Safety

Safety

All weapons used in combat are blunt with rounded tips, and this is so for obvious reasons. Fighting with steel weapons is dangerous enough, one does not also need the constant risk of deep lacerations or sliced arteries and veins. This, of course, does not mean that re-enactment combat is perfectly safe and no injuries are possible, as the weapons used are still pieces of strong and well-forged steel; there is a reason why maces and hammers in history did not need to be sharp to cause serious injury. All weapons used in combat are blunt but, like it or not, they are still very dangerous and certain safety precautions have to be in place. Are these safety precautions historically accurate? Of course not! 

But…what is the alternative? Hundreds and thousands of individuals were killed in combat (surprise, surprise) and every historical reenactor should aim to avoid this as much as possible. One can still use authentic methods in this form of combat, as I will later explain, for I speak from practical experience. Historically, in combat, thrusts to the face were very common and, of course, highly effective strikes. However, in my opinion, re-enactors cannot do this practice with consistent safety for obvious reasons. Of course HEMA can get away with this, but they use modern protective equipment including modern masks, which is of course not available for the historical re-enactor.

Look at it this way: if the strike connects, you have a very high chance of causing a fatal injury or scarring that individual for life; if you only feint (pretend strike or pulled strike) to that area, there is barely anything stopping your weapon or your opponent from moving/falling just that little bit forward, in which case the former consequence will reoccur. 

Therefore, why risk it? One can still, with enough training, thrust effectively yet safely, so why insist on doing a thrust to the face just for authenticity purposes? Taking away thrusts to the face still leaves an authentic fighting style, for the face was not the only target for these kinds of strikes. If one changes a thrust to the face to thrusting beside the face (to represent an authentic strike to the face), then it would fail to be authentic, look silly, and also cause risk  to the individual by a side strike to the head as well. Whereas, if one thrusts to the stomach, the strike is still authentic yet much safer than a thrust to the face; hence, the fighting style is still authentic.

Consider another example. In Living History, at least in Queensland, we use real arrows when firing at inanimate targets. However, if we are shooting at living individuals in armour, we use shafts with padded points nicknamed ‘flu-flus’. However, we have a safety standard that all individuals – while not needing a shield – must wear a helmet with at least a face plate (eg: transitional or great helm), and wear safety glasses underneath. Is this historically accurate? Definitely not. But, without these safety precautions, even a flu-flu can cause a broken nose or serious eye damage, even perhaps a fatal injury (and these are not even real arrows!). Therefore, these safety precautions have been put in place so that the demonstration can be as authentic as possible, yet safe. And anyway, trust me, those flu-flus still hurt even when one is wearing a full maille hauberk and a gambeson to boot.

What is the lesson from this? Be authentic, but also be safe. Believe it or not, one can be both at the same time!