"Highland" Manuals?

[Jeffrey Hull]

Hey Guys,

So...why is it there seem to be no "Highland" sword-manuals or fight-books which were written in Gaelic?

If there are any, please let us know.

Otherwise, let us consider what such a proliferation of English-language manuals means regarding whether we can ascertain a true historical Scottish version of sword-fighting thereform, or whether what such manuals are giving us is a regimental-focused, British imperial, and/or small-sword biased perspective.

JH

[ChrisThies]

This is not a fight book, but in regards to [Gaelic] medieval armor there is listed at the Ryerson and Burnham Libraries of the Art Institute of Chicago a two volume set entitled: "Irish Medieval figure sculpture, 1200-1600: a study of Irish tombs with notes on costume and armour", 1974, by John Hunt.

[G.MatthewWebb]

Jeffrey,

I study Scots Gaelic and some of the other Celtic languages. I wish that the Scottish Gaels had preserved their fencing traditions in their own language. You must understand that few Scottish Gaels were literate and so the reading population was very small. This, unfortunately, is still the case. Also, the elite class, the very people who might use a fencing text, were becoming more anglicized during the 17th and 18th centuries. Additionally, fencing books are a product of the printing press and urban culture neither of which the Scottish Gaels or any of the other Celts possessed.

Matthew Webb
Oklahoma City

[Jeffrey Hull]

MW:

I think that you are quite correct in what you wrote. It is most unfortunate that none of the "Celtic" manuals are in a "Celtic" language, or are translations therefrom.

I would assert that certain texts which some have deemed "Gaelic swordsmanship" or "Highland swordsmanship" are really accurately called "British Empire swordsmanship" or "Lowland swordsmanship".

This issue is not one merely one of "semantics" or of differing names. It is one of words truly meaning something. And it is certainly not about disrepect for Gaelic. Indeed, it is quite the opposite. It is about the highest of respect for Gaelic language, arts, and culture to ascertain what is actually deserving of the name "Gaelic" or "Highland".

But as usual, it seems that the bandwagon-mindset of too many faire-goers, recreators, merchandisers, and so forth just bloody well gets in the way.

JH

[Jeffrey Hull]

CT:

Thanks for the information. JH

[robrobertson]

While it would indeed be very convenient for ARMA, it would've been extremely odd if they had. As the culture and language was of the oral tradition, your average highlander, even possibley the champion, was illiterate. NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH IGNORANT, but that's another topic! Also, they trained primarily within the clan. As with all oral cultures the teachings are passed down from one generation to the next. That way you are forced to HAVE to know the topic inside and out yourself. A responsability to your descendants.

To put this in a simple to relate to example, The next time that you're at a family reunion, look at who are the best fighters. Why haven't they written a family fight book?

Slan Leat

Rob

[Jeffrey Hull]

RR:

So, I take it you agree with my point. What we have inherited textually is something "Ungaelic", if you will. And sadly the spoken tradition leaves no codified artifact, at least not known to us. Though perhaps a Gaelic or at least older text may be found someday, as Scotland did have its own manuscipts and books, not unlike their Irish brethren.

To gain knowledge of true Medieval & Renaissance Scottish swordsmanship requires study of something other than the manuals which are known to exist at present. What and how such may be regained is arguable, but it is something to consider.

This would not preclude the probability that Scottish Medieval & Renaissance swordsmanship -- Lowland, Highland, whatever -- may have been much alike generally, as in turn it may have been much like that of the rest of Europe. It seems that a distinction hence dissimulaion hence degeneration of swordplay came about over time after the Act of Union. In other words, Scottish Medieval & Renaissance swordsmanship was not inherited uncorrupted or authentically by the later 18th-19th CentAD systems of what are really British regimental/small-sword influenced manuals. But somehow the swordplay of said manuals is called "Highland" or even "Gaelic" by some. Which I think is wrong.

Well, anyway, that is how it seems to me.

JH

[Mike Shustock]

Hi...

Now isn't this why Eastern Fighting has Kata. I mean. reading and writing is something that has become widespread only in the last century. MOST people were illiterate. By having students actually go through the moves (kata) they learn through experience. The Teachers teach a technique through application of the art. Pictures and written manuals are a bonus, but actual "hands on" experience is a must.

my 2 cents anyway!!

Mike

[Jeffrey Hull]

MS:

Having studied some Asian arts, I would say "No".

Kata is more like a choreographed form. If done with partner, then it is a set-play. Such could go a long way to transfer of ideal technique. But understanding useful technique, doing such technique properly, and certainly realisation of tactics -- such requires set-play and sparring, not just forms alone.

I would consider sparring and/or fighting to be real experience.

JH

[Casper Bradak]

Don't forget, set plays or forms are a part of RMA as well. Whatever they were called, flouryshes, speigelfechten, cutting exercizes, tiprogressions, they existed and we use them now. They're important. For an example of surviving set flouryshes, take a look at some of the surviving english texts. But they're next to useless without the practical application and inside and out knowledge of their components. That is where traditional asian katas sometimes fail in this day and age, where the movements survive but few know their potential, and some even omit sparring altogether.

[Mike Shustock]

Gentlemen,

It wasn't my intention to start a East vs West debate...

I was refering to kata in the historic context actually. Kata was used to transfer the teaching of a physical movement. Books/ manuals are 2 demensional. Kata was a way to teaching a technique to future fighters without the need for bloodshed in a 3 demensional way. Often kata ( in the historical sense) was a recreation of snippets of battle. In these modern times, kata has become a dance to amuse parents, or work up a sweat.
No! kata alone will not make you a fighter... we all know this. As does studying ancient manuscripts alone make you a warrior either. Everything Furthers..... Studying... walking through a battle sequence (kata, speigelfechten, cutting exercises, tiprogressions, etc) and yes of course sparring...

We would never spar a complete noob at full strength, full speed, full determination and intent...there would be no contest nor honor gained from this type of competition.

Cutting exercises, focus drills etc... teach the noob, and seasoned warrior as well the basics of our type of warfare. Repetition... intent of movement and compassion creates the warrior master. We ALL want to be the master.... But what does the master do????

HE TEACHES!!!

er um ah, that's my opinion anyway....

Sorry I didn't mean to preach....

Mike

[Mike Shustock]

Question: Wasn't ART and wriiten text, actually limited to the aristocracy, or at least the rich?

I mean... and average guy like me back in those times wouldn't have books or manuscripts or art work would he????

[Chris Thompson]

Although there are no sword manuals written in Gaelic, there's no logical reason to assume the authors of the Highland broadsword manuals were lying or deluded when they described their system as a Highland or Scottish method of swordplay. Page specifically says he is describing the style of swordplay used by the Highlanders, and Mathewson lists several sword masters with Gaelic names as his teachers. Mathewson even paraphrases a Gaelic proverb in his manual. ("Am fear a thug buaidh air fhein, thug e buaidh air namhaid: He who conquers himself, conquers an enemy." Mathewson says that fencing teaches us "to conquer ourselves, that we may be able to conquer others.")
Furthermore, Page's system repeatedly targets areas of the body known in Gaelic lore as the "12 doors of the soul." If you read any Gaelic accounts of sword combat, you'll quickly see that the targets described are the same as those described by Page.
One of the Highland sword manuals was written by an officer in the Black Watch named Sinclair, proving that even if this system was not exactly the same as the one the clansmen would have used before 1745, yet it was certainly used by Gaelic-speaking soldiers at a later date.
Gaelic culture focused on oral tradition more than the written word, with the result that our only sources for Highland swordplay are mediated through another language and culture. That doesn't mean the system didn't exist or wasn't used by the Gaels. When a dozen or more 18th century authors describe this as either a Highland or Scottish system, I think we have to ask how anyone could reasonably doubt what they're saying.

-Chris Thompson

[G.MatthewWebb]

Chris,

Thanks for the post. Interesting information. What is your citation for the "twelve doors of the soul"? I'd like to verify this bit of lore. Secondly, have you ever located a second source for the proverb that Matthewson quotes? If it isn't something he made up, chances are someone else recorded it. A couple books of Scots Gaelic proverbs have been published over the years though I think they are out-of-print.

I'm glad to read that someone else shares my enthusiasm for Scots Gaelic culture! Look forward to your next post.

Matthew Webb
Oklahoma City, OK

[G.MatthewWebb]

Chris,

I just found your brief piece on-line with the reference to the "twelve doors of the soul". For those interested:

http://www.cateransociety.com/12doors.html

Matthew Webb
Oklahoma City, OK