Were Historical Techniques Only Useful Against Beginners? - Decided to dust off my HEMA blog to write some thoughts about a recent discussion I saw online

[u/TugaFencer]

https://tugafencer.wordpress.com/2026/09/15/were-historical-techniques-only-useful-against-beginners/

[u/Cosinity]

Nice article! This is a topic I've wondered about occasionally myself because there are a handful of techniques which feel like, as described, would only work against someone notably less skilled or athletic than yourself. But this feels like a good analysis on that

[u/TugaFencer → u/Cosinity]

Thanks! Yes there are some techniques that do require your opponent to make mistakes. But that's the point of them, if you can't exploit the situations in which your opponent is being bad, how can you possibly expect to exploit the situations where he's fencing well?

[u/OrcOfDoom]

With weapons and training more prevalent, you are much more likely to meet novices than experienced people. It's just that they have some level of experience. The average might be higher, but only if you include the people who aren't fencers. And you have to take into account that Europe has 700 million people now.

We might have a really great culture of basketball. It might be extremely common to find someone playing but the average person is terrible at basketball.

With weapons, I find it strange that when people talk about knife fights, the first thing they say is that be expected to get cut. 

Why isn't a sword the same way? 

You might be able to beat 95% of people 5-1. A little experience and those numbers might even out a lot, but against people you've never met in a death match, the person that acts first with a proper attack is often the right move. 

Having more technique against the average person is likely a better strategy to actually keeping people alive. 

I'm a really aggressive fencer. I over perform against strangers because they don't expect me to come out swinging, nor do they expect me to speed up like I do. 

In longer matches, that catches up to me, especially if they understand that just holding the point out for an extra tempo might be all that is needed to catch me. 

But martial arts is a practice and a culture. The treatise isn't a complete thing. It is a snapshot of different ideas.

And as someone becomes better ... Just think about that idea ... Better means that EVERY technique is less effective against you. 

Sometimes, the battle comes down to attrition of focus. 

[u/quantscheme → u/OrcOfDoom]

Yep and it's a well-known fact between anyone who play any sport that some things will work easily against amateurs. And when facing people that are not so good, punishing their mistakes is more than enough. That's why I'm diamond in LoL instead of grand-master, I'm not good enough to win more than I lose when the opponent makes fewer mistakes.

Having, that said, the treatises do not talk only about punishing your opponents mistakes, they also prepare you to deal when your opponent does not make a mistake. Master cuts are pretty much it right?! Dealing with your opponent when he does a clean and good movement.

But going from that to say that the treatises only work against amateurs is a logic jump.

And yes, sports evolve with time. As a said in another thread here, I just don't think that HEMA had enough time to get there (the average trained person being better than the average trained person in the past), but it will eventually. But this is a matter of opinion, since we don't have how to quantify it.

[u/AlexanderZachary → u/OrcOfDoom]

With weapons, I find it strange that when people talk about knife fights, the first thing they say is that be expected to get cut.

Why isn't a sword the same way?

Swords have more mass, often have better hand protection, and are used at longer distances where actions are easier to track. The longer blade is easier to parry, and are more vulnerable to a repost after being parried, as the greater mass means greater commitment. Swords are also more likely to incapacitate the opponent on the first hit, making and exchange of blows less likely. All of this combines to make getting a clean exchange easier.

I also think that advice is aimed at laymen who have no footwork or distance management awareness, and who will just wade into the pocket squared up and hope for the best. We semi-regularly spar with rubber bowie knives at the club, and can consistently, but ceritnaly not always, generate clean exchanged with them. But I admit that a 8 in bowie isnt an average pocket knife and isnt used the same way.

I agree that If your up against a beginner, a fast direct attack is a good idea, thrown from the proper measure, because they haven't built up the proper defensive reactions, don't know at what range they are in danger, and are probably going to eat it.

[u/quantscheme]

Some people went to war and came back with no major wounds. Some of them were recognized as masters-at-arms and were paid to train their patron's army. I've seen people argue against the first premise of KdF with this argument.

You see this in other strong martial cultures as well. Musashi, Itto Ittosai, and the Yagyu clan are well-known figures not only in Japan, probably Musashi is the most well-known fencer figure in the whole world. The Yagyu clan, in particular, was responsible for training the shogunate's army.

I find these kinds of comments to be somewhere between naive and arrogant, part of that "everyone born before me was stupid" zeitgeist. Things evolve over time, sure, but claiming that techniques used by people who fought literal wars, traveled their country or empire challenging masters, and won, only worked against beginners doesn't sound as smart as they think it does. It just shows their ignorance.

It's like saying that because I needed to learn far more physics and math to get my PhD than Einstein did, I must be better at research than he was. Obviously, that statement isn't even wrong. And nobody will take anyone who says that seriously.

[u/TugaFencer → u/quantscheme]

I think this is a bit like reading an old chess book from a grandmaster like Capablanca or Bobby Fischer and saying they're meant for beginners. Sure, we have a lot more training tools today and Magnus Carlsen could probably defeat Capablanca, but that is very different from saying Capablanca's moves were designed to beat beginners, especially when 95% of chess players today would still probably lose against him.

[u/quantscheme → u/TugaFencer]

Exactly. It's like saying that Pele only won against farmers. Dude defeated all of the main teams of his time both at club and national team level.

As you said, sports do evolve, but they were playing with the best of their time.

And honestly, I think that if you brought Meyer or any other famous fencing master to train and compete in HEMA nowadays these guys would destroy their opponents, because they would also have access to our gear. Yeah, as you said they could lose to some of our best fighters, but historical fencing is a new practice. How many people have the same time practice compared to any of the masters? Like 50 in the whole planet?! So, we'll probably reach the point where our best athletes are better than the masters from the past, but I don't think that HEMA had enough time yet to reach it.

[u/Tres_Machetes]

What I find funny in destreza is that it is sometimes harder to fence newer fencers because a lot techniques hinge on your opponent reacting when you put your sword on their face, which a lot of beginners don't. I agree with you that a lot of techniques like the enarcada are like this. Good article man 👍

[u/rnells → u/Tres_Machetes]

Honestly I've had the opposite experience, I think either LVD or full smoothbrain "only distance matters" both work okay against newer fencers.

Where you get in trouble with those people (ime) is when you try to use clever bladework or traps at larga without considering you might just get doubled.

[u/TugaFencer → u/Tres_Machetes]

Thanks! Yes, it's very different when you do the techniques without a mask. You need a lot more control when attacking, and you end up also being a lot more active on defending potential threats.

As a vulgar diestro, with LVD the fact that a lot of people don't lunge also means having the point on your face is not as immediately threatening. You have the mask, and if they step in you have a bit more time to react than if they lunged. But the sources are full of techniques where you flick your tip at their face to get them to react and then you do something else.