The ARMA and everyone else.

[Sam Nankivell]

http://www.realfighting.com/0503/rmartinez.html

I am curious as to what ARMA's response is to this article. Traditionally, the ARMA seems to adhere to the opinion that no lineages for WMA exist. However, this man does make some pretty good points in his essay and offers quite a bit of evidence for the existence of some direct lineages.

Personally, I think Maestro Martinez does make quite a few good points. However, he seems to have some rather classical opinions about swordsmanship, like the thrust obviously being "superior" to the cut. He also seems to dislike the idea of "anything goes". I'm no expert, but it seems part of his essay might be a bit of a subtle attack on ARMA.

I am curious as to what ARMA's opinion is on all of this and what ARMA's relationship is like with other organizations such as AEMMA (I do live in Canada after all!).

[Mike Cartier]

well I only read it quickly but it seems full of holes to me, this seems much like his "evils of sparring" article.

As for living lineages i have to examine his evidence but if it goes through sport fencing or whatever its hardly of much use. If there is a living lineage would be no need for HEMA would there. Also if there is a longsword lineage one must wonder why its taken so long for them to come forward and let us all see it.

[Sam Nankivell]

well I only read it quickly but it seems full of holes to me, this seems much like his "evils of sparring" article.

As for living lineages i have to examine his evidence but if it goes through sport fencing or whatever its hardly of much use. If there is a living lineage would be no need for HEMA would there. Also if there is a longsword lineage one must wonder why its taken so long for them to come forward and let us all see it.

It seems his argument is that these living lineages are few and far between, but still do exist. Also, could you give an example of some of the holes you have found? (Sorry to sound slightly aggressive, but I took quite a long read over the essay and so I want a quite long and detailed answer.)

Also, could you post a link to this "evils of sparring" article?

[Randall Pleasant]

It seems his argument is that these living lineages are few and far between, but still do exist. Also, could you give an example of some of the holes you have found? (Sorry to sound slightly aggressive, but I took quite a long read over the essay and so I want a quite long and detailed answer.)

Also, could you post a link to this "evils of sparring" article?

Sam

To the best of my knowledge not a single person, including the author of the article in question, has ever produce a list of names going back to one of the historical rapier masters in the 1600s. Some do track back to smallsword masters of the late 1700s but none to the rapier masters. Matt Anderson and I took one of this person's students to tasks for making these same claims in a thread on another forum and we were not provided anything much beyond the turn of the last century.

It was the weapon of the upper classes. It is not the weapon of the lower classes

This quote from the article has been disproven. John Clements' research on the subject suggest that the rapier use actually moved up social levels.

To the best of my knowledge, the author of the article is not respected very much within ARMA.

[Matthew_Anderson]

http://www.realfighting.com/0503/rmartinez.html

I am curious as to what ARMA's response is to this article. Traditionally, the ARMA seems to adhere to the opinion that no lineages for WMA exist. However, this man does make some pretty good points in his essay and offers quite a bit of evidence for the existence of some direct lineages.

Personally, I think Maestro Martinez does make quite a few good points. However, he seems to have some rather classical opinions about swordsmanship, like the thrust obviously being "superior" to the cut. He also seems to dislike the idea of "anything goes". I'm no expert, but it seems part of his essay might be a bit of a subtle attack on ARMA.

I am curious as to what ARMA's opinion is on all of this and what ARMA's relationship is like with other organizations such as AEMMA (I do live in Canada after all!).

I have yet to see any evidence of direct "living lineages" that go back any farther than the late 19thc. The article you linked is no exception. Fencing at that time was very far removed from the medieval and renaissance styles. I think many classical and sport fencers have, in recent years, attempted to jump on the historical fencing bandwagon by claiming expertise in these older styles due to their modern titles and lineages. Some Related articles:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/barbasetti.htm
http://www.thearma.org/essays/classical.htm
http://www.thearma.org/essays/process.htm
http://www.thearma.org/essays/influence.htm
http://www.thearma.org/essays/expert.htm

[Michael Olsen]

I didn't have a chance to read through the entire article, but I've read other articles by the same individual on the same subject. Those articles (and what I read of this one) don't seem to strive to verify a living lineage from any of the medieval masters (if they do, they fail rather miserably), but from the classical fighters (where the claims remain dubious, as explained below). What's classical? I'll use Mr. Martinez's words:

Classical fencing encompasses the art of European civilian swordsmanship as it came to be practiced from the early 19th century to the early 20th century. The weapons studied in classical fencing are the foil (which, though it is a training tool and not a weapon in its own right, for the purposes of this article, I shall consider it a weapon), the dueling sword, and the dueling saber (which should not to be confused with the military saber).

So, essentially, Martinez's claims are that from sometime in the 1800s on, there has been a living lineage, which I believe I have seen "proven" via a flowchart on another website. (I am really unqualified to say whether or not it was, as I don't know any of the names and have no access to paperwork or other proof of the lineage - none was provided, only names with lines drawn.) Regardless, Mr. Martinez doesn't seem to argue that there is much in the way of surviving lineage from the Medieval excpting this statement:

Earlier historical fencing methods of the medieval era also survived in Germany and in Italy, according to my own master Maitre Frederick Rohdes. Unfortunately, I was not able to ascertain where from him before he died.

Which, as should be needless to say, is a rather large and inescapable hole in the essay. A dead man makes for a very hard source to cite.

Regardless, if anyone could show substantial evidence linking themselves back 30 (+/- a few) generations to the swords and spears of Liechtenauer, Vadi, Talhoffer, Meyer, Mair, et al they would be promoting it within the community. I don't believe anyone has stepped forward to even try to do that.

I also think it is interesting that Mr. Martinez elucidates so much on the need of some special talent to interpret the fechtbücher, as if the words on the page were invisible to all but some unnamed select few. I think this claim is somewhat dubious - there are some techniques that seem somewhat tough to get to work, and some concepts that are more metaphysical than others, but in general it isn't some insurmountable conglomeration of cryptic text that only the few learned individuals of classical fencing heritage can manage to use.

The remainder of the portions that I read seem to consist of praise for the internet and it's dissemination of information, praise for the increasing accuracy of the reproduction market, and a tirade against individuals who use conglomerate techniques or are less than "conservative" in their fencing. I have not been witness, so I'm not entirely sure where Mr. Martinez draws the line of "conservative" to any of the acts of shouting (presumably something other than a voiced exhalation)...

"uncontrolled wrestling techniques, blows with the fist, open hand chops, elbow strikes, forearm strikes, and kicks to the knees or groin that are uncharacteristic of the weapon they are using".

Conversely, through ARMA, I've only been exposed to Mr. Martinez's "foundations of swordsmanship": "timing, distance and proportion" in addition to elements like intent (timing and distance won't do you any good if your swing is too weak, or too strong, nor if you are only "going through the motions").

[Jeffrey Hull]

This is what I think, which may or may not reflect the thinking of other ARMA fellows

Firstly, Martinez thinks that someone who dares learn from the Fechtmeister of circa 1300-1500 by reading their books and doing it for oneself -- thus the "self-made made" that he disparages so elitistly, instead of learning fencing from phonies like he and his cronies -- is somehow doing wrong. That is utter trash. Neither I nor my fellows need the approval of modern "maestros". Martinez thinks himself greater than Doebringer, Ringeck, Talhoffer, Von Danzig, Kal, Dei Liberi and Vadi, such that a fencer should take lessons from Martinez rather than put effort into learning from the real fight-masters.

Secondly, Martinez and company never ever provide any proof of anybody in his circle, much less himself, having a lineage to any German or Italian masters who wrote any fighting text circa 1300-1500. Moreover, he has no right to his opinion regarding them in any way whatsover, as it is quite clear that he has not studied them seriously, much less learned from them, much less made praxis of their lessons. We resurrect working fight-lore while they pontificate about their lineages, courtesy, and theories.

Thirdly, Martinez claims to know the mind of Bruce Lee vis-a-vis sport-fencing. Nobody ought to make such a claim, and because of his claim Martinez owes apology to the widow, Mrs. Linda Lee. But let me tell you something: sport-fencing was the only form of so-called swordsmanship of European heritage that was well-beknownst circa time of BL's untimely and sad death (1973). The rebirth of true European swordsmanship had yet to take place (circa 1990s). Thus I assert that if BL had lived until now, had gotten to read for himself enough of the popularly uncovered German & Italian texts of yore, and had witnessed the swordsmanship that ARMA and some of the few other accomplished groups do, then BL likely would see how phony all the sport-fencing is and would take a shine to what we do -- that being real swordsmanship.

Fourthly, Martinez insists the thrust be superior to the hew. This he bases upon an unspoken yet evident mischaracterisation he makes of German swordsmanship -- which he quite obviously fears and loathes -- as being thrustless. That is quite false. There is much thrusting in German swordsmanship. However, to the point itself, as to whether thrust is superior to hew, that is also quite false. I submit to you that a man may take a thrust to the belly and keep fighting. Yet if he be hewn across the belly, then his entire abdominal musculature is severed across his diameter, his guts spill out, and his blood loss is so much more severe, such that he neither can nor will fight any longer.

Fifthly, Martinez disparages sparring / freeplay, barely acknowledging it under his chosen psuedonym for it of "bouting". Never mind that other than a real swordfight, there is no certain way to test one's fighting prowess with swords, other than to do some sort of safe lawful kind of sparring. Again, if he and his minions have some problem with that, then he and they may personally (i.e. via neither online forum nor e-mail nor telephone, but personally in the real-world) seek out, find and challenge any senior ARMA scholar willing to accept such sparring challenge -- which includes me, and surely several other of my fellows.

Conclusion: So do I need to say it -- Martinez is wrong and I have no use for him.

Earnestly,

Jeffrey Hull

[Mike Cartier]

yes well as far as the Bruce Lee mention i would say Martinez has no idea what he is talking about. As someone trained in the living lineage of Bruce Lee (JKD through the Inosanto system) I can say Bruce Lee had very little patience with people who didn't spar or people who were entangled in the "classical Mess" and hold theory over physicality as an ideal.

[Jeffrey Hull]

yes well as far as the Bruce Lee mention i would say Martinez has no idea what he is talking about. As someone trained in the living lineage of Bruce Lee (JKD through the Inosanto system) I can say Bruce Lee had very little patience with people who didn't spar or people who were entangled in the "classical Mess" and hold theory over physicality as an ideal.

Yes -- your point that BL valued sparring is quite correct.
Anybody who reads the man's published works discovers that. Those who pursue JKD realise that.
Thanks to MC for making that point.

[Brian Hunt]

I find most of Mr. Martinez's assertions in this article to be spurious at best and self serving at worst. If only someone who has a mastership from a living legacy should be allowed to teach Rennaissance Martial arts for whatever reason, then there would be very few people being able to study these arts because so few would have a very big monopoly upon them.

I could comment further, but I really try to refrain from bashing other people whether in person or on the internet.

all the best.

Brian Hunt
GFS

[Sam Nankivell]

What about his claim that ancient weapons were being taught alongside modern ones in fencing schools during the classical era of fencing? Also, what is ARMA's relationship like with AEMMA?

Apart from these two questions that need to be answered, you do make some excellent points. This reassures me as to the validity of ARMA as a whole, which is why I like this organization so much.

By the way, I would still like very much to see this "Evils of sparring" article.

[Matthew_Anderson]

What about his claim that ancient weapons were being taught alongside modern ones in fencing schools during the classical era of fencing? Also, what is ARMA's relationship like with AEMMA?

Apart from these two questions that need to be answered, you do make some excellent points. This reassures me as to the validity of ARMA as a whole, which is why I like this organization so much.

By the way, I would still like very much to see this "Evils of sparring" article.

Although some fencing instructors make this claim now, I haven't seen any evidence of the older weapons being taught by classical fencing instructors along side the traditional weapons of foil, saber, and epee. Why would they? Most of them had nothing but contempt for the "crude" older weapons and styles. Many still do for that matter. Even if they did teach these antique weapons, surely this would itself have been a reconstruction of these lost arts, much as we are doing now. Really, most classical fencing instructors had no interest in these weapons at all until the relatively recent explosion of interest in historical fencing. It's the "in" thing now and some of them are embracing this trend and persuading those that don't know any better that their "mastery" of foil means they are competent to teach 16th c Rapier or even longsword! I really think it's all hype.

Here's an interesting thread concerning a longsword seminar taught by Mr. Martinez. The implication that it was part of a long lineage of some sort was at last denied by the Maestro himself. The lineage apparently goes back only as far as his own mysterious, now deceased master, that is to the 20th century! He claims not to know what region it was from, how his master learned it, etc. but he apparently learned enough somehow to teach a seminar on it? It's all very mysterious.

http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread ... t=martinez

And ARMA has no relationship with AEMMA, they are a completely different organization.

[Michael Olsen]

What about his claim that ancient weapons were being taught alongside modern ones in fencing schools during the classical era of fencing?

Well, as Mr. Martinez himself writes in the article, the art of classical fencing concerns itself primarily with civilian, not military, swordsmanship (though, accordingly, a martial element was supposed to have been kept in mind). So that sort of rules out the "war swords" of early Europe, and leaves only the dedicated civilian weaponry and the three weapons that Mr. Martinez lists as historical components of the Classical tradition:

Classical fencing encompasses the art of European civilian swordsmanship as it came to be practiced from the early 19th century to the early 20th century. The weapons studied in classical fencing are the foil (which, though it is a training tool and not a weapon in its own right, for the purposes of this article, I shall consider it a weapon), the dueling sword, and the dueling saber (which should not to be confused with the military saber).

The IMAFE (one of Mr. Martinez's organizations) states the following on the same topic:

However, earlier, more combative techniques did not die out. In the early part of the 19th century, methods such as the use of the unarmed hand, strikes with the pommel, disarms, arm locks, and the like could be found in such works as Rosaroll and Grisetti's treatise of 1803 and Maestro Brea's book of 1805. It is also well known that methods of rapier and dagger, as well as other "historical" weapons, were practiced through the 19th century and into the 20th.

This seems to point the direction of his "historical" swords to the rapier and dagger and by extension, possibly the smallsword, something that classical swordsmanship using the foil, etc is not so far removed from in relation to older weapons like the longsword or arming sword. However, as was recently explained to me and confirmed through some light research, the principles of classical fencing with a foil differ greatly from the advice and teachings of the earlier "historical" masters in relation to the rapier alone, or with an offhand. Interestingly, the historical precedence of close physical work (pommel strikes, arm locks, etc) mentioned here seems to undermine Mr. Martinez's own idea that these action are not conservative and unlike those of a "real swordsman". Perhaps my perception of the two articles is incorrect, though.

Further, the IMAF also has this to say as to the nature of Classical fencing:

he second half of the 19th Century is historically the classical period, in which the art of fencing reached its furthest development, but we may include the whole of the 19th century in this era, as this was the age when fencing was formally codified, systematized, and fully expressed in complete systems and styles. "Classical," in this sense, means "the golden age," the period when the art saw its highest peak.

Understanding that classical fencers seem to view their art as the ultimate culmination in manner and practice, it would be strange indeed for them to step back to a weapon lacking such professed refinement.

If he does indeed state elsewhere in the article that more "ancient" weapons were taught (does he name them, or remain vague as to their specificities?), it seems that he contradicts himself and virtually all information I've read about classical fencing.

Also, what is ARMA's relationship like with AEMMA?

The two are totally separate entities. As to the general demeanor of one towards the other, I cannot say for certain. I have experienced no disagreeable discussion from the few individuals I've spoken to from the AEMMA.

By the way, I would still like very much to see this "Evils of sparring" article.

The closest I could come, I believe, to finding the requested article was this:
http://www.martinez-destreza.com/articles/sparring.htm

It is not that much about the act of sparring or its benefits and vices, but about the very use of the term "sparring" in that it does not, according to the article, hold any historical presence in swordsmanship. Essentially, Mr. Martinez is suggesting the use of historical terms (he suggests several: "fencing," "assault," "exercise of arms," "practicing," or even "skirmishing,").

[Paul Macdonald]

Dear All,

The above topic, and more, the specific arguments (they might be called such given lack of reasoning) have caught my attention.

Mr. Cartier says -
"If there is a living lineage would be no need for HEMA would there?"

Or would there?

I bring to your attention the fact that there are still existing Worldwide living traditions and lineages of many respectable cultural Arts by way of European indigenous music, language, poetry, dance, metalworking, weaving, calligraphy, brewing, painting, cordwaining, astrology, dry-stane dyking but to name a very few.

They all survive and they all still exist, and moreso, to practical ends.

HEMA is no different and I would advise you to seriously check your facts before responding.


Randall Pleasant -

The fellow above says - "To the best of my knowledge, the author of the article is not respected very much within ARMA"

This may be true, but know also that ARMA is not HEMA.


Matt Anderson -

That there are "No "living lineages" before late C19th."

Are you so sure?

Have you personally spoken with your targets in mind? By dint of your assumptions, I can only conclude not. Do so, or spill more false assumptions.


Jeffrey Hull,

You are an incredible man. Of incredible assumptions.

Namely, that "Maestro Martinez thinks himself greater than Doebringer, Ringeck, Talhoffer, etc. etc."

My God man, but you must know Meastro Martinez more intimately than I if you can claim such knowingly with All your Heart. Is this so?

But I can tell you that you know nothing of Maestro Martinez as a man or a Maestro, for if you did, you would neither dare assume nor claim such lies as true.
Challenge me if you know otherwise.

Regarding Bruce Lee and Fencing -

Have you read all of Bruce Lees works? Were you not aware that he based some of his system according to fencing actions and terminology after studying and taking lessons in...European Fencing?

You also refer to a "mischarachterisation he (Maestro Martinez) makes of German swordsmanship", "which he obviously fears and loathes."

Are you aware that the Maestro of Maestro Martinez was a German fencing master, and moreso, one with live encounter experience and historical fencing (German specifically) knowledge and ability?

Again, this bloody myth that Maestro Martinez "disparages sparring/freeplay"

Have you ever had the balls to face this man?

I care little what you think in response to this Hull, I simply speak as one who has crossed blades with the Maestro on occasion and can only speak as one who has learned great lessons in doing so.


Mr. Cartier -

As one who claims to be "trained in a living lineage of JKD through the Inosanto system", are you aware that both Maestro Martinez and Dan Inosanto have in the past directly traded lessons and expertise from each other?

A simple fact laid before you. Take what you will from it.


Brian Hunt -

"self serving"

Those two words in combination and regard to Maestro Martinez are greatly misplaced and mistaken. If you disagree with my words, you do not know the man.

If you do, then I dare you prove me wrong.


Matthew Anderson -

That "Most of them (classical fencing instructors) had nothing but contempt for the "crude" older weapons and styles" and that "many still do for that matter".

Are you so ready to disregard two accurate illustrations (if all you might take for some form of "evidence" is what has been written or printed) from the 17th and the 18th depicting two European martial arts schools, yet still teaching the Arts of dusack, longsword and polearms, weapons largely unused (ie. "crude" and older weapons styles) yet still appreciated and taught, or still, Angelos salle, which still taught the use of the backsword in an age when it was not practically carried, or even more, the salle of George Roland, classical fencing master in Edinburgh in the C19th, where he still teaches the use of "crude" and older weapons styles along with the more contemporary weapons that express the very same Art.

The last word in that paragraph is the most important of All.

Art.

That is what carries across centuries and cultures, that which brings us together and appreciate more where we are at this time.

Do not tell me for a second that 19th century fencing masters were stuck in some timewarp any more than 15th century masters may have been.

Do not tell me that any fencing master today is stuck in some timewarp the same, as we have all history to look directly back upon and learn from, as the Art has never left us.

Yours Very Truly,

Macdonald

www.historicalfencing.org/Macdonaldacademy
www.historicalfencing.org/Macdonaldarmory

[Matthew_Anderson]

Mr. MacDonald,

You misquoted me. I didn't say there are no living lineages before the late 19th century. Please read my post more carefully. I said I haven't seen any evidence. Lots of claims, but no real evidence. Can you provide some here? I would concede that some may be able to document lineages that go back as far as say the late 18thc, but even then, I believe any attempt to teach German Longsword by these teachers for instance, was a re-creation. Not passed down from master to master as these arts simply fell out of fashion and usefulness. Again, please point me to any real documentation of older weapons or styles being taught by classical fencers via a tradition of masters and students, back to when they were in common use for legitimate self defense. I would be very interested to see it.

What do you mean by this comment?

"but know also that ARMA is not HEMA.

BTW, you need to register with your full, legal name to post here as is clearly stated in the forum rules.