written in the Welsh Mabinogion or in the classics by Chretien de Troyes, the times of Charlemagne and Richard the Lionhearted, the age of the Vikings and the history of the Crusades, all unaccounted for in terms of personal combat and heroic feats, at least as the serious scholar is concerned. Of course, this is no reason to quit. There are, at least, some details to be drawn out of contemporary sources. The Icelandic Sagas in particular provide some very interesting insights into fighting styles, as well as typical target areas. More and more, archaeological evidence supports these. Thus it can be said, that most wounds inflicted while fighting with sword and shield were suffered in the head and in the legs - a trivia one might presume who has some experience in fighting with a medieval shield - round, kite, or heater - and a single-handed weapon. So this is the third method to take into account for validating literary as well as archaeological sources: That fairly new discipline called experimental archaeology, which is nothing else than historical accurate reenactment.   2. A personal approach to medieval combat   To recreate medieval fighting has been the main source of drive in my reenactment activities for more than fifteen years now. As there are a lot of essays about the subject to be found on the world wide web and this topic is based on my personal experience and point of view, I have to give some insight into my personal career concerning fencing and the way of the sword, so to better enable judgement concerning the conclusions I draw. In a way, my initiation into the field of swordsmanship was given about the age of five or six, when my grandfather, a very religious and humorous WWII-veteran, encouraged me to wild towel-fencing after our regular swimming exercises every Saturday and Sunday morning. That which first served to dry oneself in a more interesting way, slowly emerged into a kind of stick-fencing while climbing the Austrian mountains. I was glad to find a peer who shared my interest and enthusiasm in the matter. My first and longest friend Eckhard joined both into reading the myths of gods and heroes of old Europe as well as trying out some heroes’ deeds on me with sticks and plastic swords. These gave way to more accurate tools; about the age of 12 we bought two flexible Spanish epees and brought them to exercise. The idols then were Dumas’ Musketeers, of course; we broke several of the quite sturdy blades while fencing in back courtyards, and spent some of our school money on new ones. I got my first scar from a blade, which I carry quite proudly until today, but never caused a real injury - which allowed us to continue and even to try more heavy blades. I even tried and started fencing in a modern sports fencing group, but I was sorely disappointed. It all lacked the spirit I craved, seemed all style and ritual - just sport with no real flavour and no tradition behind. At the age of 16 we were extraordinary lucky when a kendo-club opened in our neighbourhood. We joined of course and were delighted. Learning kendo is slow work of course and usually discouraging for the beginner - and we were in no way special. But here at last was the fighting spirit, you were expected to give all you have and more, you got to hit in real and not just touch your opponent; you got to attack and continue advancing while taking all the hits the vast superior sensei rained down on you and learn to never quit by yourself; you got to parry and evade and scream and forge your wild battle frenzy into a compound of calmly controlled aggression, that empowers you to maintain control in any situation while giving all you can. I owe Rolf Thumm a lot to this day; there are many trainers who teach better technique; but he sure taught how to fight. Kendo also provided the next step - while practising I came to know a couple from Recklinghausen who also fought medieval tournaments. Now this was something that caught my interest at once; and having finished my military service in 1988, I joined my first medieval fighting society: The Le Chevalier e.V., Recklinghausen. While the Le Chevalier had its disadvantages and finally split up (at least as medieval reenactment platform - the kendo branch of Le Chevalier e.V. is still alive and kicking today) due to personal differences, it provided a start into the Current Middle Ages (a term generated by the S.C.A.) for which I am still grateful. Sir Giraut Le Noir, mundanely known as Georg Mackowiak, and then acting king and leading knight of the simulation branch of L.C. had a background that enabled him to pursue the effort of recreating medieval fighting far better than most of his fellow enthusiasts. Having been one of the first German members of the Society of Creative Anachronism, a fantasy-medieval world wide group brought here from America by the GI’s, and being thus infected by S.C.A. fighting style, he was somewhat disappointed by certain streaks in the S.C.A. that encouraged him to raise his own group. With a vast experience as a modern fencer, enthusiastic kendoka and the intellectual background provided by an examn in Comparative Religious Studies and extensive research in Medieval Military History, Giraut had an elaborate and ingenious approach to reenactment fighting. The basics of sword and shield work are quite difficult to explain, you have to try that to get the feel. Of course you can write a lot of useful stuff about it - I come to this later - but even of those who train and study there are some who can’t get it right. Some will blind themselves with their shields and make themselves targets, others won’t get the body mechanics right - which often has to do with shield size and proportions. The first rule is, that you defend yourself with the shield, attack with the sword. So the shield has to be in your enemy’s line of attack all the time. That takes practise. In fantasy pictures, you see all the characters do funny stuff with their shields, counterbalancing a stroke and the like. This, of course, is all rubbish. Block with the shield, kill with the sword. All serious fencing is about killing and surviving. Giraut Le Noir knew that and because of that, he was (and still is) a good teacher. Le Chevalier fighting in most aspects is based on S.C.A. style fighting, yet with some differences. The S.C.A. provides extensive rules for a very effective combat system that - while not being very historical accurate for a lot of reasons - allows the participants to train fast and practical full contact armoured combat, not only on a one-on-one basis but even in full-pitched battles joined by hundreds of fighters from different countries. It is by far the most sportive proto-medieval combat system I know and as such worth trying out for anyone seriously interested in sword-fighting. You can find extensive sources about S.C.A. combat on the world wide web, as it is the most widely spread medieval reenactment group in the whole world. In short, you have to wear a minimum set of armour (steel helmet that covers the whole head, often with a metal grid protecting the face which most resembles a basketball visor, but gives perfect protection while allowing maximum ventilation; steel armour at least covering the joints; any kind of adequate padding or armour protecting the target areas, that is the whole body excluding the hands and everything from the knees downwards. Of course, full sets of historically correct plate armour are also worn, and much appreciated). The weapon of choice is a rattan rod, approximately of 1 m length, often furnished with a basket hilt to protect the hand. This weapon has the advantage over a blade that it is a) relatively cheap b) more safe, especially regarding soft spots like eye-slits and the like. It has a good weight that resembles that of a real sword and it doesn’t splinter, which makes it superior to wooden wasters. It obviously is a good choice to train with. It’s drawbacks are the lack of flat and edge and the fact that parrying just feels different to parrying with a blade. Well, you can’t have everything. S.C.A. mass combat in particular gives you a good feeling about what fighting in a medieval shield-wall might have been - without losing your life or some more or less vital body parts. Any clashing of battle-lines in medieval reenactment where strikes to the head are forbidden is fun but does little justice to avtual combat; it’s like playing rugby without body contact. Unfortunately, excluding certain body parts as target areas leads to other peculiarities in S.C.A. fighting style, just like it has crippled modern sport fencing. The exclusion of the lower legs allows the combatants to concentrate on the upper part, which restrains both sword and shield work. The fighting distance usually is short and very static, footwork - a vital part in any free combat situation - is all but neglected. The banishment of hitting the sword hand in combination with the general use of basket hilts for finger protection has led to the rather practical custom of parrying blows with the hilt - not a modern invention, but a rather sensible implement from Highland broadsword fencing, which is in itself a very interesting and historically well documented fencing style. Alas, it is in no way medieval, and nothing less than suicidal for a medieval warrior, knight, or Viking of the times the S.C.A. focuses on - it is a sure way to get your sword hand crippled, as can be observed with many enthusiastic early time SCAdians, who fought without basket hilt or sturdy gauntlets and now have smashed and stiffened joints. Le Chevalier fighting differed from that system in some aspects. Target area is the whole body with the sole exclusion of the neck, for safety reasons; hits are not only acknowledged by the fighters, but in accordance with a referee, who supervises the bout, at least in tournament; two hits are needed to kill or disable a body part; thrusts are not allowed, for safety reasons. For the diversity of combat situations, the Le Chevalier style proved superior to S.C.A. style regarding historical accuracy in all but two aspects: First, some combatants used less and less force when hitting, tending towards a mere “touching” kill like in modern fencing; and second, the disregard of thrusts. Alas, to do the system justice, thrusting is a rather modern invention in S.C.A. fencing too, made possible with the adjustment of a foam tip on top of the rattan rod, which wears off quite fast and looks kind of funny, but you get used to it. Even now, about 90% of attacks delivered in S.C.A combat are cuts, which is quite in accordance with historical research. The implement of a quick, sudden thrust in a fight, however, lends to an element of surprise and lethalness, that more suits a historical approach to sword and shield combat. A peculiar nonsense both schools favour is a rule concerning leg hits: When your leg is disabled, you have to kneel down and defend yourself in that position. In the S.C.A. at least it is customary for the attacker to kneel down also, which can be understood by the style of fighting: Neglecting footwork, you have know advantage when attacking a kneeling character who is quite good protected by his shield. Thus, both fighters shift on their knees and continue the fight until one is finished. This is quite okay when you regard swordfighting as a game; if you add some sense of reality to the scene, it becomes ridiculous. Everyone who ever received a serious leg wound knows by experience that it is quite harmful to bend your knee, as your muscles tense. To kneel down when struck in your leg with a swordblade is excruciating if not impossible. But times are a-changing, and obviously more and more people in the now shiew, so ther eis a lot of discussion - and change - on the way. Parallel to my engagements in Le Chevalier and the S.C.A. I started an event I called the Warriors’ Feast. Here I wished to evade all the theatrical aspects medieval clubs and societies usually encumber themselves with, especially the social roles and customs associated with the High Middle Ages, and instead concentrate on fighting and feasting in a somewhat barbaric-romantic style, spiced up with Heavy Metal music the kind of Manowar and Virgin Steele. It is a fun and experience-oriented event without any effeminate pseudo-medieval speech or authenticity code, where you behave the way you are and do the things you (can) do. Swordfighting is a very essential part of the Warriors’ Feast; yet, as most of the participants there had and have no special interest in martial history and all activities are accompanied by more or less extensive drinking, the rules and means had to be quite different. Thus, we choose rattan swords for weight and durability, but added foam padding, as combatants usually would engage without body protection. Consequently the head was forbidden as target area. This makes this fighting style as non-historical as for instance Codex Bellum, alas it was never intended as a serious thing, but as a kind of reduced sword and shield-fighting for fun and sport. The padded rattan is quite unbalanced and parrying feels odd, as the weapons tend to bounce away after contact. A direct hit is still painful and can do some damage, as the rubber foam we use is not intended for absorbing kinetic shocks (Of course, we are not the only ones who have tried this; padding on weapons has more psychological effect than anything else). Now, after 15 years of Warriors’ Feast history, the Feast style has done astonishingly well. Fighting is fast, as weapons can be used with speed without danger of crippling the opponent, shieldwork is efficient and in many combinations resembles sketches in old manuscripts and paintings. Some guys who are at the Feasts, yet never had any other kind of fight training, manage very well fencing in armour at medieval fairs. Adding a helmet to the Feast gear improves the whole thing, and as meanwhile many participants bring their personal headgear, fighting at the Warriors` Feasts is evolving. Finally I returned to the tools I began with: Blades. Only this time sword blades, accompanied with adequate armour. Probably it was proper to take this full turn, probably not. Many things depend on circumstances, opportunities, people you meet. Maybe exercising with blunts all the years saved me some serious injuries, maybe not. Anyway, every approach can teach you something. Fighting with real swords certainly adds a good amount of authenticity, especially as you deal with period equipment. What I concentrate on right now is Viking age fencing, which means at least partially open helmets and usually short byrnies, which leaves a lot open for injuries. It is quite interesting to note the differences even in handling a sharp versus handling a blunt sword; the amount of concentration it takes in either way. How much damage will sustain a shield before it gives in? Do I parry this or that blow with the flat or edge? What is the difference between hitting and cutting? You are always more restrained when fighting with real swords, or should be. A mistake will cost you. And if nothing else - it reminds you that swordfighting is about killing and surviving. Nothing less. As a conclusion, every approach obviously has its benefits. After all there is no such thing as historical authenticity. The warriors of the Viking age as well as of many others lived and died with their swords. It is absolutely foolish to assume they were just "hacking away at each other", an opinion that is regularly uttered regarding Dark Ages fighting. I would not consider myself equal to someone who is used to fighting life and death every day, regardless how much I train or sparr. I feel privileged both to practice swordfencing and by that feel close to a tradition millenia old, as well as study many topics and execute the right to vote and speak my mind freely - all things most probably unavailable to me in earlier times.   - Meredyth October 2006