WMA is not trying to change re-enactment combat

[Colin]

[Vorschlag]

[Callum]

[Colin]

[Callum]

I do so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree

Maybe if you disregard the historical context in which the original techniques were practised, e.g. omitting entirely for example the influence of clothing, including foot wear, played in the development of fighting techniques then I would probably agree that WMA and re-enactment are mutually exclusive. But if you pay attention to these factors then they are not mutually exclusive. But if you do WMA without giving consideration to the historical context then it's just a parody, in my opinion...

[Colin]

[Carl]

[Callum]

[Colin]

BTW Carl, this thread was not designed as a personal attack on you. What you said seemed to have been a fairly common perception, and it was that I attempted to clear up.

I disagree with Callum over WMA belonging to the wider re-enactment movement. While certain groups, like the Order of the Boar, may try to blur those boundaries by trying to do both they can quite happily be mutually exclusive (no cross over). This is certainly true for Living Traditions (WMA that never died out and are still going). While aspects of HEMA reconstruction might benefit from historical garments (notably footwear) it is not quintessential IMO that every practitioner acquire such. The historical context can be learned not from experiencing the past, but by research. Thus it can bypass re-enactment altogether.

I do not in anyway try to inhibit ASEMA students from experiencing the wider re-enactment movement. In many respects I try to encourage it (though I definitely don't try to force it.) At some stage I anticipate encouraging the various re-enactment groups to advertise themselves around WMA training. I'm also not going to force that either.

On the other side of the fence, unless re-enactors are willing to compromise looks for safety there is little point IMO to try and integrate HEMA into (re-enactment) combat. I have already outlined some techniques that cannot be performed due to the targeting restrictions, which therefore compromises the art completely. A bastardised version of the art will not produce anything worthwhile IMO. I was impressed that Callum was prepared to compromise looks for doing an I.33 public demonstration. This from a group that otherwise tries to maintain high historical standards in New Zealand. Unless other groups are a.) willing to do likewise, and b.) take an interest in WMA a crossover from NAAMA to performing a more authentic fighting style isn't going to happen.

[Callum]

Some compromises in historical accuracy are necessary, either to control expenses (like in the joust buying period horse tack is prohabatively expensive and unless made by a real professional can create horse safety and welfare issues) or for safety.

In a system like 1.33 where attacks to the head and face are encouraged, there is no period solution that allows us to do this safely, given that sword and buckler was used primarily by civilians and light infantry and not by fully armed men-at-arms.

So you have to compromise and use a modern solution. In this case we use fencing masks worn in conjunction with authentic period clothing including footwear. If you explain to people why you are doing this you will find that they are prepared to accept this safety concession.

[Carl]

[Colin]