New editorial - Western Civ & Spartans

[david welch]

what thats it?
That was the entire argument against my defense of classical europes influence? i just find it stunning that I go to discuss European history with people whose main interest is European history and I am told there is no "west" and the classical age didn't effect us hardly at all.

How on earth are people so upset at the article if they don't even know these 2 elementary points about European history, so much so that you demand i research western Civ and prove it. prove 2 ideas that have been standard European education principles for well over 500 to 1000 years. Like I said they are extablished concepts so if you don't beleive you are required to prove it not the other way around.

Considering that the article is about western civ one should probably have some knowledge about western civ before you get all upset at an article about western civ. if you already do know about western civ then why all the grandstanding about my exact wording when you know that sort of precision is really not necessary. Seems to me its just internet argumentarianism for the sake of it without any real regard for the topic being discussed.

I stand by my original posts on Schola, if you don't know anything about the effect of classical age upon western civ then you are woefully ignorant of western civ. if you also claim that no "west" exists and demand a geograhpical location you are also grossly ignorant of western history.

The history of both the classical age and western civ is the basic foundation of western historical studies, if you skipped it thats like reading a book and skipping the first 3 chapters of the book.

In addition we have been called idiots , cowards and intellectually dishonest on this other forum for not discussing this on our forums which you can plainly see we are doing in this very thread. We have also been called racists for espousing a appreciative view of western civ , something i ifnd personally distasteful and unfair. ALL people should be proud of their culture, i see nothing wrong with that.
Its kind of difficult to discuss anything when the level of the dicsussion is immediatly brought down to a gutter level.

Mike,

After giving it some thought, I have determined that people today have such little exposure to "classical education" that when we are saying we base our culture from our exposure to Rome, they may be seeing a city in Italy instead of



I forget a lot of the time that I am a 40 something talking to 20 somethings, and what I was taught in school, they may have never even considered before.

After all, they are being taught that we (us old guys) are Eurocentric bigots that only value the worth of dead white guys. The concept that when we say "Rome", north Africa, Egypt and Syria are included may not be an idea they have really thought out.

I mean, when the "Romans" built Hadrian's wall, they had Iraqis standing guard on it.

[david welch]

Oh, and as far as the Greeks?

well, the Romans thought they were an influence. If you look at the Roman map,



Rhodes, not Rome, is the center of the World.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

Mr. Clement's editorial IS founded upon solid history. It is relevant to historical WMA.

It is not entirely free of historical content. However, it is so vague as to be misleading. Maybe that's good enough for an editorial; I suppose you can look at it that way.

However, it's also clear that it the subtext of the article has to do with contemporary politics, not with Renaissance, medieval, or ancient history, just as the book it's loosely based on, Carnage and Culture does. That's why the criticism of the article has been so intense --- people don't want to see HEMA tied to a narrow segment of exclusively American politics by one of its most prominent spokesmen.

I don't think that this dicussion is devoid of politics, I just don't think that their origin lies in John Clements. Hint, hint.

"Not entirely free of historical content," are you kidding? I also note that you didn't take any pains to refute the points that I presented in the post that you replied to.

"Vague" seems to be one of your "golden words." What, exactly, is so very vague about it? If you find it so murky, perhaps I can illuminate it for you.

I take it that you don't like "Carnage and Culture." I knew it was the basis for the article, sir. I didn't need you to point it out for me. If you had bothered to read my previous posts, you would have known this. I'll say this for Carnage and Culture: every word a true one, grounded in historical FACT. It is an excellent book.

Incidentally, regarding your previous post: you do realise Castiglione's "Book of the Courtier" is not intended as a sort of all-purpose manual, martial or otherwise, right? It was written by a gentleman, and it is intended to instruct other gentilemen on how to behave towards others of their own standing. It should NOT be taken as an instruction book on how to behave in all martial endeavours. You seem to imply this, and it is erroneous.

-B.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

what thats it?
That was the entire argument against my defense of classical europes influence? i just find it stunning that I go to discuss European history with people whose main interest is European history and I am told there is no "west" and the classical age didn't effect us hardly at all.

How on earth are people so upset at the article if they don't even know these 2 elementary points about European history, so much so that you demand i research western Civ and prove it. prove 2 ideas that have been standard European education principles for well over 500 to 1000 years. Like I said they are extablished concepts so if you don't beleive you are required to prove it not the other way around.

Considering that the article is about western civ one should probably have some knowledge about western civ before you get all upset at an article about western civ. if you already do know about western civ then why all the grandstanding about my exact wording when you know that sort of precision is really not necessary. Seems to me its just internet argumentarianism for the sake of it without any real regard for the topic being discussed.

I stand by my original posts on Schola, if you don't know anything about the effect of classical age upon western civ then you are woefully ignorant of western civ. if you also claim that no "west" exists and demand a geograhpical location you are also grossly ignorant of western history.

The history of both the classical age and western civ is the basic foundation of western historical studies, if you skipped it thats like reading a book and skipping the first 3 chapters of the book.

In addition we have been called idiots , cowards and intellectually dishonest on this other forum for not discussing this on our forums which you can plainly see we are doing in this very thread. We have also been called racists for espousing a appreciative view of western civ , something i ifnd personally distasteful and unfair. ALL people should be proud of their culture, i see nothing wrong with that.
Its kind of difficult to discuss anything when the level of the dicsussion is immediatly brought down to a gutter level.

Mike,

After giving it some thought, I have determined that people today have such little exposure to "classical education" that when we are saying we base our culture from our exposure to Rome, they may be seeing a city in Italy instead of



I forget a lot of the time that I am a 40 something talking to 20 somethings, and what I was taught in school, they may have never even considered before.

After all, they are being taught that we (us old guys) are Eurocentric bigots that only value the worth of dead white guys. The concept that when we say "Rome", north Africa, Egypt and Syria are included may not be an idea they have really thought out.

I mean, when the "Romans" built Hadrian's wall, they had Iraqis standing guard on it.

Agreed. Most heartily agreed!

What outrages me is that some people seem utterly INCAPABLE of understanding that what happened yester day influences what happens to day. When one looks at history, in any context, but particularly in the context of how it shaped our world to day (as Carnage and Culture does), one has to take a very broad view.

It's like a line of dominos. The first one falls, then knocks over the next one down the line, and so on. Cause and effect. It was true in the days of knights. They wanted to be the Ajaxes, the Hectors, the Achilleses of their day. The tradition is unbroken. It is the West.

-B.

[J. F. McBrayer]

I've tried to be critical-but-constructive on this thread, but I'm willing to admit failure, and move on. I wish the finest blessings of life and happiness on everyone here.

[Henri de La Garde]

Hi there all. Fantastic debate here. There are some very important ideas going around.
The problem with Mr.Clements article is that is advocates that exponents of WMA bear in mind aspects of western cultural heritage which are quite selective. Having enjoyed Mr. Clements' writing in the past, I believe I understand the intention was to promote a positive set of morals to undergird the modern practice of HEMA. However, perhaps HEMA best partakes of the western cultural tradition by NOT claiming for itself any particular moral underpinnings.
Here are two problematic examples:
While I believe medieval society was far more socially mobile than many high school history texts would have us believe, at the end of the day, medieval society was an aristocratic society. So isn't an ARMA member named 'von Varenburg' naturally more insightful about the subject than someone named 'Forrester' or 'Miller'? Why is it fair to say that modern exponents should respect democratic ideals while maintaining that they do not necessarily have to pay respect to practitioners descended from medieval nobility? (I personally believe the later idea is absurd, but it is a value judgement, and so too is the first notion)
Next, what about the Judeo-Christian context mentioned in the article? Should we not also encourage modern HEMA practitioners to develop a healthy understanding of Christian belief in order to further their study of HEMA? I'm not a very good Christian myself. I'm not sure I have time for I.33, Sword and Shield, German Longsword AND Christ. (Sorry, that was meant as humour).
I've been very lucky to converse with level-headed, fair, open, helpful, insightful and downright noble individuals from all races, backgrounds and nations in the course of my pursuit of HEMA. I think this literal truth is worth much more than an article devoid of citations from historical sources which deals in generalities. I personally think Mr.Clements just wanted to put that same sentiment into words. I don't think the article represents the best spirit of HEMA, and it may tarnish ARMA's reputation somewhat.

[s_taillebois]

Perhaps another essay by M. Clement's more specifically addressing a few of the cultural philosophies which affected the armor plated aristocracy and their perception of the weapons and arts we study herein...would be of service? Mayhaps going back to the Hoplites is a bit diffuse for the discussions specific to this forum.
In all, the fight manuals (with their attendant references to religion and class morals) are a preeminent source. However, as M. Heslop indicated there were other influential aspects.
The perceptions of chivalry for example, would need mention of such as Henry 2nd's court (especially Elanor), the various popular chansons and etc. And how these varied from country to country, or over time. For example there were major changes in attitude from Tristan and Isolde, to Cervantes, for example...
Problem is distilling these influences in such a manner that the emphasis of this forum doesn't drift away into either a doctoral presentation, or into the misty eyed romanticism common to some other groups.
The cultural wars, Eurocentrism and all the various whatevers...whatever......

[Stacy Clifford]

This seems to have gotten lost in the discussion from the weekend and I wanted to throw it back out there since it took me a while to write. Some of my own observations, thoughts are welcome.

I'm going to make one suggestion here for a way that the subject of "Western Civilization" relates to RMA: the manuals themselves.

We have dozens of them that survive from Germany, Italy, England, France, Spain, etc., all card-carrying "western" nations of Europe. I have seen many requests on this forum over the last few years wondering if there were any fighting texts from the middle east, China, Russia, etc., and I can probably count on my fingers the number of them that have managed to be named in response for all other cultures combined. Simply put, European cultures have far more written sources about fighting (and many other things, for that matter) than any other cultures.

The obvious question is why, and the most likely answer is that somehow European civilization gave its citizens more motivation and incentive to produce such works than other cultures. Here are some of my own suggestions for those of you more learned in history to debate:

First, writing itself in European cultures became associated with honor at low levels of society as well as the nobility. Violating a written agreement is more dishonorable than violating a spoken agreement, for instance. Putting something in writing attaches additional importance to it that other cultures do not necessarily assign, and makes the content worth more than the paper it's printed on.

The value of secular writing in scholarly circles increased in the Renaissance, leading to new emphasis on classical, pre-Christian writings. As the value of pre-Christian ideas gained in stature, many new scholars attempted to emulate or incorporate those ideas into their own works to validate their own. As a result of this newfound prestige, more secular works were produced.

The European economic system of the Renaissance allowed knowledge to be profitable. The invention and middle-class availability of the printing press meant that copying documents didn't have to be tedious and expensive anymore, so you could make lots more copies. If you appeased all the right laws and people, you could sell those copies and make money, or you could use them to promote yourself as a knowledgeable person in order to sell your services. Economic mobility was allowed to convey a certain amount of social mobility. The concept of the "self-made man" was invented in the west.

Changes in European economic and social values during the Renaissance combined to make reading and writing available to a wider variety of people among all social classes than in any other part of the world at the time. The more knowledge was spread, the more it got used. The more it got used, the more it got refined, re-analyzed and improved upon, or just plain one-upped. The system fed back on itself in a runaway cycle of material progress that ultimately left the rest of the world behind within a few centuries.

Obviously these things apply to more than just martial arts, but we can easily see how they gave us such a rich diversity of sources from which to rediscover our ancient arts, while other cultures rely primarily on oral transmission to preserve theirs.

These are just a few of my own ideas, perhaps a little disjointed (it is pretty late and I can't write forever), but worth thinking about. I'll be interested to see what others can add to them.

[Nathaniel Bacon]

Excellent editorial, it brought me back to the days of taking my first western civilization class. Although it was only a community college and I was still in high school, many class long debates ran a similar course to this whole thread. The professor showed me why JC and Brandon Paul Heslop’s arguments hold strong against any of the heavily tinted views of the people with “strong personal opinions” threw against them. (My hat off to Brandon Paul Heslop for your well sourced facts).

There is a big and understated difference between Facts, hypotheses, ideas, and popular opinions.

The thread itself is an example of Western thoughts and ideals:
Enter editorial about Western heritage. Follow with many popular opinions pointing out ‘flaws’ about Western civilization and toting the strengths of other civilizations. Opinions and arguments are refuted with facts and solid arguments. End with feeling proud of a very real Western heritage, acknowledging flaws past and present, ready to stand on the shoulders of what our forefathers fought to bring us instead of burying them in the dirt.

I am a 12th generation American descended from an indentured servant that came to America on the Mayflower with an even longer and equally rich European history. The study of Western Civilization is my hobby and WMA is an awesome way to learn about, and pay tribute to, my heritage.

Despite the hostility this has been a great read.

[Rich Thaller]

I’ll start by saying that I am completely aware of my academic shortcomings and will try to debate accordingly.

The only problem I had with the essay in and of itself is that it, though indirectly, perpetuates the falsehood that for the entirety of the three day battle, the only Greek participants were the famous 300 Spartan Hoplites. It is believed that between 4,000 and 11,000 Greeks took part in the pass, with around 7,000 being the accepted number. I have not found a reference that breaks down the proportions of the Greek army between Hoplites (elite heavy infantry), peltasts and slingers, and will not venture to speculate. All 7,000, or so, participated for the first two days until the Greeks were betrayed and the Persians were able to get behind the Greek force in the pass, at which time the 300 Spartans and 700 Thespians remained, perhaps to cover the retreat of the rest of the army.

Maybe I am nitpicking this detail, but I just have trouble abiding the mental image this misconception gives people.

Other than that detail, I will agree that regardless of how one defines or perceives “western culture”, that the impact of this battle, within this war can not be denied. Had the Persian army marched unopposed through Thermopylae on to more favorable terrain without being delayed for three days, the Punic war would have proceeded very differently. Had the Greeks succumbed to conquest by the Persians at that point, even if they didn’t escape influence, the course of history, both Western and Middle Eastern would have proceeded very differently.

The conquests of Alexander, Greek cultural influence on Rome, during the Roman republic and empire and during the Byzantine period would have been either completely eradicated or severely altered by a Persian conquest of the Greek cities.

On a smaller note, I feel that the martial consequence of the Greek method of warfare is also of great influence on western martial tradition. The hoplites were nobles or wealthy citizens who were expected to go to war to defend their city-state against threats. This expectation was carried on through most of the periods where Rome was expanding and whether derived from Greece or not, most European peoples had the expectation that the high status members of society would participate directly in battle. Though my knowledge of eastern culture is lacking, I do not believe that this was a given anywhere in the east, except, perhaps, for Japan.

Even now, in western culture, participation in significant battles and wars will gain the participant a measure of status in his society, however small and sometimes quickly forgotten. Even here in Germany, its soldiers from WWI and WWII are venerated to a degree in spite of Germany’s intense self consciousness over its practice of genocide. Prince Harry is in Iraq with the British Army right now. Very significant, while Jenna and Barbara are up to what?

Last but not least, a great portion of the mathematic and scientific knowledge that is regarded as being of Arabian origin wasn’t. Previous to Mohamed and Islam, the Arabs were a largely nomadic people and not advanced compared to their neighbors. Much of this vaunted science was inherited from Persian, Alexandrian splinter kingdoms, Chinese, Indian and Roman sources. At one point, most of these things were known by scholars within the Roman Empire but simply lost during the dark ages and then reintroduced by contact with Arab scholars. This I learned from an Iraqi interpreter, educated Baghdad University and Stanford.

I apologize for the length, but hope I offered insight. Reference for the Termopolyae battle is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae
I know it is wikipedia, but I believe in this case its facts are solid.

[david welch]

I am not usually wild about Wiki, but here is another link for you. It is a translation of Herodotus. You might as well get it straight from the horses mouth.

http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Herother.html

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that it is imperative for every practitioner of historical WMA (or HEMA, whichever one prefers) to be scholar of the culture and martial climate that generated these techniques, the skill with which they were employed, the tenacity, and the bravery with which our European ancestors fought.

Feel free to disagree with me. But I'd like, once more, to show you why.

I have read translated Arab and Turkish accounts of the Crusades, as well as the opposing Christian ones. One side of the coin is not enough. I have read the Greek accounts of the Persian conflicts in antiquity, and those of their enemies. I have read accounts of the Mongol incursions into Europe in the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries. I have read the accounts of the Moorish invasions of the Iberian peninsula in the early 8th century, and of the long-drawn-out (it took close to 800 years) Reconquista; on both sides, in depth, and I know that the so-called "tolerance" of the Islamic overlords is a myth.

The key, I believe, is to go to the original sources, and not study second-hand, politically-driven (I'm OK, you're OK...we'll just put the blame all on me, and ignore the artocities and social indignities your culture imposed upon Occidental culture), revisionist pseudo-history.

When one "cuts out the middle man," the modern "historian," who has a reputation to worry about, and frequently must bend to a PC-dominated academic standard (skewing the truth the original sources, cross-referenced with the opposing side's own accounts, provide), and is subject to the whims of revisionist "trends;" when one does this, by going directly to the original source material, one is rewarded with a stark, solid reality of history. Many of these sources are available online, others have to purchased from specailty book-shops. But they are all worth it.

Think about this, now: which source would you trust more: some guy who writes a book about Fiore and his manuals, and the techniques said manuals elucidate, who comes to all sorts of wild conclusions based on modern-day speculation and "evidence;" or the Man himself, represented in all his glory by the aforementioned manuals he produced, in his own lifetime?

I have read treatises on the European art of war, from Roman, to mediaeval, to the Renaissance. I have read of Roman and Greek martial, spiritual, and secular virtues (they mirror those of the mediaeval era, or rather more accurately, the mediaeval and Renaissance virtues mirrior the Greek and Roman ones).

I have read Beowulf (the best source available on the Germanic warrior code), translated and untranslated, numerous times. I have read several treatises on the glorious subject of chivalry. I have read the "Book of the Courtier."

All of these, my friends, reflect one another. They are all clearly drawn from the same "well," if you will, the same source. That source is ancient Greece, and the power of the indivual, "heavily"-armoured hoplite, and the martial spirit, methods of warfare, honour, battle-prowess, and values they upheld.

The links in the chain are strong, and they are binding. One inexorably leads to the next, down the venerable length. The Franks at the first Battle of Poitiers fought in a similiar fashion to the hoplites at Marathon, crushing the Moors as the Greeks did the Persians. The knights of the Teutonic Order did the same when they faced the Mongols, (although not at first, admittedly).

Alexander the Great, cutting his way through the depths of the Persian Empire, fought this way. Drive right into the heart of the enemy, destroy its nervous system, and ANNIAHLATE them. It was the same for the knights of Christendom, the reformed "new legions" of the Renaissance, and it is the same to day, (all be it with firearms and kevlar).

In contrast, the Turks did not engage the enemy with their swords and spears until after they had circled them, skimmed them, and run rings around them with their horse-archers. It was the same for the Persians. It was the same for the Mongols, and the Moors, and others.

Imagine their shock when the knights at Nicea came RIGHT AT THEM. They fell into confusion, disbelief. They could not believe that these "ignorant barbarians" were charging right for them. The mares in heat weren't the only factor in the victory...the knights went right for their foes, and they cut row after disorganised row of them down, like so many blades of grass.

This is the "Western way of war." This is "shock battle." It won the war of "Cross vs. Crescent," it defeated the Persian Empire, and it went on to be uinstrumental in the Western dominance of the earth. We have indeed inherited this awesome (in the true sense of the word) legacy, transmitted from ancient Greece to Rome; inherited by the Germanic successors of the Roman Empire; enriched by the tenets of Christianity (with its surplus of Greek and Roman influence), and thus translated into the code of chivalry; revitalised by the Renaissance, and thus passing into the modern era.

While Sun Tzu philosophises, and tries to get his Ying and Yang into balance (an honourable, worthwhile pursuit, I suppose; but not really what one would expect from a book entitled the "Art of War," at least from a Western perspective), mediaeval European treatises on warfare go into stark detail on how to seige a castle, take a city, confront the enemy on any field. They detail the number of men needed, the supplies and provisions necessary, all in practical order.

This is the West, don't give me mysticism. I get enough of that from the peasants in the village. I want answers! How can I defeat Valois at Crecy? Longbows? Really, do you think? A dismounted action by men-at-arms and knights afterwards? If you say so, but how many men will I need to face this numerically superior opponent? I can do it with only that many, huh? All right.

But, how can I take the Duchy of Milan from the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V? Reform the army, you say? Pike squares, you say? Phalanxes? Sword and shield men in different formations, you say? New sytles of fortifications, you say? Gun towers? Organ guns? Pistoliers armed with pistols, swords, and maces? Very good!

European armies (and by extention, American, Canadian, Austrailian, etc.), from the earliest times, were almost universally outnumbered, especailly when fighting Eastern forces. This necessitated three things: better armour, aggressiveness, and superior tactics.

One of me is worth 10 of you. Bring it on. I'm coming for you.

The Turkish horse-archers did not stop the armies of Richard the Lionheart, or Phillip of France, when they marched along the coast of the Holyland in the Third Crusade. Arab chroniclers noted how their armour was bristling with Turkish arrows, and they kept on marching...into the face of a vastly larger force.

In the East, numbers equalled victory. In the West, discipline, tactics, valour, individual resourcefulness, superior armour, and fighting prowess equalled victory. Facing these fearful odds, and a plethora of opponents, forged the military might of the West. It cemented it's unique warrior ethos, with its strong emphasis on fealty, courage, skill at arms, patriotism, and personal initiative and honour.

It encouraged innovation, as various hordes from the East and South fell upon the shores of Europe in waves. Neccessity is the mother of invention, and as an aggressive alien culture (Islam) pressed upon the walls of Christendom, there was much neccessity. And Christendom was not the giant of the Middle Ages. It was, in every respect, the underdog, fighting tooth and bloodied nail for its very survival.

Xerxes I demands "earth and water." Instead, he will get nothing but frustration. The West gives no tokens, bows to no alien dictator. "Come and get [our weapons]," if you can. The pursuit of them will cost you dearly.

Again, we must take the broad view. Examing the "Book of the Courtier" on it's own, or any other source on its own, is but tasting mere slice of the pie. And that's good pie! It is of great importance to study the West, and its numerous foes, in all aspects, to truly understand "HEMA."

Everybody in the West wants to be Hector or Achilles.

We're still coming for you.

-B.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

Nate B:

"The professor showed me why JC and Brandon Paul Heslop’s arguments hold strong against any of the heavily tinted views of the people with “strong personal opinions” threw against them. (My hat off to Brandon Paul Heslop for your well sourced facts). "

How lucky you are to have had such a professor! I did a little stint at Salt Lake Community College, and took a class on Euro Hist. Hmph! To make a long, excruciating story short: I was extremely disappointed and outraged.

The rubbish these so-called "academics" spoon-feed students is ridiculous! I paid good money for the class, and simply stopped going. It was utterly intolerable! Haughty, condescending, PC fantatics, embracing every leftist trend to come down the...okay, if I continue this way, I'm going to start using profanity, and that wouldn't be good. So I'll just stop there.

Sigh.

By the way, I tip my hat in return!

Cheers!

-B.

[s_taillebois]

One slight revision, from alas, one of those so called academics. In reference to the Persian empire, quite true the Acheamenian empire was overthrown by the Hellenistic Greeks.
However, the Hellenistic Greeks had problems maintaining stable political systems (the Ptolomies/Egypt being one of the more successful entities and exceptions), and so the Persian culture/empire had effectively re-established itself by the Roman Era and middle ages. The last directly Persian empire was religiously (and martially) taken over by Islam during the early period of Moslim expansion. Excepting the argument made by some, that Persian theological dualism had a indirect effect on the development of Christianity, not much effect on the west. The Persian's were however, both an asset and a problem to the more fervent adherents of Early Islam.
Many of these Persian's actually relocated to India. Quite a psychological shock for the Eastern Roman's (Byzantines), to have observed so quick a fall of what had been a large, long term political entity.
That said, the late Persian empire seems to have had little effect the development of European martial arts. Such tactics as the Persian affinity for armoured war elephants, doesn't seem to have made much impact on the crusade era. (Although this tradition obviously continued in India)

[John_Clements]

Btw, the centrality of the ancient Greeks to the foundations of Western Civilization once was an obvious truth...

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton031005.html