Postby s_taillebois » Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:08 pm
Interesting thread, insofar as it relates to some mixed cultural contexts, and the often miswended belief that any martial art can exist in some pure state, unsullied by other influences.
Concerning reconstructing an art from dusty old manuscripts, in some terms that was indirectly related to the original use of the printed fechtbuchs. When the printing press came into use in the early Renn., one of the effects was to spread specific information outside of the priviliged classes which once had exclusive access. As a result of the printed book (and the chartered defense schools) the merchant/yeomanry classes gained easier access to martial arts predominately once limited to the aristocrats. And the new metal technologies made the acquisition of swords (and later rapiers) much easier for these same groups. So, in some terms, what these classes were doing was gaining access to that martial information, constructing a tradition rather than reconstructing one.
Another factor, as compared to China and Japan, was that European royalty was somewhat more willing to allow access by the lower orders, to martial arts of the privilaged classes. In England, the Kings generally supported the chartered defense schools, despite the chaos these sometimes caused in the streets and taverns. They did so, for several reasons. First, the black death had changed the structures of European heirarchies, and quite literally there were martial niches the old aristocracy could no longer fill. Second as an expansionist society, it was to their advantage to have the lower orders have these abilities. Have to remember that the merchant classes, spread empires (and tax revenues) as much as the Kings army. Towards the end of the 100 years war, yeomanry (and the loot attendant) played a large role in the wars in France. Another example, Elizabeth 1st, for example, encouraged de-facto piracy by the merchant class/lower aristocracy, and that couldn't be done without the martial tradition.
Although the Europeans did have a strong tradition of mysticism & martial arts, it would have been within Christianity and outre varients such as the Grimiores. Neither of these traditions were suitable to unreserved deference to a 'master'.
And in general, using the Elizabethian English as an example, these were people for whom unreserved deference to a 'master' would have been unlikely. The goings on with Long Meg, and the humor in Shakespeares plays make that fairly clear. And although a few lower aristocrats may have run chartered defense schools, many of these seem to have been operated by the yeomanry/gentry...another condition not favorable to unreserved deference to a master.
Concerning the presumed superiority of one martial art over another, such as EMA over WMA or the ability of a art to stay 'pure'...well historically it didn't work that way. Each group adopted elements, to one degree or another, from each tradition. A good example would be Japan, during the Shogunates of the 1500-1600 era and the during the Meiji restoration, they did integrate aspects of European martial technology and tradition. Ironically it allowed them to keep the Europeans out, at least for while.
And anyway, whether it's current EMA, or WMA, how much of it isn't some manner of variation? The initial contexts for both, have long shifted...and so in my case, the response to the vexing questions, or undue belief that one or the other art is inferior, is to refer to the historical context. Either bore them into going away, or help them to realize the mythos was not the reality.
Last edited by
s_taillebois on Thu Jul 27, 2006 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Steven Taillebois
