Richard Hughes really wanted to be competitive with a weapon in hand. After learning Shinkendo, Hughes found historical fencing and has stuck with it since. He thrived on taking apart a concept, boiling it down to its essential principles and implementing his discoveries into his training. Likewise, he enjoys using this method to reach each of his students. In Hughes’ training, he constantly puts himself into different situations, mainly a battlefield situation, to see how his experiences keep himself safe. Today, Hughes took some time to talk about his experimentations, findings, and his interests as he explores the realm of historical fencing.
Martial Arts of Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: Welcome Richard! Thank you for joining us to talk about your time in historical fencing!
Richard Hughes: Thank you for having me.
MAYTT: What initially motivated you to take up historical fencing? In what ways has that motivation changed over time?
RH: My initial motivation was relatively simple. I had a desire to be competitive with a weapon in hand. My previous studies in things like Shinkendo, while very informative, lacked the competitive element, with many martial arts having some sort of limited practice of what strikes and responses are allowed. Historical Fencing seemed to be a much more open space for both that pressured competitive practice, as well as a space to experiment and develop my skill sets outside of strict dogma and stylistic strictures.
My motivations have heavily changed from those early days. I have a fair level of martial experience, within a range of fields and levels of application, and the chance to experiment and develop my training drew me further away from the competition practice and into the development of a school and system that allows for more people to practice with weapons in a safe environment, but also develop their own stylistic approaches upon a basis of solid foundations.
My focus went from “freedom to experiment” to “creating a martial culture” within the first few years and since then, has spawned the Order of the Blade as a place of training that acts as both a “broad church” of martial artists and their interests, but also as a vehicle to help those individuals excel in their chosen disciplines. I merely act as its custodian and guide it as best I can.
MAYTT: How would you describe the training you experienced when you first started? How have you noticed the approach to training has changed or evolved since you began?
RH: Training, as in those delivered by another instructor, specifically for swordplay was limited. I would say my first exposure was me transplanting my knowledge and experience with a katana onto the weapons used by re-enactment groups and following their structures and rulesets. Those early days were very informative, not just to the differences in training approaches, but also how limiting some forms of thinking and training can be for those who aren’t suited to them.
For example, I’m not a small bloke. Standing at 6’10” and weighing about 150kg, not many techniques are delivered with my frame in mind, things like athletic lunges in classical fencing and getting low enough to execute throws as written in ju-jitsu dojos were not gunna cut it for my body frame.
Very quickly, I had to learn to not just do the moves but understand the principle that drove each move and its associated objective. Once I understood what each technique was trying to achieve, I could reformat to an equivalent that fit my frame and stature, without putting me at a disadvantage against my peers.
It was interesting to see who was just following the traditions because “we have always done it this way” or out of a desire to keep the history alive, and those who would focus on the person they were training and what worked best for them.
I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with keeping to a more traditional structure of training, whether its out of respect for the lineage or history or merely as a way an instructor knows how to do things, but I noticed, particularly in my jarring case, that I had to do a lot of the work to get the intent of the lessons to match with a practice that suited my build.
In the early days, people who could do the latter with me got more of my time and attention and allowed me to make some steady developments in my understanding, not just in swordplay, but in many other martial fields.
Now I have the luxury of having a training school of my own, I can guide others as individuals, not just adherence to a practice. This, I have found, has allowed each person to engage more with what they want to study and produces a greater range of opponents with diverging interests and that makes for great sparring practice in mixed-weapon applications.
I fully accept I will probably never master the minutiae of most systems, with some not even finding purchase in my brain, but I am not after mastery of another form, I am after mastery of my own. Equally, I am spending more and more time working with people directly, both instructors I have under my banner, but also the members who have a special interest. I may never have a developed rapier practice, but I think it’s important that I am at least skilled in its use to offer my students who are a meaningful competition in their local groups, and then seek greater challenges within the competitive scene. But even here, I am still learning and developing to offer those who I have the privilege of training the best experience I can give them, either directly blade-to-blade, or in developing a training environment which helps them flourish and explore martial forms in a meaningful capacity.
MAYTT: I see. When did you establish your Order of the Blade? What factors influenced your decision to open your own school?
RH: Though few will know of my early iterations, I have been attempting this to various degrees of success for some seven years now. Early attempts were simply me and a few like-minded folks and I would show them what I knew, we would experiment and try out new ideas and material.
Eventually, I had a decently sized core to open up my first group in Loughborough. This was a steep learning curve as there really wasn’t a handbook on “What to do opening your first martial arts group.” If you are part of an established style, such things are readily available, but with no-one else operating in my local area, I had to make do with the tools I had.
My first few years were a mixed-bag of successes and mistakes, learning points all though. And in the back end of 2019, I took the plunge to try and go more serious with what I was doing and rebranded everything into the Order of the Blade, and from there, things really blew up.
Ironically, the COVID pandemic was something of a blessing in a very good disguise for me. While it was categorically a bad time to be Richard, what with relationships and career collapses happening with a month of the outbreak forcing everyone into lockdown, it really made me question what I was doing and how seriously I wanted to take being the embodiment of “Vesemir, if bought of Wish.”
So, taking the plunge, I decided if I was gunna make anything of my training, I better give it some proper attention, hence incorporating the operation into a business and really knuckling down with the foundations of setting up a school, and every bit of paperwork that entails. I knew I had something to work with, a Unique Selling Point of sorts, looking to develop a mixed-weapons practice that would allow folks not only to progress under direct tutelage, but also serve as a platform for each person to follow their particular interests and still have a place to come in and try out what works for them and what doesn’t.
You could say my main goal was to create an environment I needed when I first stepped into this world. Now, it’s very much a case of securing that environment to the best of my ability and developing its capacity and potential, not only to attract more people, but offer them more weapon choices and advice from within the community. Two standouts for me are Fred Hopkins and Rob Newton, two of my instructors but they specialize in Sword and Shield and Axes respectively, two weapons you don’t find within “mainstream HEMA,” but there is no doubting their skill, approach, and clinical study of the weapons. It’s a real pleasure to have paved the way for two interests to flourish as they have, with both being featured at events and seminars.
MAYTT: Additionally, the Order of the Blade has five chapters all across the United Kingdom. How did you achieve this feat and continue to sustain these chapters?
RH: If I tried to recreate that feat, I would probably fumble it hard. I think there is a heavy dose of luck in how I have managed to develop the Order to where it is. I have managed to hit gaps in the market geographically, as well as in weapon interests and motivations for joining.
Achieving the feat has been a mix of dogged persistence and iteration on my core method. With the last four years being singularly focused on getting the training right, as well as the format for entry, the training structure and how I work with the students I have, matching their interests and providing them with meaningful training.
Now it’s at a point where I am considering both expansion of the operation further, but also securing the ground gained, it’s now a case of passing on the duty of training to others, so I spend most of my time either refining the administrative side, or working with instructors directly, developing them not only as martial artists, but as instructors. It’s a completely different skill set and needs time to cultivate as much as any combatant’s footwork.
Sustaining is a mix of training instructors, providing support to key students as needed and to refine the teaching process further. Easy administration of all this helps, but at the end of the day, it’s people I have to get right. Nicely, there are enough people willing to help with training and in turn, I give them the additional support they need to go further.
We are looking at a more active recruitment and expanding out so that requires more input from me in terms of development of our system, training up more instructors to help even with the first few lessons to just give us the capacity to take on more.
MAYTT: That is amazing. How do you approach teaching to ensure that each student has an individualized experience learning historical fencing?
RH: Relatively easy one for me and the way I teach. From earlier answers, you’ll know I place far greater importance on the interest of the student over my personal interests. Students are how I pay my bills, so I focus on them directly.
The system I have developed for this is a syllabus I call the “Primus Syllabus,” currently undergoing a few revisions and eventually illustration. The idea here is to provide students with a core element of training that allows them to see quick, base results in their skillset, without having to adhere to any given tactical imperative or doctrine.
Many systems will come pre-loaded with such tactics, and even the way you attack and defend are laden with such precepts. What the Primus Syllabus intends to do is provide a solid baseline that is readily understandable and acts as that grounding platform. Many swordplay systems will have comparative moves, with moves like Suriage in Japanese swordplay being called an “inverse Krumphau” by those more versed in German traditions.
With many similarities existing between systems and skills that can be learned and transferred between different schools of thought, I’d rather not limit my students thinking down any one path. Providing a midline of solid, dependable basics will allow students to pick skills which suit them and their chosen weapons more readily. This allows them the freedom to invest in their own training and practice, making an approach which is uniquely theirs.
It also helps me to understand what they are trying for, so I can expand my research down lines that match their interest, but also work to provide them a meaningful challenge as they develop, getting ahead of the curve and providing classes which benefit them directly.
Once a student has selected a weapon, system, or style they want to develop, the job then becomes a case of challenging their skill sets with that weapon and then exposing them to challenges, either in paired weapons to push the skills of that weapon, or against a different weapon to force them to consider the use of their weapon in atypical settings.
A large part of it is training the individual, rather than their skills with a weapon, so as much time is spent working on their perception of fight, understanding their inclinations in a fight, and developing their instincts to match their intention. A book, Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariley goes into some detail as to the psychology behind a trained professional making mistakes despite their deep training. Much of this study has informed my practice to developing individuals.
MAYTT: What aspects of battlefield tactics captured your interest and how does knowledge of battlefield tactics complement or enhance one-on-one combats? Do you feel that more within the HEMA community should explore this field more?
RH: The battlefield is, for me, one of the hardest places to test your skills. You will face a range of opponents and weapons and you cannot always optimize to face each opponent. You simply have to have, or be able to generate, answers to give you the edge play by play and do so without overextending.
I think to answer your first question, it’s first prudent to accept the two are fundamentally different. With a battlefield, the focus lies in repeatable, reliable basics you can do when gassed out and at your limit; with a one-to-one combat scenario, you can be in more control and there are less uncontrolled factors; your opponent provides most of these in the course of their actions. There are skills which work excellently against a singular opponent where there’s no one else to interrupt or intercede and you can afford the singular focus of all of your skill, yet in a battlefield context, you may have to disengage from one fight to attend to a higher priority elsewhere down the line, or you are likewise hampered by lunges exposing you to more elements of the opposing formation than just a singular target.
The biggest advantage of learning and specializing in battlefield practices for me is the focus on defensive skills and quick, yet considered, counterattacks. Where historical fencing tournaments are dominated by the centreling explosive lunge and thrust, a well-trained line will eat that for breakfast and reset for the next opponent. The advantage comes more in fight perception over any skill set I may employ.
With a battlefield, I take the role of “Setter” according to the doctrine I wrote for the Order, where my job is less to make killing strikes, but rather to engage multiple opponents at once and deal with their attacks, keeping them tied down to allow for “Strikers” – spears, polearms or even other fighters not engaged – to close in and attack while their attention is on me. Hence my style has to be one of defensive mastery, lashing out quick attacks to threaten and then recovering to deal with another attack as quickly as possible. Maintaining both the timing and initiative is hard to do well, and there’s an upper limit to how many you can handle for a meaningful length of time before being overwhelmed.
Similarly, my movement may be limited by several factors, terrain conditions, formation needs or even having to occupy a narrow point to prevent access. So, I don’t have the same movement tools available to fighters in a tournament setting, where you have perfect footing conditions and freedom of movement.
In practice, I have to do a lot of work with fewer resources, but when resources are at my disposal have to be utilized in very direct, very efficient manners, or a three-versus-me encounter will be over before I have had time to get my heartrate up.
That being said, the mental workload I am used to putting in against three opponents to keep them engaged and threatened work excellently when there is only one opponent. Sure, they will try fancier techniques in a one-on-one setting, but I will also have more mental resources to deal with that. Paired with a refined skill of basics, strong defenses, direct and immediate counters, and a more static footwork skill set, it makes for an interesting challenge for those looking to get a quick hit in and dart away.
To answer your second question, I think it’s something the HEMA community could do with exploring more. Large battlefields are a whole different beast to fighting in a fencing hall, limitations on skills which aren’t typical, which will force them to study their techniques of choice, or source of choice from a wider perspective.
I frequent LARPs where the battlefields can have hundreds and thousands of participants, all using mixed tactics and weapons. Those can be a real test of your core skill sets. Even with game effects randomly knocking you to your ass, on the frequent, suddenly, you are fighting from the ground with two spearmen bearing down on you. This is something you just don’t get in a fencing salle, but in that moment, you have to do something. It has certainly made me consider my skill set from a wider perspective, one I feel is less “sportified,” not that there is anything wrong with that if that’s your goal, but for me, I get more fun out of being in the thick of the fray.
Do I think it’s going to be an easy transition for those who are more versed in one-to-one settings? I don’t think it will be. Many are too used to over-extending to reach a target with lunges and arms, which in a battlefield may leave you more exposed, particularly when you are in range of two or three opponents. Your sword may strike one, but how are you responding to the other two in the same instance while at the limit of your reach and lacking structure behind your blade?
I know for my practice, the battlefield study has been one which has really captured my attention and focus, much in the same way, for others, rapier techniques of Italian masters hold more allure. I don’t think it’s necessarily a case of the two sides needing to agree but respect the realms the other is specialized for. My more battlefield-orientated form will hold its own against most things, but an expert in one-to-one will still find gaps I will find difficult to answer.
MAYTT: I like that connection you have between the battlefield and the duel. Not many historical fencers expressed affinity for the naginata. What about that weapon do you like most and what conclusions have you found when working with weapons outside of the European purview?
RH: For me, the naginata is a more refined glaive of a European design. It has the range and threat of a spear, with the cutting capacity to eclipse a sword, simply due to the size of the haft. I prefer glaives as my “go-to” weapon, but the naginata, for me, is a simple design that has a brutal elegance to it. Utilizing staff forms from styles of Kung-Fu, as well as the drills found in contemporary traditional practice, the glaive head becomes very effective at close quarters, not just at range.
Weapons for me, regardless of origin, fit into two very broad categories: General use or Specialized. Generalized weapons, like a basic arming sword or longsword, can achieve many of the tasks required of it, yet aren’t specialized in any one field, yet specialized weapons are very good in their designated practice, but may struggle outside of that.
A spear is excellent at the point, yet struggles at close-quarters, particularly if the point is small and doesn’t carry a lot of blade. The naginata, or any glaive, will carry a significant blade so can be used to cut and draw as easily, so they are more generalized in that sense, but clearly built for range.
Added to my 6’10” frame, a 7’ polearm gives me a reach which demands attention, yet as I am just as inclined to grapple, wrestle, and strike with hands, I can close that distance down to nothing if someone is able to press past my point.
Now, readers will probably recognize the strategy from other systems they may have studied, rapier and dagger for example, where you see manuscripts advocate for the use of the dagger if in close quarters, rather than disengaging and bringing the rapier back online, a skillset one of my students from Derby, David Wrighton, has become all too skilled at!
The naginata has the benefit of being different enough from European analogues that the opponent will be figuring out what is different. In practice, barely anything, but I’ll take any edge I can in a scrap, if that is them expending resources on trying to figure me out, who am I to say no? As a wise man once said, “Be a little bit foreign wherever you go.”
The naginata is also a weapon I know from my days in Shinkendo and Traditional Ju-jitsu. My stature allows me to control it far more effectively than someone smaller, which aids in safety for my opponent, but also in the range of skills I can employ and bring to bear. With it, I can use techniques favored by things like English Bills but modified to fit into my approach and application.
MAYTT: Who would you consider to be crucial or a pioneer to the modern HEMA revival movement in the UK? What was it about these individuals that set them apart from their contemporaries?
RH: To give something of a general answer to this, everyone is currently partaking. I could run off a list of my instructors who do some of the heavier lifting in my chapters. I could mention folks who set up event days, tournaments, and seminars on the frequent. I could mention those who travel the country to attend such events and participate in the growth of the sport, but everyone contributes in their own way. I doubt you can reduce it down to just one person.
I get this is me sort of evading the question, but I think it’s less about those at the top of the community driving it forward, but those who follow on, add their weight and support to those people who make the difference. I certainly wouldn’t have the platform I enjoy now, even at a small, local level, without those who I have the privilege to train, I wouldn’t have more than a soapbox to stand on.
If I can instead point out the groups and their leaders who do a lot for their groups, I think that’s a better way to answer it.
For me, first and foremost is Keith Farrell of the Academy of Historical Arts. He doesn’t get nearly enough exposure for the work he puts in behind the scenes. He may be more on the academic side of the practice than I am, but his knowledge of the German schools is considerable. He also sees to the backend admin of a lot of clubs under the AHA banner as well as translating and providing an editing and publishing house under Fallen Rook Publishing. We may be on opposite ends of the spectrum, with him more versed in academia than I ever will be, but, for me, if he’s talking on his field of expertise, I will be the first to listen in.
Another notable duo, Nick and Michael Thomas of the Academy of Historical Fencing. They have been going longer than I knew the sport was even a thing. They have been instrumental in supporting their local scenes, lending their support to starting groups and hosting one of the longest running groups in the UK. They host open sparring days and can be seen lending their expertise to events within the UK. I certainly don’t go down enough to play with that crowd . Once my health is better and I have a new kit, I will be fixing that!
Emilia Skirmuntt of the School of the Sword has been active in setting up and keeping the Wessex League running. I had the pleasure of meeting her in person as we were both teaching at Swordpunk, and shared our experiences in what was, for me at least, a highly insightful conversation and the class she offered on the sidesword was excellent.
I could equally mention Jonathan Spouge who runs the Vanguard Centre up in Scotland as a full-time operation, working in both swordplay and archery. Anyone brave or mad enough to take this one as a full-time job deserves respect.
Jordan Mock of the Academy of Steel has equally made great advances in his chosen field and was a pleasure to host him at a recent Muster and to get to scrap with his crowd is always a pleasure.
The list could go on, and easily could. Folks who didn’t make the list, come and find me for a scrap! However, I’ll restate my original point. I think while these people have made instrumental steps forward for the UK scene, I think more credit is due to those who participate week in, week out within their local scenes, travel to attend sparring days, use precious holidays from work to hit up tournaments and make the scene as vibrant as it is.
MAYTT: How have you seen the intercommunication between the European and American HEMA communities benefit each other? What certain aspects of each respective community can be traced back to the other?
RH: I’ve had the pleasure of talking to some of the US scene, but not as many as I’d like. I know that the cross culture exists, same between the UK and EU communities, yet I have not had that much exposure to it. That is mostly in part due to my natural reclusiveness and focus on building up my base over the last four years. My aim going forward will be to make those links myself, as I really want to promote the work both Fred and Rob have done with two weapons that need more exposure within the HEMA scene.
Once I have recovered and got a fresh rack of kit and weapons, I fully intend to get out into these communities and find out more about how others operate and learn as much as I can.
MAYTT: Final question; How do you foresee this global web of communication and interconnectedness changing, evolving, and adapting HEMA in the next ten years?
RH: I really hope that a global network can form; social media can be a great place for this. What I hope for is that groups can come together and co-operate and support each other’s goals. Hell, I know for my own groups, we run contrary to what some groups’ intentions are. We are not explicitly historical in that we don’t mandate the use or source material, but we do use historical weapons and are, in a manner, akin to the aims of other HEMA groups.
For my own end, I run the Musters with a core objective of hosting other instructors and allowing them to show off their skills in a seminar format and introduce my groups to new ideas and fresh perspectives. The platform for such cooperation has to be made available to those who want it, and hope that a community of mutual respect will form out of that, over a few vocal people taking the community in a direction that interests them.
Not everyone has the time, or desire, to hop in front of a camera and put their stuff on the open market, yet they may be more than skilled enough to do so. I am a natural introvert and would rather sit in my training hall, dishing out what skills I can to my folks then going home to a cup of mead and whatever game has caught my interest recently. I’m rarely one to go out and seek the public spotlight and I think it is crucial that the space if made for the more introverted, yet no less skilled, to participate in the discussion and the directions the global scene will take.
I sincerely hope that if a global scene comes to the fore, that it celebrates diversity of practice, experience, interest, and person. Time and again in other martial arts communities, we see splits and schisms based on differences at the top which are largely disconnected from the grassroots communities that fuel it. I think this needs to be something a global community considers if the sport is to grow further.
MAYTT: Thank you for this great conversation on historical fencing in the UK!
RH: Thank you for having me here.
Martial Arts of Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow 