Just what is included in "WMA"?

[Brian Pardue]

Hello all,

I'm new to the forum, just signed up, though I have been reading (and admiring the vast knowledge) displayed here regarding WMA for a few years now. My buddy and I have been sparring pretty regularly for the past few years in just about ever weapon form you can name ...greatsword, two sword, sword and shield, longsword, and lately spear and shield (hoplite style shield, not buckler) to name a few.

I am not as versed on the manuals as I should be after perusing this site for so long, but we mainly spar for fun instead of trying to recreating any lost arts (I have much respect to you guys for that), but we do go full speed with light armor and mildly padded weapons (designs taken from this site, thanks again ) as I am of the school of train as you would do in combat.

But, to my main point, I was wondering what the community here regards as a "Western" martial art. I have been looking for any information regarding the ancient greek and to some extent early roman fighting styles but have found little to go on.

What do the ARMA practitioneers regard as "WMA", does this go back as far as the greeks and romans or do you only concentrate on the documented area of the later European realm? I am a "try and do it" kind of guy and we have been having a great time fighting with short spear (5-6') and shield style, but I am not sure if it is even a realistic style in regards to historical combat.

The question to discuss is: How far back does ARMA's study of combat go in regards to history itself? Do we stop at the documented manuals of the middle age's master or do we continue to study styles, via practice, of our earlier brethren?



Brian

[Benjamin Smith]

Now that's an interesting question.

We tend to implicitly include a seldom used adjective: historical. What counts as a historical western martial art? A martial art that was historically invented/innovated and practiced in the west. What makes something a historical western martial art? Evidence that it was used in the ancient west. Iconography, fighting manuals, the very presence of weapons themselves. This ends up including many forms of close combat, technically it would include archery and gunnery as well as these were practiced arts of war, and it would include forms of combat designed for any circumstances, duels, self defense, street brawls, battles, skirmishes, etc... as long as there is historical evidence.

We at ARMA have generally confined ourselves to close combat martial arts for a few reasons which aren't well documented. 1) most people associate martial arts with close combat, 2) we have excellent documentation on it, and it is relatively novel, 3) a lot of us just plain love swords, polaxes, staffs, and the like, 4) this is the least respected area of western martial arts in popular and academic culture, and undeservingly so! 5) it is a great way to fulfill all the other reasons why people practice martial arts, learning self defense techniques, developing one's physical health, confidence, and the like, and 6) It enables us to approach in a unique way something that our ancestors once did. There are other reasons that I don't have the presence of mind to mention off the top of my head.

As for how far back we go, ARMA is dedicated to the Renaissance, but the line between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance is rather blurry. Besides, the martial arts of the Renaissance didn't just pop up overnight, they had beginnings they grew from in the Middle Ages and can probably be traced back to Rome, and even Greece. Many of the arts practiced in those periods probably didn't change a whole lot going into the Renaissance (wrestling, dagger blosfechten), or had Renaissance equivalents (sword and buckler, sword and shield, staff fighting). Anything learned about the martial arts of those periods reveals something about the later arts. Most of us wouldn't scruple over learning arts out of ARMA's official area, we'd just not call them Renaissance Martial Arts, we just don't have time to do everything.

I think one or two of us work on more ancient martial arts than the Renaissance, but you'll have to wait till someone more knowledgeable on those subjects than myself answers for specifics on them. I would however recommend some of the treatises by Roman generals, such as Vegetius (sp.??), as a place to start. A lot of what we "know" about Roman combat comes from iconography rather than treatises, and there are a lot of assumptions there.

[Greg Coffman]

To my understanding, WMA would indeed include Greek and Roman fighting. However, in ARMA we only have certain extant materials available from which to learn. While ARMA is very big and includes a large cross section of interest, we try to excel in the areas that we can. The "Renaissance" in ARMA to me communicates specialization in late medieval and renaissance combat. Even within this description there may be other individuals or organizations which have better expertise in certain areas.

As new material becomes available, especially in formats ready for consumption by study groups, we are able to broaden our exposure. Right now there is still much work do be done and much to be learned from other weapons and forms of fighting present in the manuals.

In short, I would consider Greek and Roman forms of fighting to fit within WMA in general. However this is outside mainstream WMA and outside of my exposure to WMA within ARMA. Some other organization or individual may possibly be doing excellent research into older forms of combat. Possibly, individuals in ARMA are researching that era right now and will release material for it in the future. This is just my understanding and experience.

[Jaron Bernstein]

WMA is a broad label that includes any martial art that has its origins in what are considered the "west". ARMA works from the era for which we actually have manuals for (late 1200's-1600's mainly). The point is not just to come up with something that is fun (although it is), but rather to resurrect something that is both martially sound AND historically verifiable.

[Jeffrey Hull]

I would tend to characterise the fencing that developed during the Medieval & Renaissance as actually having little to do with any Greek & Roman lineage -- instead, the chivalric fighting of Europe owed much more to Germanic and Celtic fighting traditions, both in war and especially in duel.

[Mike Cartier]

well i consider anything martial from the west WMA
That includes BJJ, MMA, Catch, Pankration, Boxing etc.

I have a passion for Pankration myself, its my other "other" WMA hobby.
I have a website which stores any work i do on it
http://www.Historical-Pankration.com
I also Mod a small Yahoo group on the subject.

On side note i know there is a Western Grappling Association in formation right now which will sanction estern grappling events (catch, folkstyle etc) I have spoken to them about including Greek submission wrestling which is basically wrestling with a some basic submissions and no focus on back to mat points (although it can be)

MMA (modern mixed martial arts) is not just Brazilian JiuJitsu its all the combat sports combined (muay thai kickboxing, bjj, wrestling, judo and boxing), a good half of these combat sports are Western. WMA is all about combative training, that is sportification of the martrial art for the purposes of developing specific combat attributes at a very high level. Thats the backbone of MMA and as I am fond of telling anyone who will listen, the backbone of Western Martial Arts.

[Jeffrey Hull]

By the way: I really like Mike's Greek Pankraton website, and that fighting is certainly part of the Western heritage, of course. His website is well worth visiting.

[Shane Smith]

I agree with Mike. Any martial arts of Western heritage, modern or historical, qualify as WMA. That said, we at ARMA practice Renaissance Martial Arts (RMA) from the 15th to the 17th centuries. So when someone asks me what my style is, I tell them RMA and make a brief mention of my Dan certification in AMA.

Words do mean things and WMA means what it says. I do not like that term as a descriptive for Historical European Swordsmanship although that does fall under the blanket of WMA, I prefer to be as descriptive as possible. Thus RMA.

[Brian Pardue]

Some really good answers, I suppose the differentiation of Eastern and Western can be as simple as where you choose to draw the geographical line between what defines "east" and "west" and where your perspective is. I suppose someone of middle asian descent could claim their art was western in relation to Japan and Korea but someone from western Europe may diasagree and say it is actually an Eastern art since it lies far east of their perspective.

I like Shane's definition of RMA as the more specific realm of ARMA since the manuals and most of the work I have seen on the site seems to gravitate mostly towards that area. I guess the Rennaisance part of ARMA would make that pretty obvious if I could manage to stop thinking of it as the old HACA I originally found (smacks head).

Another question I have would be, at what point in trying to recreate an art or cultural fighting style that we do not have manuals for would it be considered legitimate even though it would not be historically verifiable? Or could it ever be seen as legitimate?

Regards,
Brian

[Brian Pardue]

I just took a look at the pankration site as well, great work there, on my favorites list now

Brian

[Shane Smith]

Another question I have would be, at what point in trying to recreate an art or cultural fighting style that we do not have manuals for would it be considered legitimate even though it would not be historically verifiable? Or could it ever be seen as legitimate?

Regards,
Brian

Now that is a huge question! There can be only one answer to my mind.

In my opinion, the answer is that with weapons such as medieval sword and shield for which we have no extant manuals(discounting those huge duelling shields), we are left to our own earnest practice to judge martial practicality along with research of period images of S&S and consulting what we think we "know" of other contemporary weapons such as longsword and sword and buckler in order to make educated guesses concerning the nature of the formers use. Still, this requires much supposition and cannot be called historically accurate or even "period" absent supporting documentation. My interpretation of sword and shield along with everyone elses is no more than educated guessing and working hypotheticals. As such, it cannot be called HES nor can it be anything but a good , martially sound hypothesis that seems to be in accordance with the concepts embodied within other works of the period.

[Brian Hunt]

Hi Shane,

don't forget that we have what is written on the Italian Rotella or round shield as well to help us with our interpretations of sword and shield in addition to the other sources you mentioned.

Brian Hunt
GFS

[Shane Smith]

Hi Shane,

don't forget that we have what is written on the Italian Rotella or round shield as well to help us with our interpretations of sword and shield in addition to the other sources you mentioned.

Brian Hunt
GFS

I haven't forgotten. Still, our interpretations on early sword and shield are no more than extrapolated and educated guesswork until a period medieval sword and shield source-text emerges.

[Craig Peters]

I think another thing that we have to keep in mind is that a significant amount of our knowledge of history (and not just Renaissane Martial Arts) is reconstructed. Go to a bunch of museums, especially those that feature high end displays, not just artifacts, and you'll realize how much of the stuff that lay people take for granted as being historical is actually a reconstruction based upon the available information. Shane's right that we lack the authenticity of a fechtbuch to support our interpretations, but we need to acknowledge that a good reconstruction has a lot of value too. At some point in human history, people had to figure out how to use shields, and undoubtedly this skill changed and evolved over time as the shield evolved itself. True, medieval people had the "advantage" that they used their skills in earnest, which is a great way to figure out what works well and what does not, but we have a fair amount of knowledge in how later medieval fighting works, and it's not that much of a stretch to extrapolate it back to create a reasonable reconstruction of what sword and shield fighting was like.

[Mike Cartier]

well i would say that every Historical Interpretation is personal and for that matter every translation has a personal touch. Thats why I recommend approaching any thing from as many angles, interpretations, translations as possible. Its inevitable that our past experience should filter into our interpretations.

Pankration for example is very much like modern MMA, or rather more like the old Vale Tudo/ Early UFC days with very minimal rules, but its still a bit different. You cannot simply take modern boxing and wrestling and fuse them into Pankration. Thats what they did back then, but their boxing and wrestling was not the same as our sports.
Pankration has no manuals but it does have the benefit from an existing , rather similar sport which makes up for the lack of detail. Still everything is personal, any two people will approiach any subject in different manners, however small these differences might be.