Dueling vs. Combat (War)

[T.J. Young]

So I'm curious... to me it seems like the majority of the resources for swordsmanship (and yes this is a broad generalization) that it caters to proper swordplay... but how much of it is really geared towards real combat?

I've watched a lot of ARMA videos and a few of them show grappling (which I would think in a close combat scenario, should be emphasized a lot). Others show form movements and striking (where of course in a free play environment they tap on a hit).

Does anyone feel that the emphasis of the resources are more geared towards dueling than "realistic" use on the field? Does anyone think it's just as important to train how you would have fought (we'd assume in armor, and up close)?

I just feel like what I've read so far and the videos I've seen are geared in different directions than maybe is more practical? I feel like watching these guys jumping around quickly, and striking fast wouldn't be all that possible in a combat situation. It's as if someone in the current military were to train marching drills, when in actuality they'd be walking or hiking with a pack in a specific scenario.

Am I completely wrong here?

[John Farthing]

"...there is almost no technique that is proper to a soldier, that cannot also be usefully heeded in individual combat." -Joachim Meyer, 1570 (B3V)

[Stacy Clifford]

If you look at most of the manuals, they are not training in armor (except for a few, obviously), they are depicted training in what looks like street clothes of the time, so I see no reason that our doing the same would in any way be unrealistic. Not all soldiers were equipped with significant armor. It's true that if you're packed in a tight formation that a lot of the footwork may be difficult or impossible to use, but the same principles of timing, distance, angles of attack, binding and winding all still apply, and as Joseph Swetnam says, it is better to know more than you will ever have the opportunity to use. Stuff that works in close quarters is a subset of what works in single combat for the most part, and if you only learn that subset and then find yourself on the fringes of the battle where the crowd is thinner and there's room to move, what are you going to do? We emphasize grappling as much as we can, but my local group for instance has to contend with hard concrete floors, so we have to put certain practical limits on that for safety. Tapping where we got hit is a necessary learning tool in the absence of death and maiming as a feedback mechanism. Sparring one on one is obviously the simplest way to practice our skills, but we also do some scenario-based sparring from time to time as well; we're always open to ideas.

While some manuals, particularly later ones, do seem more geared toward civilian combat, generally most of them seem to espouse the idea in the Meyer quote John Farthing posted above, so we take their word for it and try to do as they suggest. Keep in mind that this is still an evolving revival of this old art and we still have to occasionally revise how we train as new insights are gained, but based on our experience, the way we train is as true to the manuals as our current knowledge and circumstances allow, and the results seem effective when put to the best tests we can devise short of actual combat.

[Patti Ehresmann]

T.J.
In addition to John and Stacy's comments, the manuals and the art work are best understood holistically. For example, as Anglo states regarding Fiore:

"[his] work demonstrates the varied matters with which the professional masters of arms was concerned: wrestling both with and without a dagger; handling an armed assailant while being oneself unarmed; fencing with single-handed sword; foot combat with axes or other staff weapons; handling a light lance on horseback; combat with two-handed swords; dealing with more than one adversary at a time; mounted fencing; and even mounted wrestling" (pg. 23).

He goes on to say that "This wide range of activities recurs in numerous other works on martial arts and must have been typical of what went on in the schools of arms, which rarely concentrated solely on sword and buckler fighting" (pg. 23).

The work of Talhoffer, Pietro Monte, Agrippa, (and the list goes on an on) all incorporate this multiplicity.


SO..to your point regarding "how much of the resources for swordsmanship... is geared towards real combat?"
I would ask how do you define "real combat." Frankly, the word has many connotations and denotations and especially if you think about the time frame we are studying.

This time period was a violent time, and the violence was most surly not limited to a battlefield and thus the manuals were not meant for soldiers alone. Again, Anglo reveals such positions as Vergio, who considered the training in the art of war as essential for good citizenship and "just as the Romans had insisted on 'systematic and scientific training in arms' so too, should contemporary youth 'learn the art of the sword, the cut, the thrust and parry; the use of shield, of the spear, of the club, training either hand to wield the weapon;" (pg. 28). He goes on to say:

"Whatever the method or the weapon of the time, let there be ample practice for our youth, with as great variety of exercises as can be devised, so that they may be ready for combat hand to hand or in troop, in the headlong charge or in skirmish." (pg. 29).


Thus, what we see in the resources is the varied representation and culmination of how to's, and training ideas concepts etc. The art work, keep in mind, is just that: art. They are not photographs and often do not represent the ACTUAL activity but the idea. For example, in Meyers cuts, the backgrounds are artistic only, not representative of actual training facilities. Thus, we cannot always take the artwork for face value, they have to be evaluated within a much bigger context. The same could be said for the current ARMA videos. They are "clips" of a much bigger thing. What you see in a youtube clip certainly is not the whole ARMA story, they are simply pieces. That is why it may seem like the "jumping around quickly, and striking fast wouldn't be all that possible in a combat situation." Because all you are seeing is a snip of it. I assure you, the totality of what we do in practice and in study is far greater and applicable to far more "situation" so to speak, than what one may gleam from little videos.

Thus, I encourage you to think holistically of this Art as it was in the time, and not how would it apply today or just in perhaps a single idea of "combat."

One thing that is universal, is that "combat" has many arenas...snipers are very different than fighter pilots, as are tank guys and those on ships, and then those breaking down doors in urban terrorist hideouts...thus training for combat should most certainly not look all the same now, or back then. But the basics endure, such as timing, distance and/or range, feel, movement, and mindset (i.e. combat spirit)...I used all of those as military pilot today, and these are all basic tenants back then.

Hope this helps!


Patti
Anglo, S. (2000). "The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe." Yale University Press. [/i]