Zoodles

My favorite weapon is the spear. I also study European longsword, dagger and Korean Ssangsoodo

I've been studying HEMA for 5 years now. I too study Fiore Dei Liberi. Fiore didn't know anything about Karate He was likely highly trained in grappling though. That being said, Fiores system is remarkable clean and simple. Its based on 2 types of steps, 3 ways of turning and four basic body postures. Everything is derived from these basics. It is a highly consistant and seamlessly integrated system of fighting that allows one to use pretty much anything. Fiores system describes basic stand up grappling, fighting with a dagger, one and two handed sword use, in armour, ourt of armour, on horse and on foot. It describes spear, pollaxe and lance use. Fiore makes extensive use of grappling in his system. His unarmoured sword techniques are divided into 2 types, the gioccho largo and the gioccho stretto..the wide play and the short play. (as an aside, one of places I practice in is a shotokan karate dojo..It is fascinating to watch thier kata, because thier Kata describes variations and transitions between the same four basic postas that fiore describes) Some of his stuff

Some more Sword and buckler: As an interesting segue, this is sword and buckler video that shows how differently a sharp blade performs in the bind as compares to a blunt blade.

/pedantic mode on The broadsword is a 17th century basket hilted weapon. Any wounds in this study caused by swords would have been caused by longswords, arming swords falchions and Messers. Please note..they are not at all cumbersome, but are extremely agile, and on an inch per inch basis, lighter than Japanese swords. a longsword is 48 inches long, and between 2.5 to 3.5 pounds. Not to rage at anyone, but we folks in the WMA spend a great deal of time working to undo several centuries worth of stereotyping and incorrect information spread by enlightenment era fencing masters and victorian era historians /pedantic mode off I am not surprised at the wound distribution. The fightbooks tell us to strike for the head and torso.

If I lived in Milton Ontario, I would sooooo study Bataireacht This guys style is a family lineage, brought from ireland to newfoundland in the 1850's. he teaches it for free in his Kung fu gym.

There is no origin point. Every culture on earth has developed its own martial arts to suit its needs.

I actually study this along with the European stuff. Its quite fun. Its basically Toyama-Ryu kenjutsu mixed with certain forms of kung-fu swordsmanship. Ignore all the silly and fake lineage they invented for it though.

Swords aren't lightasbers..they wont cut you just by contacting the flesh. Also keep in mind leverage. You have a leverage advantage if you grab the tip of the blade. And you also don't need to grab it like a stick, you pinch it between your palm and your finger. This guy here is demonstrating how you can grip the blade just fine. Notice how he pinches it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4PGAnq6w7Y

1) In a swordfight the fighters wore thick gloves for protection 2) Swords wont cut you unless you let the blade slide across your flesh. 3) Swords aren't as sharp as people think 4) As one master of the era put it, A small cut on the hand is fine if it means you kill the opponent.

Heres a video that shows an interpretation of some of the 2 handed sword plays (what Japanese martial arts folks would call Waza) of Fiore as laid out in the Getty Manuscript http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBGB8ngvggs&list=FLt14YOvYhd5FCGCwcjhrOdA

The video Kusatare posted isn't from Fiore or HEMA, but rather Historical Medieval Battles, a kind of combat sport that draws loosely from HEMA. You can tell due the anachronistic combinations of plate armour and shield,and the way they are using the sword in armoured combat Schola St. George uses belts? interesting. Most HEMA places seem to use the the system based on the London Masters. I Study Armizare..the art that Fiore lays out in his manuscript, although I don't study with Schola St. George. Armizare is very similar to the Japanese idea of a Bujutusu. Its a complete and wholly integrated system that will teach you how to fight with numerous weapons, both armed and unarmed. It even teaches fighting on horseback. The wonderful thing about Fiore's system is how integrated it is. The Getty manuscript is the most comprehensive, and most people base their study on it. Its laid out in a progressive fashion, starting with grappling, then dagger, then sword and on into various other weapons..from the short range to the long range. It builds on a foundation of grappling. The grappling system is based on four postas..postures or guard positions. Nearly ever grappling play (or waza as you would call in japanese) can be broken down into transitions between and combinations of, these four postas. Now the grappling system is simple and basic..its not going to win you a medal at the Mundials, but its not meant to. Its meant to provide a base of technique that can be implemented and integrated into the weapon use. There is common terminology, positions, footwork and technique for everything. Once you learn the basics, you can apply them to just about anything. You can see the same techniques from dagger, adapted to sword, adapted to spear, adapted to pollaxe. Fiore ever shows how a basic dagger defense can be adapted to using flexible objects like a scarf or hat. It is simple and consistent. Fiore applies the same philosophical principles to everything he shows, and its all kept remarkably straight forward.

Which Ryu are you trained in? I am not trained in a Koryu Bujutsu, but I am trained in Haedong Gumdo, which is basically Toyama Ryu Kenjutsu with some Korean names added in. Look at the upper guard of Jodan no kamae..whats the target of Jodan no kamae? Its the head. Kesa Giri Strikes from Hasso No kamae come down diagonally across the rib cage. the preferred targets for Chudan no Kamae are the hands, forearms and wrists. Areas where you will always encounter bone. Test cutting on criminals were expected to cut through the criminal, bone and all. If you read Heihō Ōgisho by Yamamoto Kansuke, you will see many of his attacks are aimed at severing the wrists or striking the head. This is the same school that Musashi himself came from. Is striking bone good? of course not. But a well trained cut will cut through bone just fine, and a chipped sword that kills is better than a pristine blade that does not.

Of course they were. Unless your only target is the belly, you are always going to hit bone.

Real nihon-to swords were designed to cut bone and flesh. One thing to understand about swords, even Japanese swords...they are rarely very sharp. "Huh? What are you talking about Zoodles?" The cutting ability of a sword has more to do with technique and blade shape and blade geometry than sharpness. Sharpness is a..heh heh..a double edged sword. Sharper blades cut better. They also damage much more easily. You honestly don't need a very sharp weapon to cut flesh and bone. Sharpening swords is time consuming, and over time will consume the blade *especially with laminated type swords like the Nihon-to. So, swords were only sharpened as much as they needed to be. Generally speaking this is the the level of a wood chisel. Any sharper is pointless. The Japanese would take blades that were over sharpened and cut into sandbags to dull them down before battle. Japanese forging techniques were learned from the Chinese and were an adaptation to the poor quality of Japanese iron and relatively primitive Japanese smelting technology. Japanese iron was smelted in a fairly crude oven, and resulted in lumps of varying purities. The softer lumps were turned into pearlite by forging and inserted into the middle. The harder lumps were hammered into tougher martensite steel and used for the edge. And this is what all the folding is about..By folding the steel you even out the carbon content. Folding good steel is pointless as it will beat out too much carbon and make the steel soft and useless. The Japanese had poor quality iron, and they needed to fold and work the iron to make it usable. But folding steel introduces structural weaknesses in the steel such as microscopic inclusions and imperfect welds between the folds, so its a tradeoff. Techniques like folding and twisting are commonplace throughout eurasia, but the more advanced smelting technology in places like Europe, China and India meant that it was not needed as often. They could produce much more consistent iron that did not require alot of working. As a result, in Europe or china high quality swords could be mass produced. These swords would be through hardened as opposed to differentially hardened and made from pure martensite as opposed to a martensite pearlite mix. This resulted in swords that were, structurally speaking, stronger. It is interesting to note that whenever japanese smiths got their hands on good steel, they did not use the folding or differential hardening.

Ugh..please don't. That video is quite infamous in the sword arts community for its lameness. Infotainment sucks. The test is terrible, with a cheap japanese style sword-like object and a euro-style bargain beater. Neither knows how to actually cut or properly use a sword. I do Haedong Gumdo as well as euro sword arts, and cut with both katanas and Longswords. Trust me..Its a dreadful dreadful video.