Introduction
Recently there has been an emerging interest in various aspects of medieval swordsmanship and in forms of the medieval tournament. Re-enactment and living history groups, medieval combat societies, stage combatants, scholars, martial artists and members of chivalric societies have, before recently, remained distinct in their practice of different forms of swordsmanship.

Over the past seven years, however, the Internet  (alongside printed works such as John Clement’s Medieval Swordsmanship, and Chronique: The Journal of Chivalry) has served to awaken individuals in each group to the presence of the others, sparked friendships, and finally encouraged a number of international movements pertaining to the conduct of the medieval martial arts. It is just possible, as Jorge Araújo has recently dreamed, that we might over the course of the next decade see a renewed international tournament circuit reminiscent of the medieval originals.

Central to the realization of a tournament circuit is the need for a common set of rules and standards by which medieval combat might be safely practiced; a standard that will be exceedingly difficult to forge. There is little danger that re-enactors, combat society members, scholars, stage choreographers, tournament society companions and martial artists will suddenly abandon their own rules in favor of a becoming one large, happy family—nor should they. Multiple approaches to the sword arts make the practice of medieval swordsmanship more accessible and lend strength to the overall community, since it allows for ample exploration in an area fraught with many unknowns.

But the problem of isolationism is acute when it comes to cross-group tournaments. Mainstream members—and leaderships in particular—are generally parochial in their outlook and far more likely to focus narrowly on their own group’s strengths than to look to others for inspiration and new approaches.

The purpose of this paper is to briefly examine the different groups of practitioners for the medieval martial arts, the major rules systems, tournament formats and finally, the efforts at internationalization and standards proposals that have begun to be circulated.
 

Travelers on the Road of Medieval Swordsmanship
Various students of the medieval fighting arts might be thought of as travelers, Chaucerian pilgrims on the road of a fighting tradition that extends back the mists medieval Europe. Like Chaucer’s colorful individuals, each approaches the journey differently and yet each discovers a kind of fraternity that binds them together in a spiritual quest. As with any martial art, there is no end to this quest, for the benefits are largely acquired in the travel itself, rather than in the attainment of some particular objective.

Re-enactment and Living History
One traveler, the historical re-enactor, brings a love of history and authenticity, his diligence in research and correctness qualifying him as a reconstructive archeologist. Small bands of these re-enactors have long since worked with various forms of swordsmanship as it supports their objective to present a highly accurate portrayal of life in the Middle Ages at a particular time and place.

Re-enactment groups define their emphasis narrowly on the historical accuracy of the context in which the fighting itself is practiced. The context is the most important thing; through a cohesive presentation of life in a different time and place, without anachronisms, a great deal can be learned about the history and practice of the people who created our rich heritage. Because of the enormous expense and limited appeal of this approach, re-enactment groups tend to be small and insular, their insularity partially a necessary defense mechanism against creeping anachronism. The Swiss Company of Saynt George, the American Red Company are good examples of this kind of approach, each reproducing in great detail bands of soldiers from the 15th century. Though there is fighting in these groups, the fighting itself is not emphasized, except in groups such as the Medieval Arms Society of Calgary, a fourteen man troupe of combatants working in the 13th and early 14th centuries.

Combat Societies
Often confused with re-enactors—even by combat society members themselves—combat societies tend to emphasize the fighting and to build various sorts of medievalesque societies based upon it that also house individuals interested in diverse topics loosely related to the medieval theme.

In most societies, the vast majority of the membership has little interest in or understanding of medieval history, their focus being on the social dynamic that surrounds exploration of fighting, the arts, chivalry, administration and education within these umbrella groups. For many members, the framework provided by the combat society is mostly engaged in for entertainment purposes; yet within against this background are to be found truly gifted artisans, combatants, philosophers and students of the real Middle Ages.

Larger groups, such as the Society for Creative Anachronism or the Empire of Chivalry and Steel, function as large umbrella groups under which co-exist purely entertainment driven members with those who would qualify as re-enactors. Under this umbrella are generally a host of subgroups, some of which are organized into historical unites (the Viking, Roman and High Medieval households, companies and legions are good examples), while others are organized around interests (guilds) or friendly, almost fraternal, affiliations (households). The latter categories are by far and away the more common, focusing on the the social dynamic more than combat or research.

It is easy to fault the combat societies for their lack of enforcement of even the most rudimentary standards of authenticity, and some of this is warranted. The size of the umbrella admits some highly irregular individuals, but their inclusiveness is at once their greatest strength and their greatest weakness. The weaknesses are obvious. The strength is the large pool of people who join the groups first because it is fun, but in the course of their participation are exposed to more sophisticated examples and presentations of history, philosophy and the arts; over time some of these newbies become talented artisans, combatants and patrons of the chivalric arts. This accessibility explains the numerical success of groups, as does their understanding that it is “fun” that brings most people back for more.

The rank and file membership of combat societies will never embrace the crossover ideals; their interests are sufficiently divergent that it is only the subcultures interested in martial arts, history and chivalric conduct that will be active in any international activities.

Tournament Companies and Knightly Orders
Two pilgrims are closely enough related that they might be siblings. The tournament re-enactor and the chivalric society companion, often members of other re-enactment or combat societies as well, seek to emphasize the exercise of their character and their bodies as they pursue the elusive chivalric ideals. These members of tournament societies and knightly orders generally employ medieval fighting techniques as a method to improve themselves and to celebrate the knightly virtues through the sponsorship and participation in medieval feats of arms. Chivalric society members sometimes consider social or political work to be their arena of prowess, but there is sufficient crossover to link them here.

The focus for these groups is generally chivalric conduct obtained through the practice of medieval martial arts and celebrated with in the feat of arms. Modeled on the monarchical orders of knighthood or the German tournament societies of the 14th and 15th centuries; Often their members are also participants and members of other groups, martial arts schools or re-enactment /combat societies. This group sits squarely between re-enactment and combat societies, generally running their own tournaments but working with the social structure of their parent. There has been a fair amount of experimentation within the combat societies with other weapons formats, in the steel and in the béhourd context. These companies will continue to hold and sponsor medieval feats of arms; they can be expected to be active participants in the growing internationalization of the tournament itself, so important is it to their approach. My own Company of Saint George (USA), the Company of Saint Michael, the Tenans of Noble Folly are examples of these groups, probably consisting of 500 members around the US, Canada and Australia.

There are also small chivalric orders that emphasize conduct as well, some of them spiritually oriented (such as the Order of the Selohaar) and some of them mostly secular (such as the Ordem da Cavalaria Do Sagrado Portugal. These groups also practice combat in a feat of arms setting (as well as training), but without the usual connection to a parent group.

Scholars and Curators
There are a few scholars and curators who also have an interest in the medieval fighting arts, though their ranks can perhaps (sadly) be counted on two hands. The scholar generally seeks to place the fighting in a historical and cultural context, making him a natural ally with the re-enactor, (and we do see heavy convergence here), but their practice of the martial arts is generally limited. Thanks to the rising acceptance of the reconstructive archeology process—essentially a way of filling in what we do not know from artifacts and records by practicing the arts in as accurate a context as possible—more heretofore hidden treasure troves of medieval resources have been made accessible to more casual students.

Stage Choreographers
The traveler we might know as the stage choreographer brings the magic of presentation to audiences on the stage and on film, working with blades as a matter of profession in service of performances intended to entertain and, sometimes, to educate. Being professionals, they often have years of experience focusing on the use of all types of swordsmanship, sparking the interest of countless thousands as they work. Through their performances they bring the magic of swordsmanship to a very wide and eclectic audience, wheting the appetite for more by a few who will later become swordsmen.

Medieval Martial Artists
The medieval martial artist is a companion dedicated to the study of the use of the sword and other weapons in as accurate a manner of possible, concerned mostly with the quality and authenticity of the fighting itself. These students of the medieval “fechtbuch” strive to reconstruct fighting as it was practiced in the Middle Ages, working mainly from the fighting manuals but also building systematic approaches reminiscent of Eastern martial arts.

Modern instructors have been practicing their forms of European combat both as a Western arm to a broader study of martial arts or as an extension of a study of modern fencing. Largely organized around a single individual who lays the foundation for the creation of a fighting school, these groups have come to prominence recently as the fechtbuchs have gradually come to light (thanks especially to long-standing efforts Dr. Sydney Anglo and Steve Hicks, amongst others). While Italian and English Masters have been teaching western swordsmanship for many years, American schools have remained far behind, until recently. The foundation of the Historical Armed Combat Association (HACA), alongside the release of John’s swordsmanship books, has helped to raise the visibility of  “fechtbuch”-based training systems. While ‘cutting practice’ and work with steel weapons have long been practiced by individuals within various combat societies, the foundation of HACA has encouraged others to establish their own schools (such as AEMMA and the Chicago Swordsmanship Guild). This movement has a special inertia that has helped to propel the interest in the internationalization of the combat arts.

Isolationism
 As was mentioned above, most of these groups can be characterized more by their insularity and the tendency towards the near-reflexive bashing of the others, largely on the basis of the examples set by the least appealing (and often most outspoken) members of other groups. Each of these groups (except perhaps the scholars) has what might be called an overabundance of less-than-ideal members. The leadership of these groups also tends to be fiercely defensive of their perquisites and traditions, something that tends to encourage the parochial outlook held by the rank-and-file membership. But within each group there are also intrepid individuals who often represent the best of their group and who sometimes have more in common with the other ‘bridging travelers’ or ‘envoys’ than they do with their own organizations. The clear-headed recognition of their own approach’s strengths and shortcomings, combined with the allure of improving their own knowledge, skills and opportunities binds the travelers together and is what, I believe, draws us together for this conference.

The Nagging Question of Authenticity
One thing each of the groups has in common is a declared interest in ‘authenticity,’ yet all pursue this goal differently.

The re-enactor seeks authenticity in detail; in clothing, accoutrement, in every aspect with very narrow parameters with respect to a historical timetable. Typically these gentles seek a range of twenty five years or less, using every available scrap of information to fulfill their mission. Authenticity in this sense does not generally extend to the martial arts, since time constraints generally preclude a serious pursuit of both (though a few do manage it).

The tournament society companion generally values authenticity in equipment and context as a way of connecting the medieval ideals with the modern ones being practiced today. By working as closely as possible with the original gear, the ‘proper’ setting is created for the stage upon which chivalric acts are expected. High quality fighting is valued, as are continuous improvements in the authentic presentation of combatants and ladies in and around the field.

Having little contact with the stage combat community, I cannot say how authenticity plays into their pursuit of swordsmanship (though I know it does), saving perhaps that more authentic methods generally work better, being efficient distillations of the problems of attack and defense.

To the martial artist the correctness and effectiveness of the technique itself is paramount, for the objective reasons cited above. The pursuit of excellence involves dedication and practice, valuing but de-emphasizing authenticity in accoutrement or in chivalric conduct.
 

Any tournament must have a defined form of combat, a format for the tournament, and victory conditions. The format of the tournament and the victory conditions need not be attached directly to the combat standards, since different forms of a feat of arms can be practiced using various combat systems. Nor are the victory conditions necessarily tied to a combat standard, though they generally are considered as integral pieces (I don’t think they are as important as people often think).

Below we will discuss ways to group the many extant combat systems, common elements to all standards, and a few of the larger systems / proposals. Later we will turn out attention to the format of the tournament itself, finally ending with a closing analysis of where I think those interested in “internationalization” should take as next steps towards the realization of an international tournament circuit.

Combat systems compared
Various combat systems have been devised over the past four decades for safely practicing various forms of medieval swordsmanship. Today there are perhaps a hundred systems in place, most practiced by single, small groups of combatants but some that manage the combat of thousands. Apart from the combat system itself are a lesser number of training systems, interesting but beyond the scope of this paper.

Safety as the primary objective
All rules-sets seem to have in comma their primary concern with safety. Given the legal and regulatory requirements in the United States, England, Australia and Canada, this is not surprising. One interesting division appears here: For European “battles” or in any martial encounter, the responsibility for insurance rests with the individual, rather than the organization. In Australia, various weapons control acts of the 1990s specifically name medieval weapons such as maces and flails, though there are also other laws that make exceptions for historical re-enactors (though not in all provinces). Under US law there is a liability chain that extends to the sponsors of the tournament, the owners of the property used, and any officers presiding at the event, as well as to the combatants and sometimes to the manufacturers of their equipment. All may be subject to legal action in the event of a serious injury, so any rules system must take this danger into account. Insurance should be a required element of any American event; sponsors in other countries should ensure that they have adequate protection.

Qualification and Competence
All groups required combatants to be ‘competent,’ at least in so far as they are safe. Some groups such as the Pheonix Company have internal rating systems, while others such as the Adrian Empire have a formal qualification test that must be passed. The majority declare that the combatant must be competent and familiar with the weapons, rules and combat system, charging them with the primary respomsibility to seek their own training and conduct themselves in a safe manner. Nearly all systems invest the Marshals with the authority to admit and remove combatants.

Marshals, Judges and Conduct
As part of this safety requirement, nearly all of the published rules sets have a specific clause forbidding individuals from participating “under the influence” of drugs or alcohol. Most have conduct clauses as well, requiring a usually nebulous definition of “good conduct” in order for combatants to participate. The larger groups have developed grievance procedures (see the SCA, the ECS, the Varangians, ‘Interclub’), while all groups invest their “Marshals” (by far and away the most common term) or “judges” with broad powers that cover safety and conduct judgment.

Individual responsibility
As distinct from modern fencing, most fighting as practiced by combat societies in particular tends to inculturate a sense of personal responsibility with each combatant. This responsibility begins at its most basic level with the safety of the combat himself, but extends to include his opponent, the marshals, and any spectators. He is also held to be responsible for his conduct, both in terms of his physical ability (to be accurate and safe) and in terms of curbing his temper. At a more sophisticated level, his quality as an individual is determined with each encounter afresh, his “renown” the main reference point by which he is known.  While this mechanism is never called out in the rules per se—except in the recent AEMMA proposal—it is always present.

Ontologies
The most basic division for combat systems rests with the weapons used, though interesting groupings can also be made by comparing the required armour (which gives an indication of the force allowed). The rules selected always have an effect on the combats that result; certain techniques being favored and others being reduced in value. Restrictions in the rules also have one other annoying propensity; they give rise to anachronistic techniques and fighting styles that apply only to that fighting form. A combatant schooled in but a single style may well be an excellent martial artist—in which case the basic components are generally transferable to other forms—but many of their techniques, tricks and crutches will fail to operate outside of their chosen melieu.

Weapons used
‘Steel” fighting systems use various forms of metal swords, mass and poleweapons in their combats. Owing to the potential lethality and extreme danger that fighting with real swords entails, nearly all of the systems known to the author utilize blunted or “rebated” weapons (where the edges have a minimum thickness that range from 1.5mm – 3mm depending upon the group) and limit the force that may be applied. Fighting in tournaments with rebated weapons is well documented from at least the 12th century forward; illustrations are discernible near the end of the 14th century and are well depicted by King René d’Anjou in his Traicté de la form et devise d’ung Tournois.

Generally these groups use touch calibration or moderate strikes to armoured areas only, though there is quite a bit of variance in the details. Rebated fighting systems tend to encourage slightly slower, “restrained” but very precise techniques often with limited targeting. Fighting in most rebated combat societies and in many martial arts is practiced at less than full speed. Practice in the steel arts yields particular strengths even with these restrictions—knowledge of the real weapons dynamic, a sense of precision, and an appreciation for different methods of parrying. Key weaknesses are the often slow speeds, the ‘restrained force’ that can be applied, the potential danger, and the often limited targets.

“Béhourd” fighting systems substitute some form of wooden (or in some cases padded) weapons (termed bâtons or wasters) to improve the force that can be used while sacrificing the dynamic of the weapon for safety and the resulting ability to fight closer to “full out.” Similar béhourd combats were conducted in Europe during at least the 14th and 15th centuries, while it is likely though not well  documented that wooden weapons were used for relatively safe training throughout the medieval period.

More reliance is placed in the description and regulation of armour and weapons than is usually true for rebated systems, which may come as a bit if a surprise since by nature the wooden or padded weapons are safer than their steel counterparts, but the regulations and target limitations often have their foundation in a mixture of legal concerns and traditions that go back many years. The key strength is the full-speed, full contact nature of the fighting. Weaknesses of the béhourd styles are the limited targets, anachronistic properties of the weapons and the lack of appeal the weapons have in public performances.

Formulating a Combat System
When selecting or formulating a combat system, various questions must be answered. What is the objective of the fighting? What weapons and armour will be required and allowed?  To what extent is authenticity in weapons, armour, technique and the tournament format to be regulated? By whom? What is the scope of the allowed targets? What kind of force will be “sufficient”? What will be the effects of a blow landed on an opponent? How will these rules be enforced and updated to ensure safety and the main objectives?

Main objectives
As discussed earlier, there are many objectives that a fighting system can support. These should generally be declared early in the rules and provide the overarching structure under which details about weapons, armour, targets, force and blow effects. What does your fighting seek to recreate? Are you reproducing medieval sparring? Judicial duels? Combats à outrance (for war) or à plaisance (for peace?). Do you want to emphasize technique or conduct?

Before any of the choices below are made, the guidelines with respect to the legal requirements and codes of expected conduct should be known.

If a specific time period is selected, this may have substantial impact on what is considered “safe,” since it implies sometimes limited armour and weapons selection. “Safe” fighting amongst the Viking groups might be wholly different than from combatants outfitted in 15th century Italian plate. Some groups—particularly the re-enactors—start with a time period, determine appropriate armours, and then decide what can be safely done within that framework.

Weapons employed
Right from the start, there is a need to define what kind of weapons will be employed, whether they will be steel or bâtons. This will have various effects on the combats itself; ideally combatants should train with both to realize the benefits and understand the limitations of each, but a combat system generally applies to one or the other.

Force
Various choices can be made with respect to how much force is permissible within a combat system. By far the most common statement is the “sufficient force” declaratory policy, which charges the combatants with the safety of their opponent and requires them to moderate the force with which all blows land.

While this “sufficient force” descriptor is applied by nearly every major combat system, it does not describe what the culture of that group defines as “sufficient.” In some groups, “sufficient” means a touch. In some groups the convention seems to be “enough to communicate the blow” to the combatant. In others a stouter blow is expected. In nearly all cases combatants are expected to “pull” blows to underarmoured or unarmoured locations.

Target scope
Bearing safety, weapons, permissible force and skill of the combatants into account, the scope of legitimate targets should be determined. Many groups have, for example, disallowed blows to the head or less restrictively to the face. Most allow blows to the front of the body, while many disallow strikes to the back. The joints are frequently off-limits, and almost universally so are the hands. Many groups in Australia and the US (based probably on the SCA precedent) disallow blows to the knee and below. Blows to the feet are almost always disallowed.

Likewise, if there is a limit to the direction or angle of attack that can be exercised, this should be noted. Some rules, such as the Early Medieval Alliance rules of 1998 (still in force, guiding twenty English groups), restrict blows to the crown of the head to 12º off of the vertical, while others require a 45º strike. This is not common outside of the EMA but I have seen it elsewhere.

Blow effects
The effects of a blow should also be decided, and there are several main variants:

• Wound/Kill is the most common. A strike “of sufficient force” to the limb offers a “wound,” which requires it no longer be used. A strike to a defined killing zone “kills” the combatant. Sometimes these rules are detailed, attempting to replicate specific effets on the body while most are more generic.
• Kill Any specified number of hits results in a kill, usually a single blow.
• Points: Any strike lands a point. Various clever point systems have been tried as alternatives to the dominant wound/kill methods, especially amongst the tournament societies. Fights to three of “five good blows” are now very common.
• None specified: Some systems specify no action on a given blow, relying instead on the outcome of the fight to dictate the effect. Sometimes the combatant decides when they have been bested, in others the outcome is predetermined, and in others it is determined by judges, either on the field or in a gallery. Timed fights are of this sort, as are fights “until you are bested” (when there is no wounding).

Any of the above can be mitigated by the weapons and armour used. Some groups have elaborate tables that attempt to reconcile the effects of real weapons on armour and the body (see especially the Order of the Selohaar) while others simply give more ‘points’ for armour. Some parts of the SCA use a “plate is proof” standard for combat archery in an effort to encourage the use of armour in mêlées.

Blow determination
How a good blow is determined is a key decision. Note that this is not required when the blow effects are not specified and when the judging is done on the basis of the whole fight rather than on the effects of a specific blow.  Note that this is different that determining how victory is attained—(see below).

• Combatant determines: The system allows a combatant to determine when they have been struck. This is low-overhead, since judges are not required, and it puts pressure on the combatants to “play the game,” something that is valuable but which can backfire.
• Judges determine: As in modern fencing, judges determine whether a blow lands with sufficient force or not. This is uncommon outside of modern tournament martial arts, such as Judo, Karate, or Fencing, but a few groups are experimenting with it.

• No victor per fight: The fight simply ends at the end of a specified length of time, or until the combatants decide to stop or until an outside agent stops the fight. Not a common or generally favored technique.
• Wound-kill or kill: The fight ends when the “kill” conditions have been met; usually a specified number of blows of sufficient force are landed on the head or on the trunk of the body. Nominally
• Points-based: At the end of the fight the owner of the majority of points wins.
• Judged Victory: Judges or the gallery determines the winner based on a variety of factors. Popular variances include judging by the combatants, by the gallery, or by the marshals/judges.

If there is a specified time period, this should be specified here, along with the particular armoured elemetns required. In general the larger combat societies have poor enforcement of authenticity standards; more rigid standards sharply reduce the available pool of participants.

One interesting way to look at the various groups is to group them by the amount of armour they require—this often yields clues as to what kind of force they use. Many of the groups surveyed require only a helmet, gauntlets, and often groin protection. Fighting in these groups tends to be on the lighter side of the blow calibration spectrum, while the fully armoured groups tend to hit harder.

There is a strong difference between “required” and “recommended.” Within the SCA, for example, cuisses are not required, but hardly a combatant takes to the field without them. The less armour required, the lower the barrier for those interested to participate; more armour encourages exclusiveness and low attendance, but offers protection and an improved image.

For armour, specific rules are required to describe the defenses of the head, (for some the definition of the head defenses are a casque, while others require full-faced defeneses), neck, specific regions of the torso, shoulders, arms, legs, joints, and hands. Often specific metal gauges are called out, although this is problematic when medium-carbon heat-treated steels are brought into the range of more middle-range armourers. “Rigid” protection often entails hardened leather, brigandines, or plate—a common catch all to define appropriate defenses for critical regions.

Lastly, the effects of the armour against blows should be considered. Answers can range from “none” to “requires a stouter blow to be good” to an increased number of points to near-immunity from wounding in that location.

Major Systems
Regia Anglorum: Founded in the 1980s, Regia Anglorum is probably the largest medieval re-enactment group in England. They now have chapters in the United States, Canada and in Australia as well as on the European continent. Regia focuses on recreating life in England from the 9th – 12th centuries and they boasted nearly seven hundred paid members in 1999. Oriented primarily (but not exclusively) towards performance, doing work for the Historical Trust and other groups, their combats are not choreographed and are based on a “touch-kill” standard.

Regia seems to be a mixture of a combat society and a re-enactment society struggling to co-exist in a single organization. Our admittedly limited contact with Regia members seems to divide them into two camps, those who are more interested in the social events of the group and the fighting and those interested in scholarship and accurate historical re-enactment. While the alliance might be termed ‘uneasy’, it does work well and Regia is able to enforce a remarkable degree of cohesion in terms of armour and weapons standards.

While Regia does hold some tournaments, the system is optimized for mêlée combat, and they sometimes have hundreds of combatants per side. The basic weapon’s form is the spear, which they wield with great precision. The head is completely off-target, and touches kill except when the combatant wears a mail shirt, in which case slightly more force is required. Open-faced casques are the most common head gear—which is correct for their period—and most combatants wear gloves though they are not required. Many combatants wear only a helmet, gloves, a tunic and boots into combat. Their spears have a ball-bearing welded to the tip or the tips forged over to form a ball, and all weapons are blunted.

From an internationalization perspective, the “touch-kill” system is prevalent in England and, as we will see, in Australasia as well. Regia is not what I would call an outwardly focused group, however, and efforts to include them in the internationalization efforts have thus far been restricted to passionate individuals relatively low-down in the hierarchy.

The Early Medieval Alliance: EMA: Growing out of experience with the small Harlech Medieval Society, Escafeld, and most recently the Medieval Combat Society (MCS), this standard was adopted in 1998 to bind twenty smaller English groups together partially as a method to encourage crossover participation but more to help the NAREs lobbying organization protect the ability of English re-enactors to continue their activities.

The Alliance consists of something less than four hundred people, distributed amongst these twenty groups. The vast majority of these groups, like their Regia kindred, spend their weekends performing at various historical sites throughout England.

Roger Langford, the key influence behind the EMA rules, has been a re-enactor since the 70s and has many years of contact armoured combat experience in addition to being a professional armourer. His group practices the “ten foot” rule and often presents performances where the outcomes are scripted, though the individual blows are unchoreographed. I have personally fought Roger and found him both chivalric and preux.

The EMA rules revolve a concept Roger calls “FAST,” which stands for Fast, Accurate Safe Technique. Their blows are thrown full-speed, to well-defined and generally well armoured regions only, and unusually for English combat societies, their blows may be thrown with force. However, they sharply restrict targets: head blows may only be thrown 12º from the vertical, and blows to the upper arm, torso, thigh and shin must be delivered from approved angles and must be slightly telegraphed, giving the opponent the chance at a parry.

This system is precisely opposite of the Regia and SCA systems, which attempt to enable combatants to reduce an opponent’s chance at a parry, relying instead on the armour as a primary defense. Armour within the ECS is stated to be a helmet and gauntlets as the minimum; all of the combatants I fought wore something like transitional armour, however, and all target zones were covered with plate defenses. There was no thrusting, officially, though I expect some theatrical methods would be allowed in the course of a show.

Ending a fight was a weakness of the EMA system; no method was expressed, and combatants seemed to be left to decide when they had had enough, at which point they either signaled their surrender or acted out a death.

This standard has been put forward by Roger to the International Medieval Alliance as an early baseline, and it has been adopted and modified for an international tournament scheduled to be held in Bologna, Italy later this year (with the exclusion of headblows and an elaborate point system based partially on the armour worn by each combatant). Personally, while I enjoyed fighting in this system, the weapons were a bit heavy (3mm is a minimum thickness) and the restriction on blow delivery angles was distracting and I think in the long run would dilute the art, though the combatants displayed excellent weapons-sense and appreciable accuracy. I do not think that this standard will see adoption either in North America or in Australia, since it would require a complete overhaul to nearly all existing systems, but it might well gain traction in Europe.

Interclub and Varangian Rules: In “Australasia” there are two main combat standards. The Varangian rules cover combat for Norse re-enactments and the “Interclub” rules seem to have been adopted and revised annually to cover annual battles where the many small groups meet. I do not know how many combatants these rules cover, but I would guess as many as five hundred for the Varangians and perhaps the same number for the Interclub groups, though its hard to tell. As in England and Europe, the re-enactment and combat society landscape is populated by many small groups, though the SCA has a substantial presence and relations between the SCA and the other groups are not quite as bad as they are in Europe or the United States—there is some crossover.

In most respects the rules sets are similar. Both require minimal armour (the helmet, gambeson and gauntlets), but allow strikes at something more than a touch when the opponent is similarly armoured. The effects of blows are essentially “wound/kill,” with limbs being completely disabled when struck.

It appears that much of Australasia fights under similar standards, and some English groups seem to use these rules as well.

The Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA): The largest bully on the block, the SCA’s 27,000 members have a near lock on competitive medieval combat in the United States, though Markland, Adria, and the Empire of Chivalry and Steel share the stage though with far fewer members. An umbrella combat society, the SCA actually provides a béhourd standard combat system that has strongly infuenced other American groups and which controls the sizeable SCA contingents in Europe and Australia.

Without question the SCA’s weakest element is also is most important strength, and that is its near lack of interest in authenticity. Although many highly skilled artisans work within the SCA social structure, the vast majority of SCA members have little interest in anything medieval, being more compelled by the well-developed social and combat systems.

Béhourd combat within the SCA is what I would term mature; it is full-contact and with the exception of the hands, knees and lower legs offers full-speed, full contact fighting with a great degree of safety. The lower leg is not targeted for reasons of tradition, and this is another key weakness, though the knees and hands are excluded for reasons of safety. Marshals are responsible for detailed armour standards which are well attuned to questions of safety but which, unfortunately, have little concern with medieval authenticity.

Fights in the SCA style are conducted both in single and group melee engagements. Large “prize” tournaments might have 150 individual competitors (and the competition is stiff) while large melees at the annual Pennsic War might have 1,000 combatants on a side. Fights are not choreographed in any way, wounds are “acted” and blows to the head or torso result in a kill—the combatant falls to the ground and the fight is over.

The SCA completely bans combat with rebated weapons under any circumstances, although it does practice combat archery and equestrian games. As an international standard I think it is the defacto standard for combat with bâtons, although the SCA’s weakness in terms of advocacy and enforcement of historical standards demolishes its credibility; the exclusion of the lower leg as a target and the “kneeling” done by wounded combatants are the frequent target of critics.
 

ECS/Adrian Empire: Two other American groups are run in a similar fashion, but using rebated weapons rather than bâtons. The Empire of Chivalry and Steel (ECS) and The Adrian Empire (200 paid members in 1999 and probably as many unpaid) are both combat societies, though with the stated objective of improving the quality of their activities from a historical perspective.

Combat within these groups is fully-armoured, fought with rebated weapons (1/8” minimum for swords). Blows are thrown hard enough to elicit an acknowledgment, and the results of blows which are accepted by the defender has a wound/kill result. Target zones are very similar to those used in the SCA, although the Adrian Empire has recently  proposed discouragement of “kneeling” and the adoption of an à outrance set of rules to allow for grappling, pommel, hilt and shield punching. This “knightly” form of combat would also eliminate the acting out of wounds, but this proposal was proposed in November 1999 and may not be implemented.

As combat societies, both the Adrian Empire and the Empire of Chivalry and Steel have well-developed social structures that revolve around fighting, administration and the arts. Recently there has been interest by members of the ECS in the International Medieval Alliance, so it is likely that we will see further inclusion of these groups as the rules for tournaments are forged, largely through regional work.

Markland: Another group based primarily on the American East Coast, Markland has been in existence since 1969 and has practiced various forms of medieval fighting since 1979. Markland recognizes two forms of combat, choreographed work with rebated swords and full-contact béhourd-style armoured fighting with padded weapons.

Unfortunately, little information is presented by Markland to the public, so this group warrants more research with respect to target zones, blow effects, and victory conditions. A medieval combat society like the above-named groups, Markland is an umbrella under which a variety of more historically focused-groups operate, though it is clear that like the SCA their main body of combatants could be considered “generic.”

Tournament Companies: As offshoot subgroups from other combat societies, tournament company combats have generally been based upon their parent styles, which in most cases are béhourd standards.

Tournament companies were the first groups to begin wide experimentation with medieval tournament formats as alternatives to the modern elimination-style lists favored in the SCA, ECS and Adria, primarily though not exclusively relying on the pas d’armes, roundtable and “William Marshal” mêlée formats. Likewise they have long-since dispensed with kneeling conventions, and happily there has been some adoption of these modifications not only in “mainstream” SCA groups but amongst other, unaffiliated groups as well.

Most tournament company armour standards conform to the published standards of their parent. Their events are held both within the context of these parent groups and outside, giving them the freedom to experiment not only with parent styles but to investigate and participate in the combat forms practiced by other groups. Recently there have been experiments using rebated weapons in some feats of arms, and there is continued interest along these lines. Tournament Company fighting is nearly always practiced à plaisance in the context of a feat of arms, and they excel in sponsoring tournaments that encourage what I have termed “knightly gestures” and encouraging chivalric conduct as well as martial prowess.

As an international standard for the béhourd, I think the tournament company rules (for armoured encounters) are an excellent alternative, but the real expertise held by TC companions lies in the area of running an effective tournament, knowing the tricks to spark attendance, maintain focus, manage the pacing of combats, and structures that are useful for tournaments with a small, medium or large number of participants. Given the companies historical cohesiveness and advocacy for various forms of feats of arms, several of them have determined to be active in the growing international events. Companies whose members likely to be seen at these events will come from the Company of Saint George, the Company of Saint Michael, and the Company of Saint Gabriel, amongst others.

Medieval Arms Society of Calgary: A small re-enactment group covering the 13th and 14th centuries, this group uses light to moderate blows thrown with rebated weapons against combatants armoured in mail and an aketon. The group is picky about authenticity of equipment, part of the reason they started off working in the 13th century—anybody can obtain a greathelm and hauberk. Supported by Peter Fuller of Medieval Reproductions, the group has an excellent start.

In the Calgary society the helmet must be defended by at least a Norman casque, but a great helm or visored bascinet is preferred. Legal targets consist of the leg above the knee, hips, groin, torso, shoulders and neck. The head, hands and forearms are illegal targets. Blows are thrown with enough force to be noticed by the opponent; blows are thrown near the lighter end of the spectrum, as is evidenced by the emerging problem—combatants are sometimes unaware that they’ve been struck.

Combats are judged. Points are scored by landing blows on non-vital areas, but the fight can be ended if a combatant lands a sufficient blow on the torso.

There is a lot to recommend this system; it is fully armoured and allows for blows to be thrown with a degree of force. However, the head is not a target, which although not uncommon presents some difficulties from the crossover perspective. The MASC is and wishes to remain relatively small, though they pack a lot of expertise into such a small unit.

Ordem da Cavalaria Do Sagrado Portugal : Fighting amongst this Portugese order of knights is the most free-form of all the groups cited so far, in part because they have not had much contact with other traditions and in part because they are passionate about making their fighting as ‘real’ as possible.

Weapons are generally rebated, but narrow—generally 1.5mm, though they have recently purchased a consignment of Lancaster Armouries 3mm blades. Blows are unrestricted, saving only that the combatant is expected to deliver a blow within safe parameters for the target location. Some grappling and weapons grasping is also allowed, and there is no effects for an individual weapon, nor are there judges. Combatants decide when they are bested and then fall over as ‘dead’.  The system is full contact and there are as yet no formal armour standards, though combatants all seem for the most part fully armoured. It is a fine example of a young system open to ideas from other groups.
 

The Tournament
Although this is not the right place to review the history of the medieval tournament itself, a brief review of various tournament formats does seem in order.

The purpose of the tournament is to practice the art of swordsmanship (and the other weapons’ forms) in a competitive environment, to test the character and the skills of each combatant under the stress of opposition, to celebrate knightly fraternity and the chivalric virtues. The tournament field—properly called the lists—become the stage upon which knightly deeds are expected and encouraged.

The tournament is a focus for chivalric and martial activity; in many of the groups surveyed it—or the mêlée—is a central activity. For combat societies, tournament companies and some chivalric orders it is often the key activity that binds the group together. In re-enactment societies and martial arts the tournament has been a much less important activity; for most groups in these spheres and in the combat societies of Europe and Australasia many tournaments are fought as demonstrations.

I will not treat demonstration or performance tournaments here—this discussion is confined (regrettably) to tournaments that are used as a test of skill and conduct to gain the measure of each man who enters the list.

Different objectives for the tournament often dictate format. For many years, “elimination” lists consisting of fighting trees (something like the jousting cheques of the 16th century) governed the tournament landscape of the SCA, Adria, the Empire of Chivalry and Steel, and similar groups on Australia. Tournaments of this kind seem to have been rarely practiced in Europe, where the majority of tournaments appear to have been performance-oriented.

Elimination lists are decidedly modern in tone and feel, “trees” in which combatants progress upon based on a victory. Combatants generally have one “single elimination” or two “double elimination” losses available, although “round robin” variants were also common where only a few combatants were available to fight. I have termed such lists “prize” lists because the victor of the tournament often won a prize, be it a goblet, a sword, or a crown. In lists where the combatant called their own blows, becoming blinded by the prize itself became a common malady, and the situation remains true today. Within the SCA, for example, a combatant can—if careful—simply cheat their way to victory in a “Crown” tournament, becoming King for a period of months.

Nobody tends to remember the victor in a tournament soon after it ends. What they do remember is who was a good fight, who conducted themselves in a knightly fashion, and who proved themselves to be a jerk. I have written extensively about this phenomenon in the “Book of the Tournament,” where I examine the tournament and surrounding aspects to help the combatant see the mechanisms that are really at work. The medieval word for this is “renown,” a perfectly serviceable word that communicates. The concept, though rarely articulated, seems to operate amongst “like-minded” people in nearly every re-enactment group, combat society, and medieval martial artist I have met. There is a common belief in all of these groups that ‘knightly’ conduct is expected and this belief ties them together.

Prize lists are useful for ascertaining victory something like an objective outcome, but they fail in a number of crucial aspects. First, they are not a particularly medieval format. Second, though they afford opportunities for knightly gestures, they quickly become ritualized and mechanical and over time a sport tends to emerge.

Medieval Formats
The medieval term for a tournament was a “hastilude,” literally a “spear-game.” Feats of arms in the Middle Ages served a variety of purposes; as martial training, as tests of prowess, as social events and as celebrations of the chivalric ideals so distant from everyday life. Most of these combats were conducted à plaisance, or “with pleasure.”

Early tournaments were barely constraints simulations of war, what Juliet Barker as termed “simulacra of battle.” These combats were ostensibly à plaisance, since there was no intent to injure, but injuries did occur, as did cheating (and in one case, crossbowmen even appear to have participated!) Combats held with the intent to injure become more common during the Hundred Years War, though they certainly occurred before. I refer to these generally combats, divided along national lines, as emprises. Emprises contain an edge to the competition that verges on real war; something like competitions between the superpowers during the Cold War. The intent was to draw blood, indeed fights such as the Combat of the Thirty and many of the jousts held between French and English knights ended in bloodshed and death, though it seems as though the format was indistinguishable from a challenge to combat à plaisance, saving only the intent. Another special form of combat à outrance, the judicial duel, was a highly ritualized hybrid between the legal system and the tournament field where God was to show the truth of a matter by favoring one combatant or the other.

Feats of arms held today are generally of the à plaisance variety, although individual combatants sometimes take to the field with other agendas, something a rules set must account for, and although it is rare, something that tournament combatants should be wary of.

Feats of arms come in many varieties. Here we shall treat only single combats, since they lend themselves best to crossover events. Romance literature had a very strong influence on the format of the tournament, and many feats of arms seem to have had their inspiration in the romantic tales of knights and ladies. Elaborate props sometimes accompanied the events when rich nobles and royalty were amongst the participants, though there were doubtless thousands of feats held in a much less formal manner by members of the local and regional chivalry.

The Pas d’Armes
Members of the tournament companies began serious research and experimentation with tournament formats in 1987. Our own Company of Saint George piloted a pas d’armes in 1991 that proved a great success—it has been replicated now hundreds of times which rich variations by many kinds of groups.

The pas d’armes is essentially a challenge format wherein the defenders—the tenans—announce their intention to defend themselves in combat à plaisance combat at a specific time and place. The rules of the fighting are published, and challengers attend at their pleasure to share the joi de combat and knightly fraternity. Heraldic display is highly valued, and combatants speak their intentions openly in grand challenges that due honor to the renown of their opponents—and the ladies who might inspire them. The ladies too have a role, since combatants are free to being the gallery into the action by appealing to them. Sometimes the gallery is asked to determine the form of weapons combatants will use. Sometimes they act as judges. Sometimes they throw their white scarves to stop a combat and recognize the chivalry or infamy of an action on the field. The whole event becomes a celebration of virtue.

Challengers are generally given the opportunity to select their opponent and to select what form of fighting they would choose by striking a “tree of shields” to indicate their choice. This choice is accompanied by a verbal (and generally friendly) challenge, at which point the next combatant makes a challenge or the previous fight begins immediately. Fights of counted blows (thrown and received), fights over the barrier (especially with poleaxes or spears), and fights “in the round” are common options.

Historically, the pas d’armes seems to have its roots in the knight errant of romantic literature. During the 13th century some knights—Ulrich von Lichtenstein will be the most familiar—traveled around Europe seeking to conduct feats of arms against other ‘noble’ champions.

The term ‘pas d’armes’ was not yet in evidence. Knights generally jousted with one another—nowadays an expensive and dangerous (through exhilarating) pastime. The familiar pastoral setting of a pavilion, with a lady beset by a powerful robber knight, persists in literature and in tournaments from the 13th – 15th centuries, although the highly staged and expensive pas formats seem to have seen their apogee with the 15th century.

The Round Table
Closely related to the pas d’armes but far more heavily scripted is the round table. The round table can take many forms, but the essence is a storyline through which the challengers progress and which provides entertainment to the gallery.  Sometimes the outcome of the fighting seems to have been predetermined—(Kay nearly always defeated, for example), but in modern iterations this is reasonably rare.

Edwards I and III were strong patrons of this format, using it to help legitimize their reigns by drawing obvious parallels to King Arthur and the Matter of Britain. Both Edwards staged elaborate round tables to celebrate their military victories, though roundtables were sometimes also used to mark important social occasions such as weddings, knightings and the like.

Modern round tables seem to follow one of two formats. The first involves a kind of progress where combatants move from station to station, challenging the defender. The defenders are often playing a role—the Plagues, the Black Knight, etc. Perhaps the most common form of this kind of round table has been the Seven Sins round table, where seven knights each play one of the sins and attempt to win the fight by causing the challenger to commit that sin. On the surface it sounds like a game—and it is entertaining—but if the defenders are renowned for their chivalric conduct, they can do quite a bit of teaching in a single afternoon.

The other format is a kind of quest, though these are difficult to stage such that the gallery can engage the story from end to end.

The Festival
I wish I had a better name for this format; it represents the multi-layered and several day affair of elaborate tournaments staged by rich nobles of the 15th century such as the Duke of Burgundy or King René d’Anjou. This is the form that AEMMA has loosely followed in the rules I will present shortly, and it allows for several different forms of combat to be declared and executed over the course of a few days.

In a festival format one group sends a formal challenge to another group through a ritualized procedure. As with a pas d’armes, the rules are cried in advance to advertise the tournament but it is primarily held between two groups, rather than between all comers (as is a pas). Parades, helmschau’s and heavy involvement by the gallery generally characterize these events.

Although there are more formats, these are the major groups and they represent a rich corpus of source material for those who want to sponsor tournaments that test prowess and encourage chivalric behavior. Research and experimentation are highly recommended here; not only of the frustratingly scant historical records but also of the romances, from which a feat of arms can easily be crafted that can delight combatants and members of the gallery alike.

Who wins?
In any tournament there is always the burning question, “who wins?” Historically, the answer varied according to the time and place. Methods of determining the tournament victor can be broken down into two categories depending upon whether they are objective or subjective in nature.

Subjective determination seems to have been the usual medieval solution, and from an operational point of view gives the sponors great freedom to define the kind of virtue they want to reward on a given day. It becomes weaker when large prizes are on the line, because ties of friendship or outright corruption can easily surface (except when the determination is by consensus). Likewise what is required to win can be far harder to see from the combatant’s point of view, both a good and a bad thing.

Objective determination seems to be the preference for the more mechanistic modern mind, and it was used in various guises during the Middle Ages. In an objective system points or the results of fights (or assumed ‘deaths’ of the combatants) are the measure. Objective systems provide a generally clear path to victory, something that yields less potential complaints about the outcome but which can also yield irritating behavior within the lists itself.

• “By Consensus”: This answer seems to have been the earliest and most common solution. At the end of the jousts or tournament combatants would get together and, over a beer, decide who the best amongst them was on that day. Sometimes there might have been a prize, but the knights of the 12th and 13th centuries seem to have valued renown just a much; wandering heralds often made a pretty penny recording their deeds and circulating the tales to grow their patron’s reputation.  Many combatants could indeed get in on the decision and could be recognized for specific deeds, since recognition was not restricted to the “best” amongst them for that day, though this was of course a highly desirable result.
• “By Judging”: Finding historical references for this technique is hard, but there are a few hints. Judges could be called upon to determine the victor of the day; this could be several official named with this duty, the sponsoring noble, or another such as the polled opinion of the gallery. It is of course a subjective form.
• “By Points”: When point systems are used, the winner of the day can be objectively chosen by who has the most points. This also seems to have been used where breaking lances or in fights where counted blows were used, though the documentation is scarce. Alternatively you can simply count the number of fights won. Generally this has a more “rules-lawyer” feel to it, but some find it preferably to the subjective determination of judges, combatants or gallery.
• “By Result”: This is a purely modern outcome that is used in elimination trees and when wound/kill systems are used. Combatants fight until only one is ‘qualified’ to go one by surviving the fights of the day.

I tend to prefer to have the prize awarded where the victory conditions are subjective, so that combatants who enter the lists with the prize as their sole motivation won’t be able to simply bull their way towards it or to work the rules system against their opponent’s sense of nobility to gain an unfair advantage. Of course there are many philosophies about this, but the nastiest tournaments I have seen were nearly always with an objective victory condition and a valuable prize.

The tournament sponsor is well advised to pick a historical model for the feat of arms, but remember that these engagements need not be themed to be interesting—they must only be sincere.
 
 

Crossover patterns
Although most training seems to take place in small group settings, there is a strong desire by some combatants of every sphere to test their skills against other, like-minded opponents. It is unfortunate the so many people who bounce from group to group are such poor examples of the good conduct, their brash, self-centered nature a potent deterrent that often kills the reputation of their group when they offend others.

To some degree each of the travelers on this great Chaucerian road are small umbrellas, filled with human beings, some of whom are easy to connect with and good to work with, while others are less ideal.

Early crossover patterns comes either from groups that coexist in a geographical region or amongst like-minded individuals who have become known to others through communications technology.

There have already been efforts at standardization of combats for “interclub” encounters created in Britain and Australia for reasons cited previously. Within North America, the SCA has provided this service to the vast majority of combatants, though it has also walled itself off from all but limited contact by similar combat societies.

In England the Early Medieval Alliance discussed earlier is the nearest thing to a common system that I have seen in Britain, although these rules are different from those that govern England’s largest crossover event, “Tewksbury.” Tewksbury seems to use a touch-standard with armour standards being checked by the participant groups, a technique that seems to have worked reasonably well—though not without injuries—over the last few years.

In Australia the “Interclub” standard was founded in 1994 and has been updated annually since that time. As in England, the re-enactment community is comprised of many small groups; the “interclub” rules seem to be a well-thought out regional approach to managing competitions and large-scale “battles,” although the do reflect the particular nature of fights in Australia and New Zealand.

Blows are to be thrown such that they are felt by the defender; it appears that the standard functions in practice as if any blow that is felt is acknowledged and acted out—it is a wound/kill system, though there are only minimal armour requirements. To date the non-SCA Australians who have been interested in the internationalization have been slow to comment on the existing proposals, but the outlook appears positive.

AEMMA: Working with a knowledge of combat society traditions but eschewing them in favor of a new approach based more on swordsmanship as a martial art, Brian McIntoyle has assembled a combat standard wedded to a tournament format proposed to be used between different schola.

There are a number of interesting features about this proposed system. First, it assumes a fully-armoured combat and allows for full-strength blows; a point that makes it unique in the spectrum of existing systems. More interesting is the “festival” framework into which the combat system is placed, based heavy on King René d’Anjou and other 15th century references.

As in King Rene, a sponsoring schola challenges another, defining the date and place of the encounter. The returning schola accepts the challenge and impartial judges are chosen. On the date of the tournament there is a degree of ceremony designed to set the chivalric tone for the day. The judges are also charged with determining the victor based on conduct as well as physical prowess, though the details on this are a bit sketchy. Combatants are inspected and challenge one another, and the point system…

IMA: Founded at the First International Conference of Re-enactment Societies this March past at Terena, Portugal, the International Medieval Alliance was founded by Jorge Arujo of the Ordem da Cavalaria Do Sagrado Portugal in part to help realize his vision for an international tournament circuit, but also to form an organization that can work with various public and private organizations to forward the educational and historical strength of medieval re-enactments.

At the first meeting of the IMA, various rules standards were discussed. Although no final decision was made, the Early Medieval Alliance forwarded their own FAST combat system to act as a starting point. This proposal was strengthened by the fact that the Silver Flower Archery Company’s fall tournament in Bologna adopted them, although they added a judging component, point system according to the armour worn by a combatant, and eliminated the head as a target. The problem with this proposal was this while it incorporates some of the experience of English groups, it does not reflect the realities outside of England.

The existing IMA council—which is currently small—was set to work towards a more general set of guidelines that could apply across continental lines. The proposal that is attached is my first draft of that attempts to take into account various approaches.

In the new IMA proposal, combat standards are broken down into divisions based upon the minimum armour required, based in part on the fact that this seems to correlate with the force expected by the combatants. The proposal is attached, so I’ll run through it briefly but not include it in the text of the paper.

Barriers and Analysis
Loosely speaking, combat can be broken down by continent, so I expect the first standards to emerge to be regional agreements, themselves probably variants of locally-familiar methods.

In Europe, calibration is light and the armour standards loose. Of course there are exceptions, but if a variant of the EMA or the Regia rules are adopted by tournament hosts, then over time the result will probably be something between the two.

In Australasia, calibration seems to be a bit harder but is moderated by the armour worn by the opponent. This is also true with the Portugese group, who are actively seeking the adoption of a standard, so it is likely that Europe too will begin to move this way. The reason I believe this is that armour is expensive and hard to acquire, so adoption will be slow.

In North America, there are several things happening simultaneously. The SCA has long been dominant, but it is in the process of losing its near-monopoly and a variety of systems are being experimented with. Béhourd systems are being improved under the press of the impatience of the Tournament Companies.

Simultaneously, combat with rebated steel weapons continues, influenced by but independent from the SCA influence. Peter Fuller’s Medieval Arms Society of Calgary presents an interesting position, since the standard requires little in the way of armour. It, alongside the SCA, ECS and Adrian groups do not use full-leg targeting, however, which is common in Europe but not in Australia. The Tournament companies are also experimenting both with rebated weapons and with full-leg targeting, and have long been proponents of points as a blow effect rather than using the dominant wound/kill system. Lastly, but certainly not least, the medieval martial arts or “fechtbuch” communities are proposing their own rules, also full-contact like most combat in the US.

The SSI itself stands as a powerful testament to the international interest in swordsmanship, and it gives me great hope to see individuals with such diverse backgrounds coming together to explore what is perhaps the most unknown martial art in the world: European swordsmanship.

I am recommending to the IMA that the combat system adopted reflect these regional inertias, and that the divisional approach presented be adopted so encourage growth and experimentation.

Recommendations
Based on this, I have a series of recommendations for discussion, and I would strongly encourage others interested in pursuing the realities of crossover tournaments to become in the international efforts that have been presented, to share your years of experience with others. Increase your communication with groups across the spectrum, encouraging envoys and trying out the systems of others to feel first-hand what they’re like. Recognize and encourage likeminded members of the whole spectrum of medieval martial arts.

I believe that an informal tournament circuit could be established within the three main regions where activity is high: in North America, in Europe, and in Australia. Given our common interest, work together to establish the first set of international guidelines, but allow for and encourage a large amount of experimentation and share what you learn with others, listening also to their experiences. Together we can build for ourselves, for those who watch us, and for those who will follow us a stronger framework where the safe practice of medieval martial arts will enable them to far surpass these early, intriguing and heartfelt efforts. I thank you for listening to me today, and hope to meet many of you within the lists of an international feat of arms somewhere in the world.