ARMA: fencing system

[richsc]

I just stumbled across ARMA (the Assoc for Renaissance Martial Arts) and was reading through their ARMA system of fencing, which looks like a good set of established rules and methodology for recreating ancient fights. Anyone have any experience with these folks and how this system works?

[Tarbicus]

Davies cites a primary source for training. Erect a practice post and learn how to quickly leap towards it and stab it, then quickly leap backwards into line. :wink:

[richsc]

Minus some poor, snobby choices of words on my part about SCA, I wanted to pass along this email exchange from an ARMA person who's researched Roman fighting techniques.

------ Original Message ------
Received: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:09:28 AM EST

To: "'Richard Campbell'" <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: From Gene Tausk


Hi Richard – preparing for trial so only have a few seconds to get down some thoughts.

Some of what you are describing is mass combat, of which, although it is done by ARMA, is not really our bread and butter. We are trying to re-create martial sciences from the Middle Ages and Renn, so this means re-creating individual fighting techniques. My humble suggestion is that if your group is interested in re-creating actual Roman martial sciences, this might be a good place to begin.

When we spar one another, we use the “honorâ€

[jvrjenivs]

Richard, maybe you should edit both emailaddresses in the headers but many thanks for sharing. Very interesting

[Sean Manning]

Yes, ARMA is cool. I hope to get a chance to study with their Canadian equivalent AEMMA one day.

The other unfortunate thing is that our medieval sources mostly start after sword-and-target had gone out of fashion (IIRC a famous manuscript Royal Armouries I.33 is our best source, and that teaches the somewhat differeent sword-and-buckler style and is almost unique). So the medieval sword-and-shield Richard the Lionheart would have learned is almost as lost as the Roman one Julius Caesar would have learned. And that limits the usefulness of using the later style to inspire a recreation of the former. Still, to create a plausable imitation of ancient fighting ARMA training in a few arts is probably the best start.

[Iagoba]

I´ve got some expediency in Live Action Role Playing combats (up to a 30 by side battle most powerful weapons, etc. not in winning the battle or killing the enemies...) It can be AFAIK like the SCA combat and historical: they are clearly different, they have different aims, etc.

Sadly, most missile weapons are useless due to the foam you must put in their point to avoid "piercings". Usually they fall short and are erratic.

The ARMA is great (I´ve read -and practiced- a lot of fencing manuals) but as is said above, the main line is working from manuals. The oldest is the I.33 which shows only sword and bruckler. I think it´s useless for us. However, they ´ve got a lot of experience, keeping in touch can be nice.

I´ve heard a international fighting sytem used for Norman and Anglosaxon reenactment (yes, Hastings...) called Husscarl. Maybe someone knows more about this than me. :oops:
The later can be the most interesting one for us. it´s based on self control, instead carrying tons of protective equipment. The conmon use of it enables to have a "realistic" fight with other groups with minimal risk.

[richsc]

edit both emailaddresses in the headers

Thanks. I took out Mr. Tausk's, but mine of course is public.

[Crispvs]

My guess is that the 'Husscarl' (perhaps that should be 'houscarl') would be similar to or the same as the training system we used to use when I was an 11th century re-enactor. It involved each group having an experienced and dedicated training officer and training regularly as a group. No-one was permitted to use any weapon in combat until he had had sufficient practice with that weapon outside combat and had then been judged 'safe' with that weapon by the training officer. 'Safe' meant being both literally safe (ie controlled enough to be able to successfully avoid hurting anyone else) and looking realistic, meaning that weapon strikes had to be at a realistic combat speed and must connect with the opponent but be 'pulled' at the last moment so that the blow landed with only a light touch but looked real to an onlooker. The final test of safety was a five minute fight against three opponents, who you fought in turn without a break, the first for two minutes, the second for two minutes and the third for one minute. If the training officer judged that you were still safe (at least in the sense of not being a danger to anyone else) at the end of a continuous five minutes of becoming more exhausted while at the same time facing opponents who were fresh, then you were safe to use that weapon in a group combat. Prior to anyone taking a safety tet they would have to not only obtain the weapon they wanted to use but be shown the way to use it by experienced members. Only when the training officer judged that the person had reached a level of competence did he invite the person to undertake a safety test. This might be several weeks after the person had begun training with the weapon.

Along with qualifying to use our weapons we also used to practice control techniques a lot. This involved activities such as having to jab your spear point though a number of embroidery hoops hanging on strings in a random order as dictated by the training officer without touching the hoops themselves with the spear or doing rapid figure-of-eight movements with an axe but stopping the motion the instant the training officer said 'stop' in order to practice swinging at full speed but pulling the blow almost instantaneously. We also trained intensively at the correct use of shields in combat.
Along with weapon technique and control we also practiced taking wounds. My group made a fact finding trip to the local casualty department and spoke to the triage nurses about what the immediate reaction would be to being struck on particular parts of the body with particular types of weapons. This meant that we were able to add a level of realism to our displays. Typically the training officer would line us all up and then assign wounds to each person in turn ("Cuthbert - leg wound, Siric - chest wound, Felix slash wound to the right thigh etc"). We would then try to react as if we had actually recieved these wounds, trying to reproduce the sounds and invountary movements which would follow a genuine wound, as informed by the casualty staff. Having gained understanding and practice of reacting to wounds this could then be integrated into fighting, meaning that weapons would move at full power but only connect with opponents' bodies with minimal pressure (more force was applied if the blow was successfully defended with a shield, resulting in quite a lot of noise) but that the struck opponents would react as if they had really been struck at full force, producing a much more realistic spectacle as casualties pitched over or back, wheezing, coughing, retching or crying out loudly and dropping weapons or shields as their hands automatically moved to cluch the wounded area as would really happen.

Now, of course, apart from the understanding of how to make wounds look realistic, we could not know how closely the styles of fighting we adopted matched what was really done, but it did seem to use most of the obvious advantages of each piece of equipment and applied it in a way which seemed to make sense. The safety aspect was then applied to the whole thing.

I don't know if this is the 'Husscarl' system you mention but as I was an Anglo-Saxon re-enactor and my group was an offshoot of Regia Anglorum I think it likely. We just referred to it either as 'training' or 'fighting'.

Crispvs

[Iagoba]

Just that, giving a sense of "full-contact combat" but being trained to control yourself at every moment of the fight.

And, all the training you mentioned, (loops, eights, and so) is common in fencing to get the point where you want, in this case, close to the enemy, but not hurting him.

Training gives control and control gives safety.

And the aspect of "acting" as hurt, gives accuracy. This sis not a videogame or a (bad) LARP where you are fresh till your death. Sometimes you must crawl to safety... :roll:

[Crispvs]

Actually we rarely crawled away for safety, as this would have ruined the effect. Only if the 'wounds' were to the arms (in which case the victim would attempt to stagger out of the fight but rarely made it due to his opponent taking advantage of his reduced capacity to defend himself) or lighter blows to the legs would victims sometimes attempt to crawl out of the fight. With any heavier blows to the legs or wounds to the torso (particularly the chest), the victims fell where they were. However, that said we also practiced to fall in such a way that our shields covered our heads and shoulders and everyone still fighting simply tried to make sure they did not step on any casualties. As the battle lines generally moved backwards and forewards somewhat generally a casualty was not in danger of being stepped on for very long.

Crispvs