Historical reenactment aims to immerse participants and audiences in the past. At its most ambitious, it combines accurate clothing, historically grounded scenarios and, crucially, martial displays that replicate historical combat. But how much of the sword fighting seen in these events reflects real medieval or early modern techniques, and where does theatricality or safety take over?
The Foundations: Historical Manuals and Combat Treatises
Modern historical European martial arts (HEMA) are often built on surviving fight manuals. From Johannes Liechtenauer’s 14th-century German longsword tradition to Fiore dei Liberi’s Italian treatises, there is a substantial body of material for practitioners to study. Reenactors often draw upon these sources, either directly or through interpretation by modern HEMA schools.
When a reenactor performs a half-sword thrust in full harness or counters with a zwerchhau (thwart cut), they may be following techniques recorded over 600 years ago. That said, interpretation is not uniform. Manuscripts don’t always offer precise step-by-step instructions. Much is left to inference, resulting in varying schools of thought, each with their own approach to “authenticity”.
Safety versus Authenticity
This is where compromise enters. A real sword fight was brutal, fast and decisive. In contrast, modern reenactment, even when full-contact, must prioritise safety. This necessitates blunt weapons, controlled strikes and protective gear, often more robust than the historical equivalents. Techniques that target joints, the neck or eyes are usually avoided or heavily modified. Grappling, which played a significant role in real combat, is also restricted or stylised.
This shifts the dynamic. Movements are slowed, lethal intent is removed, and the rhythm of the fight becomes more about display than decisive resolution. Choreographed fights, common in public displays, further distance the experience from actual combat, prioritising clarity and visual drama over tactical realism.
Weapons and Armour in Use
Many reenactors go to great lengths to source or replicate historically accurate arms and armour. Mail hauberks, riveted helmets and period-authentic surcoats are often made to historical dimensions and materials. Similarly, swords, falchions, axes and polearms are often based on museum pieces or archaeological finds.
Yet these are rarely used as they would have been on a real battlefield. Weapons are typically dulled, lighter, and balanced differently to reduce risk. Armour might be reinforced in non-historical ways to meet safety regulations. The result is a fascinating hybrid: gear that looks right but functions under a different rule set.
The Influence of Popular Culture
Another layer of distortion comes from film and television. Many reenactment battles reflect the expectations shaped by cinema. Wide swinging cuts, stand-offs and prolonged exchanges are more engaging for audiences than the abrupt and brutal violence of actual pre-modern warfare. In some cases, even experienced reenactors consciously adjust their fighting style to be more legible to onlookers, knowing that a historically accurate thrust to the armpit won’t be as visually satisfying.
HEMA Versus Reenactment Combat
Though they sometimes overlap, HEMA and historical reenactment are distinct spheres. HEMA focuses on technique, drilling and sparring based on primary sources, often with no concern for performance. Reenactment, by contrast, must tell a story. It is theatre grounded in research. Some reenactors cross-train in HEMA to add credibility, but few displays reach the level of historical realism that trained competitive HEMA sparring can offer.
Reenacted sword fighting is at its best when it respects historical sources while acknowledging modern constraints. It cannot be exactly what it was, and nor should it try to be in full. But the best groups find a balance, delivering combat that is informed, disciplined and safe, while still engaging for a modern audience.
What’s real is the commitment, the research and the passion. What’s not is the mortal risk and the raw chaos of true medieval combat. That distinction matters, and acknowledging it only deepens our appreciation for both the past and the present efforts to portray it.
