HEMA theory

Discussions about manual study, translations, philology, historical research, and similar topics.
Tea Kew
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 2:27 am
Location: Cambridge, UK

Re: HEMA theory

Postby Tea Kew » Tue Sep 06, 2016 8:40 am

Both, neither, pass.

HEMA is an umbrella category of arts. The question is like asking "Is Chinese Martial arts hard/soft?"

Tea Kew
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 2:27 am
Location: Cambridge, UK

Re: HEMA theory

Postby Tea Kew » Wed Sep 07, 2016 9:12 am

The only thing which can make you move, ever, is muscle. That's what muscle does.

Obviously that can be applied badly or well, and effective use of structure and leverage can allow you to cut through a target without needing loads of muscle or applying visible effort.

The key point, however, is that HEMA is not an art. It is a category of arts. It includes everything from I.33's sword and buckler, to 19th century pugilism and early 20th century combatives. These cover 700 years of time, dozens of countries, and hundreds of masters, manuals and systems.

Inside those hundreds of possible things you might mean by 'HEMA', pretty much all of them have some 'hard' techniques and some 'soft' ones. Some are more focused on rapid, brutal killing, some less so. Pretty much nothing is true of every single system.

(As an aside, the philosophical concept of pneuma is not a simple replacement for 'chi' in a martial arts context - for a start, we don't remotely have enough sources about Ancient Greek martial arts to say something like that)


Return to “Research & Techniques”