The rules that are evolving on say SFI are primarily aimed at reinforcing things that would be important in a lethal situation, hence the drawing of ideas from the duel (where there tend to be relatively few, if any, rules for the combatants). Note how often folks have brought up variant rules that can be used to mix things up.

Contrast this to the types of tournaments we have documentation for, where there were often specific allowed targets and some attacks were disallowed.

Remember – these tournaments weren’t the end-all-be-all for these guys, so they had reason to train for less rule-laden affairs… today we generally don’t expect to have to use our arts outside of the training hall or tournament, and there is the expectation that people will then train to the rules – which is why people tend to be afraid of the effects of rigid sport rules. I tend to agree. But my solution is to not view tournaments as the end-all-be-all of what we do, not to do away with them.

I always look foreward to watching tournaments at HEMA events, but in the end I always feel kinda cheated. From all the wonderful techniques we learn, only a tiny percentage ever makes it to the ring…
(But maybe this wasn’t your point at all )

To give an answer to Matias, in a 17th century France, between 4000 and 10000 people died in rapier duels in just a few decades (quoting an article from SPADA, can’t remember the name of the author).
I don’t know much about duels in other places or periods, but according to the article, the great number them in 17th century France was due to unique circumstances.

About tournaments, I don’t believe the judicial duel is the best reference to be taken for modern recreation of tournaments. The conditions, circumstances and stakes, though very intriguing, were very different from the kind of competition we’re recreating today.
More and more reasearch is being done by people on historical torunament rules, however. This year’s HEMAG in Dijon had some interesting lectures on the subject.
It would be great to have a kind of central place where all sources and research on historical tournaments could be brought together, so we could all benefit from it in our search for a tournament format.

Right now tournament rules are being formulated with emphasis on encouraging good swordplay, without being restricitve or exploitable.
I think that, despite the lack of historical reference, this by itself is a good devellopment.

What are your views on these rules, Ilkka?

This is a good question, and one that deserves a deeper study and a more qualified response than that which I can give.

The issue I was raising is slightly unrelated to this, however. My point was that the deeper we look into the sources (including surviving weaponry) we have and the historical context, the better we are able to understand how the weapons are to be best employed. This is basically my only core assumption. At this point, I value the study of the sources higher than the experience gained by physical practice (especially that which does not aim to augment and better understand the sources).

I have never shot with pistol, yet I basically know how it operates (up to a point), I know how to load a magazine with bullets, I know how to secure and secure it, I know how to aim, I know how to squeeze the trigger and not pull, I know how to form a supported position for shooting standing up, seated and prone, and I know how to point and shoot. Okay, my knowledge is extremely superficial, but still my point is that even as a person almost completely ignorant in the subject of firearms, I generally have quite a lot of knowledge compared to someone who would never have even heard about firearms.

This sort of knowledge existed regarding swords and other such weapons, but was lost. And this knowledge was formed during a very long period of time, much longer than that of firearms today – and looking at the material left to us on the use of the sword is the quickest and probably the best way to try to regain this lost knowledge.

This is also a question of time and place – it is obvious that swordplay was popular across various social classes, and that it was used to inflict harm enough that in many cities Europe-wide the practice of swordplay or carrying of swords was banned. The reason for this, of course, can also be that the governing bodies were worried of uprise, and therefore didn’t want the general population to be armed.

The target audience of the treatises goes from the knightly classes to merchant classes to a general class of gentlemen, and in any case the target audience can be expected to be keen and serious about their studies. In the 15th century dueling was popular enough to support its own class of professionals, the duelliste, who were lawyers specialized in the matters of the duel.

This is a good topic, worthy of a meticulous study (which probably has already been done numerous times), but I am unsure why it is relevant here? It was the context, and the possibility of a sharp encounter that motivated people to practice. The likelihood of getting into such an encounter was obviously higher than it is today, but not everyone sought for it – it was supposed to be an art of defense after all.

I consider it fairly likely that also in the historical context there have been those who teach and study seriously, and those who just want to get fit, train hard, and waves swords about.

The later you get in history, I think, the more you have to also question how large a percentage of those people who theoretically knew how to use a sword actually used it in a situation where injury or death were a real threat. Were duels so common that every swordsman was in one at least once? Several times? Or is the situation more close to say modern firearms in the States – a lot of people know how to use a gun and have one in their homes and advocate the right to do so, just in case of a violent attack, but very few people actually ever have to use one in a situation?

Sparky, you are so correct in what you say. Without death present it simply wouldn’t be the same. I’m sure this could actually be enacted one day with no-one being in danger, by those studying the duel seriously. If it was organized as correctly as possible, I think it would add a level of feeling to the event that, while not coming anywhere near the ‘real thing’, would still provoke insights to what the combatants may have felt back then.

The audience would have to play along, though. Those interrupting or intervening in any way should, at least, be removed immediately.

It would be an interesting event. Give some context to free-play!

Yours,
Ilkka

On the topic of re-creating the atmosphere of a historical encounter, myself and a few others discussed how it would be nearly impossible to re-create the atmosphere of a knightly judicial duel (say something like the carrouges/legris affair) because the audience would have to be part of it.

A modern audience (assuming they weren’t excellent role-players or actors) wouldn’t be able to wrap their heads around the fact that at least one of the two men before them will be dead by the end of the day and even if they could, they likely wouldn’t have the same visceral sensation of knowing that they too could be put to death if they spoke during the proceedings.

However, if it was done convincingly, I think it would provide a *very* different view of the context of the earlier arts than one would ever get from a tournament.