HEMA: Martial Sport or Martial Art?
The question of whether the activity often known as HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts) is a martial sport or a martial art is one that is debated on a regular basis. This question is generally thought to hinge on questions about what exactly ‘martial art’ means today. Originally the term could be taken to mean ‘body of knowledge relating to combat’ or some such and defined a fighting system, but in recent years the term ‘martial arts’ has come to mean something much wider in scope and not necessarily connected with fighting.
For example, there are non-contact martial arts that are all about performing katas with no ‘fight training’ involved at all. These are normally considered to come under the umbrella term ‘martial arts’ but clearly this is a long way from teaching people to fight. I mean no disrespect here – a martial art of this nature is a worthy endeavour in its own right, requiring hard work and dedication. It is not the same as training fighters to hurt one another in an effective manner, however. That is a different flavour of martial arts and is an equally valid use of the name.
The activities often known as ‘martial sports’ are derived from fighting arts but have evolved a ruleset which may be implemented for safety or to make the contest more interesting to watch. Although limited by their rules many of these ‘martial sports’ are vastly more ‘fighty’ than some activities designated ‘martial arts’. Judo and boxing, for example, involve throwing an opponent to the ground hard enough to hurt, or punching them in the face. Although firmly in the ‘sport’ category these are combative activities in a way that a kata-based non-contact martial art is not.
With such vague terminology, the question of whether HEMA is a martial art or a martial sport seems to be a difficult one to answer. However, I do not believe this is the case. When I am asked ‘is HEMA a martial art or is it a martial sport?’ my answer is…
No.
That is to say, HEMA is not defined entirely by the characteristics of either a martial art or a martial sport. It is something slightly different and is not a purely physical activity. The purpose of ‘doing HEMA’ is more than just having a fight with historically authentic weaponry. There is a scholastic aspect without which HEMA is no longer Historical.
It might be possible to create a competitive swordfighting activity using historical weapons that was a purely physical activity, but this would be beyond the realm of HEMA in exactly the same way as modern Olympic-style sabre fencing. For HEMA to retain its H, it must continue to include the historical element; this requires a degree of scholarship and interpretation that goes beyond the physical performance of the art/sport.
For an activity to be HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts) then it must display its historical roots; technique must be derived from historical sources. Those sources must be European, or associated with people of European origin, and the activity must be ‘martial’. The latter is not hard to demonstrate when fighting with steel swords, but the manner in which HEMA is practiced and performed must relate to the use of weapons in a ‘fighting’ context.
In other words, once the emphasis moves from fighting ‘as if with sharps’ to scoring points in competition by any means possible then the activity is no longer HEMA, it is a derived activity in the same manner that non-contact martial arts or combat sports are derived from the original fighting art.
There is a trend in the HEMA community, which is by no means universal, towards a tournament-oriented style that emphasises expedience over authenticity. One reason I am opposed to this is that I have seen it happen before and I know where it ends. When I took up Olympic style fencing in the 1980s the emphasis was on strokes carried out in the manner of traditional swordplay. To be valid a sabre cut had to be made with the true or false edge; flicked hits were rare. However, advances in the electric judging apparatus resulted in the most successful fencers being those who got the light on most effectively rather than those with the best classical technique.
Over the next few years, modern fencing evolved rapidly until it became what it is today. I personally am respectful of sport-fencing and indeed am still a member of our local club, but many HEMA enthusiasts despise it. The main reasons for this seem to be that traditional swordplay has been replaced with expedients to score a point under the current rules set. The result is ballistic footwork… all-or-nothing rushes… endless double hits and disputed points… lots of jumping about… and of course a lack of recognisable swordplay technique.
We are increasingly seeing all of these in modern HEMA, with tournament success by any means taken as an indicator of ‘better HEMA’. I do not believe that is a valid conclusion – winning by engaging in expedient fencing in order to get points under the tournament rules rather than using recognised technique means abandoning a central aspect of HEMA and therefore cannot be an indicator of success at it.
Thus my overall impression is that rather than asking if HEMA is a sport or an art, we might do better to decide what we want it to be. Do we want to abandon the historical aspect other than in terms using the cool weaponry and create a purely sporting activity? I’m not particularly interested in that but it might be fun. Certainly, it would be a worthy endeavour in its own right, but it’s drifting a bit far in the direction that sport-fencing went for my liking. Do we want to abandon all pretence of competition and focus solely upon interpretation and research? Not me. You need to test your skills and your interpretation against others, or the activity becomes purely academic.
I’m looking for a balance between the H and the MA, as it were. A degree of competition is useful, but obsessing about it to the exclusion of the historical side is undesirable. Likewise, over-emphasis on the academic strays too far into the realms of my day job. I want to study, interpret, teach and train, and to test my skills against an opponent who is equally respectful of all elements of HEMA. Trying to use authentic historical technique against someone who is jumping around, rushing in and just trying to ‘get points’ by any means necessary tends to result in the expedient fencer ‘winning’ or else the whole thing degenerating into a scramble that – at best – resembles modern sabre or epee fencing. I can get those elsewhere; I came to HEMA for something a bit more authentic.
So… for my money the martial art/martial sport question is irrelevant. HEMA is neither of those and is more than either. It is in part a scholastic and in part a martial activity, with elements of sport for those who want them. I believe that HEMA is unique in this way; it is a very broad and diverse activity like no other, and trying to turn it into something more akin to mainstream sports does not seem desirable.
So no... HEMA is not a martial sport, nor is it a martial art. It is a partly scholastic and partly physical activity whose purpose is in part preserving the historical fighting arts and in part having fun with swords. It’s what it is, and long may that continue.
For example, there are non-contact martial arts that are all about performing katas with no ‘fight training’ involved at all. These are normally considered to come under the umbrella term ‘martial arts’ but clearly this is a long way from teaching people to fight. I mean no disrespect here – a martial art of this nature is a worthy endeavour in its own right, requiring hard work and dedication. It is not the same as training fighters to hurt one another in an effective manner, however. That is a different flavour of martial arts and is an equally valid use of the name.
The activities often known as ‘martial sports’ are derived from fighting arts but have evolved a ruleset which may be implemented for safety or to make the contest more interesting to watch. Although limited by their rules many of these ‘martial sports’ are vastly more ‘fighty’ than some activities designated ‘martial arts’. Judo and boxing, for example, involve throwing an opponent to the ground hard enough to hurt, or punching them in the face. Although firmly in the ‘sport’ category these are combative activities in a way that a kata-based non-contact martial art is not.
With such vague terminology, the question of whether HEMA is a martial art or a martial sport seems to be a difficult one to answer. However, I do not believe this is the case. When I am asked ‘is HEMA a martial art or is it a martial sport?’ my answer is…
No.
That is to say, HEMA is not defined entirely by the characteristics of either a martial art or a martial sport. It is something slightly different and is not a purely physical activity. The purpose of ‘doing HEMA’ is more than just having a fight with historically authentic weaponry. There is a scholastic aspect without which HEMA is no longer Historical.
It might be possible to create a competitive swordfighting activity using historical weapons that was a purely physical activity, but this would be beyond the realm of HEMA in exactly the same way as modern Olympic-style sabre fencing. For HEMA to retain its H, it must continue to include the historical element; this requires a degree of scholarship and interpretation that goes beyond the physical performance of the art/sport.
For an activity to be HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts) then it must display its historical roots; technique must be derived from historical sources. Those sources must be European, or associated with people of European origin, and the activity must be ‘martial’. The latter is not hard to demonstrate when fighting with steel swords, but the manner in which HEMA is practiced and performed must relate to the use of weapons in a ‘fighting’ context.
In other words, once the emphasis moves from fighting ‘as if with sharps’ to scoring points in competition by any means possible then the activity is no longer HEMA, it is a derived activity in the same manner that non-contact martial arts or combat sports are derived from the original fighting art.
There is a trend in the HEMA community, which is by no means universal, towards a tournament-oriented style that emphasises expedience over authenticity. One reason I am opposed to this is that I have seen it happen before and I know where it ends. When I took up Olympic style fencing in the 1980s the emphasis was on strokes carried out in the manner of traditional swordplay. To be valid a sabre cut had to be made with the true or false edge; flicked hits were rare. However, advances in the electric judging apparatus resulted in the most successful fencers being those who got the light on most effectively rather than those with the best classical technique.
Over the next few years, modern fencing evolved rapidly until it became what it is today. I personally am respectful of sport-fencing and indeed am still a member of our local club, but many HEMA enthusiasts despise it. The main reasons for this seem to be that traditional swordplay has been replaced with expedients to score a point under the current rules set. The result is ballistic footwork… all-or-nothing rushes… endless double hits and disputed points… lots of jumping about… and of course a lack of recognisable swordplay technique.
We are increasingly seeing all of these in modern HEMA, with tournament success by any means taken as an indicator of ‘better HEMA’. I do not believe that is a valid conclusion – winning by engaging in expedient fencing in order to get points under the tournament rules rather than using recognised technique means abandoning a central aspect of HEMA and therefore cannot be an indicator of success at it.
Thus my overall impression is that rather than asking if HEMA is a sport or an art, we might do better to decide what we want it to be. Do we want to abandon the historical aspect other than in terms using the cool weaponry and create a purely sporting activity? I’m not particularly interested in that but it might be fun. Certainly, it would be a worthy endeavour in its own right, but it’s drifting a bit far in the direction that sport-fencing went for my liking. Do we want to abandon all pretence of competition and focus solely upon interpretation and research? Not me. You need to test your skills and your interpretation against others, or the activity becomes purely academic.
I’m looking for a balance between the H and the MA, as it were. A degree of competition is useful, but obsessing about it to the exclusion of the historical side is undesirable. Likewise, over-emphasis on the academic strays too far into the realms of my day job. I want to study, interpret, teach and train, and to test my skills against an opponent who is equally respectful of all elements of HEMA. Trying to use authentic historical technique against someone who is jumping around, rushing in and just trying to ‘get points’ by any means necessary tends to result in the expedient fencer ‘winning’ or else the whole thing degenerating into a scramble that – at best – resembles modern sabre or epee fencing. I can get those elsewhere; I came to HEMA for something a bit more authentic.
So… for my money the martial art/martial sport question is irrelevant. HEMA is neither of those and is more than either. It is in part a scholastic and in part a martial activity, with elements of sport for those who want them. I believe that HEMA is unique in this way; it is a very broad and diverse activity like no other, and trying to turn it into something more akin to mainstream sports does not seem desirable.
So no... HEMA is not a martial sport, nor is it a martial art. It is a partly scholastic and partly physical activity whose purpose is in part preserving the historical fighting arts and in part having fun with swords. It’s what it is, and long may that continue.
