A trend notice in HEMA and Historical Sword Reconstruction is that every time a video is done on Two Handed Styles and not just Zweihander but "Longswords (anything longer than an arming sword but still shorter than a rapier) are almost always referring to German masters on a typical HEMA video on Youtube.
While so much Rapier texts are from Spanish French, and Italian masters and not just on Youtube and HEMA sites-just do a quick googling right now and you'll see the instant results are texts from France, Italy, and Spain!
On the otherhand its often complain British swordplay esp English have a dearth of available source. But yet so much fo the Youtube Channels put a big emphasis on Medieval Arming Sword, Sabers, and Naval Swords like Spadoon and if we are lucky the Basket Hilt Sword.
SO I have to ask why its a pattern that HEMA studying different nations overly emphasized some types or weapons? I mean why very little stuff on Prussian Bayonet and Saber fencing for example?
So much reconstructed British stuff is Naval or Cavalry and despite the Victorians believing big heavy swords are for dumb buffoons there is a lack of focus on the stereotypical elegant and skillful rapier! Why is there little focus on spear fighting in France despite the fact even by Napoleon's time Pole Arms were still the main weapons of close combat for French soldiers?!
Iām no expert, but Iām a Brit and have a pretty decent knowledge of history so I think I can shed at least a little light on that aspect of your question. That said, I might get yourself a cup of tea because this could get a bit wordy. Fingers crossed itās interesting too!
Put simply, England is a strange place. We are part of Europe but apart from it at the same time. Even in the context of the British Isles we stand apart. The Scottish, Welsh, Irish, and even Cornish, are all descended from one Celtic ethnolinguistic family, while the English are a Germanic culture. What this means is that although the English have a lot in common, and are interrelated, with the cultures around us, we are quite different in a number of ways.
Going back to the age of knights and lances, despite looking superficially similar to nearby western nations, the English philosophy was distinct. The feudal system ensured the primacy of the knight across most of Europe. But owing to Englandās highly legalistic culture a system called scutage developed wherein a knight could pay their Lord a sum of money instead of providing military service. So while knights and kings still formed a significant part of Englandās martial culture, a parallel mercenary culture developed alongside it. This meant that England was able to maintain a core of experienced and trained soldiers without producing as many of them itself. As Iāve said Iām no expert, but I think itās fair to make the argument that with this system in place Englandās military could shift away from the individual and onto the collective. One only has to look at the Hundred Yearsā War to see how this manifested in the difference between Franceās elite and independent knights vs Englandās large armies of archers and footmen. I think this also explains the cultural position of the sword in England. Less focus on the individual warrior, less focus on the romantic weapons of the individual.
Following on from there, after England evolved into Britain, it led the world into the Industrial Revolution. The Civil War in the 1600s saw the rise of the New Model Army which was an early adopter of regulations and a dynamic shift away from what remained of the feudal style systems of war England still had. The Industrial Revolution meant that Britainās military had shifted to mass gun armed infantry early on so while the Scots, in the Jacobite rebellion for example, were still wielding awesome basket hilt broad swords, small shields, and dirks, the English were mostly redcoats with guns. Close quarters combat was at this stage deeply undesirable. Another reason for the lack of the swordās prominence in British sources.
As for the naval aspect, that makes perfect sense. Britain is an island. Naval operations were always going to be a key element of its development and as Brittania came to rule the waves, naval engagements became commonplace. So itās no surprise really that a major expression of its swordplay would come in a naval context as the capture of ships often required close quarters combat in a way that land engagements didnāt.
Now, that isnāt to say Britain was a slouch when it came to swordplay. One just has to look a little deeper. Britain fought on every continent in the colonial age. It fought against most of the worldās cultures and it couldnāt always rely on its guns. There are great accounts of British swordsmen outfighting Indian warriors and all other kinds. Swordsmen of the British Empire is a great book worth a read. But yeah, in summary, Britainās focus was elsewhere so its swordsmanship slipped between the boards a little outside of the naval context.
Phew! That was a long one. Sorry about that! Anyway, I hope that if youāre interested that satisfies a bit of your curiosity!
