Conversations
with ARMA Director John Clements
PART I, PART II, PART III, PART IV,
PART V, PART VI, PART VII, PART VIII
As both a
leading popularizer and pioneering teacher, how do you see your role in the revival of
this subject?
I think it can be said fairly that I’ve
been foremost a voice of dissent. I like to say that I’ve
been a dissenter from the traditional prevailing view of
fencing history. In
rejecting the standard preconceptions and cliché’s
while, determinedly promoting the credible study of this
subject, I’ve locked horns with many individuals over
the years. But, after all, that is the traditional
role of a dissenter. I dissented openly from the pervasive
myths and misconceptions I encountered about our martial
heritage found among sport and classical fencers and within
the Asian martial arts community.
I dissented from the views I found among the stage
combat community and groups such as the SCA. I further dissented from the presumptions
of reenactment societies and LARP gamers.
And, naturally, dissent always brings some degree
of enmity from entrenched opinions. The bottom line is, I have been
and continue to be a nonconformist. I didn’t subscribed to these activities before, so knowing
even more now, it’s even harder than ever in many ways
to respect them today –especially when some of the
current efforts are from the very people who, in one sense,
had to be pulled (kicking and screaming in some cases) into
appreciating real historical European fighting arts. So,
I feel I continue this dissent even now in the face of the
newly emerging 'orthodoxy' of homogenized historical fencing
practice that some in the community are pushing as the only
one allowed like some sort of official 'approved' version.
Your image in the historical fencing community differs depending
on whom you ask. Any thoughts on that?
Hmmm...and
what exactly "is" my image?
That I've done a tremendous amount to help the subject
and community? That I fight very well? That I’m a very
good teacher? That I'm seriously dedicated and passionate
about it? That I’m confidant? That I don't approve
of foolish or wasteful training practices? That I don't
tolerate insincerity and bullshit very well?
That I really want to help people learn about
their heritage? ....or is it just that I supposedly “trash”
other groups and am “in league” with nefarious
corporate swordmakers?
Haha… Those who know me know I don’t take
myself very seriously, but I take my swordsmanship very
seriously. They also know rightly that in
this subject I don't tolerate the insecure, the insincere,
or the dishonorable.
You've
certainly been something of a lightning rod in the historical fencing community, being
called the “Bill O’Reilly” of historical fencing by some, the “Rush
Limbaugh” by others. Care to comment on
being controversial?
Controversial,
me? No. Not really, I think that’s a
label that’s meaningless –and one given out by detractors, those who can’t
support a particular training habit or an opinion and so attack the critic. But I have
never blamed people, I blame ideas and the illogic they are based on. I mean for instance, look at the
fighting on the knees problem in the combat practices of some. Does anyone really think that fighting while
sitting down on your knees is a simulation of historical combat? Does anyone actually
think it reconstructs any knightly tournament or any cavalier duel? Is anyone seriously arguing that doing it is
conducive to gaining genuine fighting skills? I
certainly don’t think so, and many others agree completely. But, if you point this
out, suddenly you become an iconoclast or something. They’ll hate you and call you
names. I can’t figure it. We get the same thing when we dispute the view
that modern sport fencing is a real “martial art” or the view stage combat
somehow teaches legitimate fighting skills. If
you argue any of this though, you’ll always turn some people off to anything you have
to say. And if that’s the case, is it
any real loss?
Maybe
it’s the delivery?
Maybe so, I’ll concede that. But then, consider this, you could tell someone
who, say, was wearing their underwear on their head that they were “not very
fashionable”, or maybe you could tell them, “You’re not wearing that
correctly. It’s called ‘underwear’ for a reason.” On the other hand, you could tell them they just
look stupid. Either way, if they continue
defending the practice of wearing their underwear on their head, that tells you something
about them. A lot of people have benefited
from what ARMA has tried to do and has offered, yet a few folk are miffed by it. I think you can say my “no BS attitude”
has been contributory to some of the enmity we’ve received, but certainly not its
primary cause. Resentment of us emerged by the very fact that we came into existence to
say, “We are going to do things differently because we aren’t satisfied with
current efforts”.
Are saying there is a big
psychological component involved in it?
A friend said to me that he didn’t think
it was my personality or no-nonsense attitude that caused any enmity (although, I’m
sure it contributes). He instead suggested
that if someone is attached to certain techniques or practices they thought were right and
then learned were all wrong, it almost feels like a personal attack on them. I have to agree.
Some people will just need to accept the fact that they were doing it wrong,
humble themselves and start doing it right. He
also added that if someone were really interested in furthering their skills, they would
not have a problem with any new information. But,
if instead they have their own agendas that in some way conflict with ARMA’s goal of
accurately reconstituting our martial heritage, they might feel like we are personally
attacking them in the process (even though we’re not).
Is it all miscommunication or is some of it intentional
misinformation by others?
You have
to understand, with the recent explosive growth in this subject, there is now “money
to be made”, and different interests are now scrambling to compete for it, sometimes
openly, sometimes behind the scenes –and underhandedly I might add. They are
competing to host seminars, to offer workshops, to promote their organizations and
themselves, to publish historical manuals, to sell their equipment, to gain access, and to
run or host tournaments and conferences. Once
money enters the picture things get dirty. The
same phenomena occurred in the Asian martial arts community in America during the 1960s
and 1970s. Its already started in historical fencing studies and we’ve been the
victim of a lot of it. Rather than cooperate
in a mutual spirit of camaraderie, there’s rivalry and petty ego. As a non-profit educational group, our view is
different. We tend to see a “rising tide” as raising everyone’s boat, if
you get my meaning. We also see consumer
advocacy in reproduction weapons as a benefiting the community as a whole, as opposed to
“endangering” cottage industries.
That process must not have always been an easy or pleasant one;
can you share any thoughts on that?
Over
the years I’ve gotten together with many groups and people involved in historical
fencing groups. Often, it’s like
“Hey, we’re all colleagues and peers! Let’s interact and share,” and
it’s typically been very good. Except
occasionally, it’s been my experience that I end up sharing my expertise and
experience in a way that shows pretty well my skills and knowledge base is in an
altogether different class. When this
happens, I’ll get apparently sincere compliments and gratitude, and even public
endorsement, at the time. But the next thing
you know, a year or so later my material or my interpretations are being presented as
“original research” by these same folks. Sometimes
they have even directly borrowed from my own teachings in their writings without
acknowledgement or credit. And on top of this, they are like, “Oh, ARMA and Clements?
Yeah, they’re alright, but we don't need them, look what we’re doing!” When the truth is, a mere two or three years ago
they were pretty much doing your basic SCA-style fighting or standard stage combat
clichés. Somehow, I’ve gone from being
hero to pariah. It’s quite amusing. Maybe
it's the realization how one-sided the exchange has been in the past that drives them to
such pettiness.
Do you think it gets down to
simple human nature, for some people simply to resent achievement while at the same time
admiring it?
The entire question, for example,
of why one individual is a major figure in historical fencing today and another is not, is
answered I think by the amateurish, hypocritical, and weasely behavior often seen for
example on some sword forums, as well as the degree of copycatting and near-plagiarism of
the ARMA site that is frequently talked about. People
can object to and critique dissenting views, but not oppress them or oppose them with the
sort of “neo-Stalinist” dogma we’ve encountered on other forums. Unfortunately for a vocal few in our community,
intolerance and witch-hunts are the norm. When
free inquiry is obstructed in this subject and unpopular questions or dissenting views
suppressed because they go against the “prevailing view” of a small, vocal
clique, we all suffer as a result.
Is that why you’ve warned
about the problem of “credentials” and misinterpretation of study material via
the Internet?
Actually, what I meant was that
today especially students need to beware of “Internet experts”; three guys with
swords or armor and a website does not make an “authority” or “expert”
source. Enthusiasm is always commendable, but networking on the web and compiling content
from other sources on a homepage does not instantaneously produce skill or knowledge. True
“authority” comes from authorship,
from original research, expertise itself comes from a high degree of both physical skill
and technical ability –as well as demonstration of profound knowledge. It doesn't
come from having a resume that consist more or less of essentially a decade of SCA type
fighting and then discovery of a few of the source manuals only in the last 3 or 4 years. A far as we can tell there are a good number of
people not known for any exceptional martial arts ability or for any significant research
or writing –but rather for a website or frequent Internet posts. I wish them luck, but I don't respect reputation
without earned merit.
You
certainly make no attempt to hide that you have strong opinions, any particularly reason?
If I am opinionated, it’s because I abhor seeing young people be
mislead or bamboozled in this subject. For
decades there was little real progress in understanding the true historical methods of the
Medieval and Renaissance eras. There was
plenty of stage-combat and re-creational activities and certainly role-playing galore. But
it’s safe to say they failed to produce any coherent body of martial arts skills from
the teachings of these periods. I believe we
helped change that. I know I had to struggle to learn every scrap I could. So, naturally I now work to help others avoid
having to do the same.
I should probably qualify a lot of the opinions and observations I write by saying
something to the effect of how in my years of experience I have repeatedly seen certain
problem areas or encountered certain attitudes among enthusiasts and observers of Medieval
and Renaissance combat studies. These
experiences color my views significantly. For
instance…there are a lot of sport fencers and serious Asian-style martial artists who
do not respect historical European martial arts and have a distorted impression of its
richness and sophistication. Then on the
other hand, there are those within the historical fencing community itself who have no
real conception of what serious martial arts studies –by this I mean skill in lethal
combatives –are really about. This has
been my impression for many years now and unfortunately it’s continually reinforced. This problem is one of the reasons ARMA’s aim
is to better promote the authenticity and validity of our subject.
It’s been said before that whatever
field you’re successful in, you’ll always earn someone’s resentment no
matter what you do, is that what you see happening?
Sure, I guess. I’ve never made reference to any organization
or individual by name in either my writings or public lectures, ever. I only address practice habits and methods or
rules of sparring. So if the shoe fits…don’t blame me. It’s not my problem. If they can’t be historically or martially
justify their activities, it is their responsibility, don’t blame me for reproaching
it or just pointing it out. It’s not
like they need my approval. I gotta’ say though, when I hear that members of a
certain group or another are “mad” at me for supposedly criticizing their combat
rules, I scratch my head. I kind of think to
myself, “You’re upset with me? You’re upset with me? I’m upset with
you first. You’re the ones who’ve been distorting, misrepresenting and retarding
understanding of legitimate Medieval and Renaissance martial arts all this time! I’ve got a lot more reason to be upset.”
Oh, well, that kind of attitude gets people nowhere and it doesn’t really bother us
that some people get upset. It’s not important to ARMA’s efforts and they
aren’t really impacting what we are trying to study.
You
seem to have become a figure of il feeling among a vocal few, why do think that is?
It’s
the price of being well known I suppose. Let’s just say there’s a small
consortium of folks who don't like me personally, I would suggest mostly because of two
reasons: 1. I go around demonstrating techniques with intensity and energy at full range
and full speed, stressing the emotional content needed for real fighting –all the
while telling students to be skeptical of those teachers who don't or won't do the same.
And 2. I go around telling enthusiasts not to buy into false claims of
"maestros" and “masters” who do not have expert martial skill or
extensive experience with all the weapons or styles they now teach nor have they ever
shown they can even fight very well. On top
of this, my sometimes acerbic comments in the past on the flaws of banging edges and
fighting from the knees has incensed many old timers in stage combat and groups like the
SCA. They know they’ve been wrong and I
suspect their pride won’t let them do anything now but hate.
There has also been some enmity aimed at you from a vocal
fraction of the Internet community, comments on that?
Yeah, some people have nothing
better to do than spite others. A friend suggested everyone who is even slightly well
known is treated this way on the Internet. There was even at one time a secret sort-of
“I hate Clements” forum on one not-to-be-named website –which wasn’t
all that secret since we knew about it and were fed the posts (some of which bordered on
slander). It was pretty pathetic. It’s sad to see how much venom can exist over
trivial issues in a field of study as young as this one.
I’m reminded of the historian Thomas Sowell pointing out how George
Orwell once said “the fashionable idiocy” that “haters must have
justifications” is “one of those ideas that only an intellectual could believe
— because no one else could be such a fool.”
You don’t seem too annoyed by it?
As I said before, my philosophy
is that a rising tide raises all boats. This is not a zero sum game. Everyone who contributes something worthwhile can
gain through their own accomplishments and merit without “stealing” someone
else’s “piece of the pie”. (That
was our original impetus behind the SSI effort, for instance). Unfortunately, that is not
what has been happening in all areas of our community. As I have quoted before,
Machiavelli said, “hatred is acquired as much by good works as by bad.” I feel that in ARMA we emphasize proper energy in
performance of techniques as well as realistic emotional content during practice and
training. This is the example we try to set,
and it often stands in direct contrast to the behavior of some others who study this
subject who perhaps feel more comfortable quoting the manuals while posing and dancing
with their weapons. Maybe for some of these people hating us and our more earnest example
is easier than examining their own inadequacies. Thus,
they spew venom at us.
Any
group or organization that blazes trails and carves a niche for itself will encounter its
fair share of naysayers; it’s almost a sign of accomplishment isn’t it to shake
the establishment?
Sure.
Exactly. My respected colleague, and ARMA member since November 2000, Steve Hick once told
me that ARMA was like an “600 pound gorilla”…everyone is going to
“shoot spit balls at it but none of them can hurt it”. Since this is an email interview,
allow me to quote anonymously what one leading colleague (who was not an ARMA member)
recently wrote to me. It’s a good illustration of the support we receive a great deal
of:
“[I am] shocked by
the sheer amount of enmity and politics that exist in this field. But then, when I really
think about it, I am not all that surprised. Although the "Martial" aspects of
WMAs [Western martial arts] should ensure that we all cooperate in a frank, open and
gentlemanlike spirit of emulation, there is still the fact that WMAs are "Arts".
And like all arts, from music to cinema, from theater to ballet, from painting to
poetry (and from what I understand even to traditional Asian arts!), WMAs seem to bring
out the primadonna in a lot of otherwise decent guys.
I hate to say it, John, but it is never the underdog who is going to be the target of
prissy jealousies and undeserved slander. You - and your group – are perhaps
the most visible and established personae in this new circle and, as such, stick out very
"conveniently" for the odd cheap pot shot. And if you doubt this, give me
one of the "major" manuals of yore that does not include a more or less veiled
snide comment about another master, school or style!
As you point out, and as any fair-minded person will readily admit, you and your group
have redefined (perhaps even defined!) WMAs, and continue to bring fresh, valuable
contributions to the table with your usual enthusiasm and knowledge. No matter what
direction WMAs take ten, twenty, one hundred years from now, few can argue that it was not
you and your group who got the ball rolling in the mid-90's and are still very much ahead
of the game in 2001.”
I
think he summed it up the best of anyone we’ve heard from.
But there is some personal history underlying some
anti-ARMA hostility, yes?
To a degree, yes. I had arguments
on Internet newsgroups as well as heated email exchanges back in ’97 and ’98
with modern masters of fencing who swore they were “uninterested” in
“weapons of war”, meaning Medieval swords, staffs, shields, etc. They admitted
they didn’t train in or study them. And yet now, a few years later, these very same
folk are “teaching” long sword and bastard sword, etc., and trying to pass off
their credentials with the modern foil/epee/sabre as qualifications. And yet no one else has ever really called out
these grand-poobah’s and simply said, “Hey, show you know how to handle that
thing with realistic force, show you can handle someone else aggressively coming at you,
show what you would do against a skilled opponent who’s not your student.”
Is this a problem of
insincerity?
Yes somewhat, I think so. I detest
insincerity in our community. I also think
certain traditional fencing folk remember well what they wrote to me and a few others in
the past and I think they know we know their skills with these weapons are mediocre in
comparison to those who have been tirelessly working at it for decades. So, it’s no wonder there are a few who
despise what ARMA and I stand for. After all,
we take away from their prestige as the long-standing “repositories” of
“all” European fencing knowledge. I
suppose, as the new wave of young practitioners of Medieval and Renaissance martial arts
appear we make the classical fencers feel kind of marginalized. I’ll end my answer to this question by
quoting Baron César de Bazancourt form his 1862,
Secrets of the Sword:
“It
is always so, whenever an attempt is made to interfere with the traditions of any art
whatever. The man who tries to strike out a
new line cannot fail to disturb the tranquil repose of ancient custom. The conservatives resist, they object to
interference, they feel that their placid triumphs, their cherished habits are threatened. The regular routine, which has been drilled into
then, till they know it like an old tune of which every turn and every note is familiar,
will be unsettled. They have good reason to
be annoyed, but that does not prove them to be right.”
Just to clarify,
you are not making blanket statements about whole activities or communities, are you?
Not at all. There are plenty of
sincere people with credentials in classical or sport fencing who genuinely love swords
and swordplay. But when it comes to skill in Medieval and Renaissance swordsmanship, I
think many of “traditional” fencers fail to recognize their severe limitations
in this regard. From my personal experience, I believe some do it out of ego and out of
ignorance as to what Medieval and Renaissance fighting arts really consist of and just how
sophisticated and formidable such skills and weapons were.
Has personality conflict been a
part of this?
No, not really. It’s not inconceivable that in any passionate
endeavor you’re always going to have people you meet on the way who are friends for a
while –until they get what they want from you. Then
they go off to do the same thing on their own once they see now how easy it all is. And
often if they are going to amount too anything by their own efforts they feel the need to
snub you from then on. But, when they see it’s harder than they thought, they’ll
start to despise and deeply resent you. I figure there’s nothing you can do about it,
it ain’t your fault. I’m reminded
of a saying of the 15th century fencing master Fillipo Vadi, “One finds a
quarrel without having searched for it”.
Does this ever cause problems on the ARMA forum?
Occasionally. You get
troublemakers and immature posts on any Internet round-table for instance. Our forum is
open to the public, but it is privately maintained and owned. So if someone comes on the
ARMA forum and talks trash or hurls invectives their post will be deleted. If someone comes on, has nothing constructive to
say and writes nonsense like, “you all cut and thrust and step, how stupid, you are
supposed to step and thrust and cut” and signs his name “Bulldog Balrog”,
you can believe it’ll get deleted. It’s
a waste of time to respond and does nothing but antagonize further and detracts from
serious discourse. We see this kind of thing
on other forums enough so we don’t tolerate it in our forum.
Is interaction and comparison healthy when doing a martial art or
martial sport?
Of course. But only to a degree. I like to think that I “walk the walk”
as well as “talk the talk”, as the saying goes.
So, I’ll admit I often have some difficulty with seeing fencing or
sword fighting practices that I find atrocious or highly flawed. I think there are many young people in this
subject do some impressive work. I’m
much less impressed with some of the older people who are far less flexible in expanding
their knowledge. I try hard to articulate
carefully the reasons and logic behind our views and interpretations of things, so when
these are contrary, or even superior, to what others are doing, it gets difficult. Sometimes, rather than struggle with having to
disagree as I have in the past, I prefer to quietly concentrate on what we are doing and
the progress we’re making. We have a lot
of people after all who are seeking the guidance or instruction we provide.
Do you think there is a perception problem with what it is
ARMA is all about and what it is you’ve been trying to do?
Yes. I think some people fail to
realize that we are in a different boat than they are, we are a martial arts organization
and we consider ourselves to be martial artists. We
carved our own niche. We don’t pursue anything except for research and practice of
the historical combative systems. We are not a purely recreationist or living history
group nor any kind of historical role-playing society.
We are not doing a martial sport and are not entertainers or performers. We should be viewed in the same context as you
would view a serious karate, jujitsu, or kung fu school.
While others may include some aspects of martial arts in their activities,
for us it is our whole. It’s all
we do. So naturally, we have a
different view of things. And this difference might explain the perception others have of
ARMA and of myself. If an enthusiast, for
instance, has spent a decade or so doing some form of historical mock combat without
reference to the techniques and methods of the source manuals, or did so under rules that
were unrealistic in terms of the wounds and effects of real weapons, then I can see how
they might be offended by our emphatically martial approach. But this same thing is also
probably why we have so many ARMA members who are from the military, from law enforcement,
and from Asian martial arts, as well as first-time practitioners of Medieval and
Renaissance fencing. They are all attracted
to us for the same reasons. They find they are totally disinterested, even turned off, by
role-playing and escapist costumed fantasy, and they’re not interested in
re-creation, they’re interested in historical European fighting arts.
Do you think some confusion occurs because ARMA is mistaken for a
historical re-enactment organization?
Yes, that’s because there is
such a similarity between them and the two overlap in ways. But for the most part,
living-history or re-enactment has been about the costumes and equipment and reenacting
historical battles or events. Plus there’s always been a certain element of
role-playing and performing to varying degrees. Whereas
in contrast, ARMA is about researching and practicing a range of historical fighting
skills. After all, you don’t have
to dress up and act like a 16th century samurai to learn kenjutsu or jujutsu. Re-enactment / living-history is very cool and
there’s nothing to stop anyone within ARMA from doing re-enactment. But as a whole,
since we focus on fighting techniques from a variety of periods and re-enactment must by
its nature be very focused and limited, not to mention its combat elements quite
restricted...well, you see the point. There
are actually several of us here in Houston who plan to eventually get have a late 15th
century re-enactment club, but only as an adjunct to what we do in ARMA.
To change the subject
somewhat; you seem to have a bit of a beef against those you think abuse or misrepresent
credentials in this subject?
Well, sure. I think it’s a
form of malpractice. …I’ll say this: I sort of have a long
memory for this stuff, and in the past when I talked to certain people, their whole
experience was with the modern sporting tools (--you know feather-light foils, epees,
skinny sabres), which they said they used in the “old ways” (i.e.
“classical” not modern) and they expressed disdain for “weapons of
war” like longswords, shields, and staff weapons.
They claimed none of that was part of “proper” fencing (whatever proper
fencing is). On top of this, they dismissed
the value and necessity of grappling skills in rapier fencing saying it wasn't done
(–something we knew to be entirely false). But
now a few years later, lo’ and behold, these same folk are not only
“teaching” these weapons and skills that before they were trashing and insulting
me for advocating, but they’re also alleging to have advanced knowledge of them! So, I guess it irks me when I see people on
the net worshiping those guys since I’m reminded of how much they’ve changed
their tunes and how little of the historical skills they’ve really studied in their
careers.
What evidence did you offer in your
disputes, what did you say to them at the time?
You mean besides suggesting they were full of it? Seriously though, I believe at the time I pointed
out how, in the Renaissance, fencers viewed it differently and said things like for
example Baldesar Castiglione in 1528 declaring
a courtier’s “first duty is to know how to handle every kind of weapon”,
and Sir Thomas Elyot in 1531 stated, “Amonge these exercises it shall be convenient
to lerne to handle sondrye waipons, specially the sworde and the batayle axe, whiche be
for a noble man moste convenient.” Plus,
Achille Marozzo in 1536 focused a significant portion of his material on the use of all
manner of military pole-weapons from spear and partisan, to glaive and halberd. In 1570 Di Grassi also declared the importance of
his teaching a gentleman “the way how to handle all sortes of weapons with advantage
and safetie.” In 1571 Sir Humphrey
Gilbert proposed an academy in London for the education of gentlemen and noble youth with
a “Master of Defence” to teach the
handling of rapier and dagger, sword and target, battle axe, pike, and dagger alone. Silver in 1599 stated, “…professors of
armes ought to be skilled with all manner of weapons” and in 1617, Swetnam,
“tutor in the skill of weapons’ to Prince Henry of England”, told his
readers, “they shall heare the division of more then twenty sorts of weapons, which
Masters of this Noble art of Defence, are, or, else ought to be expert therein”. On top of all this, even the rapier master
Francesco Alfieri in 1640 wrote that to
acquire needed dexterity and agility for practice it was very useful to learn how to
handle the staff and other heavy tools adding that for this he liked the pike, the spadone
[bastard sword], and wrestling. So, it
was clear to me back then that historical fencing study was not just fencing with a
rapier, but about armed combat with all
manner of weapons and associated skills such as tripping and using the second hand to
seize. It was also clear to me that traditional fencing masters had no clue about these
things, but a lot of us out there doing reenactment did.
But, my expressing this made earned me their loathing.
Do you think there is a degree of ‘malpractice’
and ‘fraud’ in our community?
To an extent, without any doubt, yes. What I find totally pathetic
though, is when you see newly created historical fencing groups having events supposedly
“in conjunction” with one another when in fact they are all pretty much just one
organization run by and made up of the same small cadre of people. Who do they really think they are fooling, I
wonder? On top of this, we have certain folk
claiming their dead fencing master taught them secret longsword or something. That kind of nonsense is right out of a ninja
movie. That these claims come about a few
years after all these manuals have become widely available and people are writing articles
and books all over the place and doing seminars should be suspicious in itself.
Are you suggesting that some fencers try to pass off newly
discovered information about Medieval and Renaissance fencing as something they learned
from a master?
Unfortunately, I’m sure that kind of thing happens, and will
continue to happen. But it’s probably
impossible to prove or disprove it. It’s
conceivable that any elderly fencing teacher still around in the early the 20th
century could have known a few bits and pieces, but how can we ever determine where he got
it himself or test how legit it was? The
authoritative literature from this period makes it especially clear that fencing masters
of the time knew very, very little of actual Medieval and Renaissance fighting methods and
that there was no surviving “tradition”.
What are students to do though when it comes to evaluating
a claim?
I don’t want to come across
negatively and I don’t want to criticize anyone in the community, because everyone
brings something of value, but running the risk of doing so…I think that people need
to be extremely skeptical of claims of skill or knowledge on the part of any teachers of
any fencing school or any martial art style. You
need to investigate, to inquire, to not hesitate to question, or doubt, and try to
“cross-reference” claims so you don’t get fooled or mislead. There’s nothing either wrong or disrespectful
about requesting evidence for anything a teacher professes.
I’ll tell you this, I don’t
want to see poor examples or misinformation offered by anyone. I don’t like it when I see that either our
community as a whole, or my peers as individuals, have bad stuff. I wish everyone who wanted to be could be a
top-notch first-class practitioner. But it
can’t happen, so all we can do is try ourselves to be the best we can be.
So you think people need to research the backgrounds and
verify the claims of sport or classical fencing teachers now doing historical fencing?
Exactly. There’s little
doubt that virtually nothing survived from Medieval and Renaissance methods in modern
fencing teaching. They didn’t retain it
or even claim to have. Fencing books by their
own masters and their master’s masters going back to the 18th century make
it pretty darn clear they held little respect for or understanding of Medieval and
Renaissance fighting arts. For the most part they reduced fencing to a gentleman’s
art of single sword in single combat for the formal duel.
So, when somebody today who’s worked almost exclusively with the
“traditional” light fencing weapons (and by this I mean the 18th and
19th century foil, epee, and duelling saber), under strict scoring rules, makes
the claim that they somehow have been privy to special secret forgotten military sword
teachings, it really makes my eyes roll. Rather
than just admit that like the rest of us they too are exploring and researching Medieval
and Renaissance martial arts from scratch, they instead want to assert some special
privilege or knowledge solely by virtue of their credentials in traditional fencing. I
don't think this assertion holds up one bit, nor have I seen it justified by realistic
displays of skill using Medieval and Renaissance weapons –let alone, any serious free
play against others in our community. Anyone
can have insight from one form of fencing to another, yes, but that does justify fraud and
misrepresentation.
Isn’t the reason we are all reconstructing and
rebuilding these arts from the source manuals is that because they were forgotten?
Precisely. Put it this way:
There’s little doubt that the recent generations of “traditional” fencing
teachers going back the last 150 to 200 years or so lost and abandoned the old methods. The 18th & 19th century
masters, who were the tops in their field, didn’t retain, didn’t practice, and
didn’t teach Medieval and Renaissance fencing. There
was no reason to, since the old weapons and methods were devised for different conditions.
In fact, they often made it pretty clear they held the older methods in contempt and
ignorantly viewed them as primitive and crude (Dr. Anglo explains some of this in his book
and for several years I’ve been compiling documentation on this to appear in a
forthcoming work). So, when the modern
descendants of these earlier fencing masters suddenly all want to say something like,
“I learned this in Europe from the last true master of the old style” or
“Oh, my dead master actually showed me secret real stuff decades ago”, I cringe. I mean, I had as my sabre instructor the late
great Louis Bankuti, Hungarian master and director of fencing at Columbia University for
many years. I asked him about military saber and several times he brought down off the
wall old sabers and showed me things. I was only 16 or so at the time, but I soon realized
there was not much in it that I wasn't already doing in sport saber and my local medieval
battling club. But, could I know go out and
claim I was “taught classic Hungarian military techniques” and offer a seminar
on it? I suppose I could get away with
it, who’s going to know or argue it with me? It’s
non-falsifiable. It’s my word against
theirs and my source is dead. See my point?
Can you explain this a bit more?
I believe skill is something you
ascend to, not something that descends on you. For
example, I’ve been at this a long time, but does it mean I’ve been using the
true methods of the old masters my whole time, or real historical techniques all the
while, or even accurate weapons in my practice? No.
Of course not. I grew and improved and advanced. Yet
I wonder, how many of my respected fellow instructors would admit this of themselves, let
alone acknowledge the problems entailed? What
if for the last 15 years they’ve been doing edge parries with Medieval swords or
using sport epees as their “rapiers”, or never used any grappling, body contact,
or blade grabbing? Would people still have
the same respect for their “years” of study, especially if it was derived from
traditional fencing?
Is there a problem with integrity
on our field?
I don’t know, to a degree, I
guess. I have never been one afraid to say,
“this is what I think I know right now” or “that is something I don’t
know about”. I don’t see this among
many teachers of Medieval and Renaissance fencing. I
went on record back in ’97 in my first book with much of what I thought at the time,
and I took plenty of heat for it, but very few others bothered to go on record themselves
and they still don’t today. I think at present ARMA (and every other serious group
doing research into Medieval & Renaissance martial arts studies) is more a
“laboratory” for the craft than a “school” of knowledge. We still have a lot of empirical evidence to
gather and a lot of questions to answer before we can be real “schools” with an
established body of reliable knowledge.
Do you think maybe in recent
times no one has been in a position of authority or credibility before to speak up about
things as you have, or at least not been willing to do so in public?
I think that, faced with
legitimate criticisms of their habits, people tend to react in one of two ways: they
either admit that the complaints are fair, or they attack you and call you all sorts of
names for daring to air their faults. Most
people in this community I’ve talked to or encountered fall in to the first category.
But there’s always a fringe who get aggressively emotional and feel they’ve been
personally attacked if you critique their presumptions about arms and armor. When it comes to the sport fencing community, my
experience has been that that they respond to what ARMA is all about by either saying,
“Wow! That’s great I never knew this stuff existed”, and a large amount
then go on to realize that this is the kind of thing they were after all along. Others,
see it and say, “Yeah, okay, sure whatever” and then go about their business. Of
those in the second category though, there are a few who get indignant when it occurs to
them we’ve pointed out what they’re doing is not about the old fighting skills
after all. It somehow demeans them when
people like myself and groups like ARMA expose the real history and reveal the
sophistication of what we know they don’t like it. But, we feel a certain amount of
pillorying was deserved. So if we are
criticized in turn, that’s fine. We’ll
take it and improve.
Since you’ve alluded to it, how much
of a problem is it really, that sport / classical / traditional / what have you, fencing
masters issue opinions on Medieval and Renaissance fighting arts?
That depends on whom you ask. I’ve talked with modern fencing teachers who
readily and freely admit that they know nothing about it and couldn’t talk about it
they wanted to because they know it’s completely outside of their activity. They know their expertise has virtually nothing to
do with the use of earlier arms and armor, and that thy have little or no understanding of
them. Then again, there are those who will
adamantly maintain the most outrageous opinions that modern fencing styles are
“superior” to anything that came before and “evolved” from the
“crude and primitive” things we study. These
guys are the real problem as they perpetuate the same myths and distortions over and over.
But I think most modern fencing masters fall somewhere in between and are open to learning
more.
In fact, to digress a bit, this is a thesis of an upcoming project of mine. It can be strongly argued that the 18th
and 19th century fencing methods, rather than being a “golden age” of
refining and advancing skills to any improved art and science, were actually a
“degeneration” of much more martial Medieval and Renaissance fighting systems. Each clearly had its own unique conditions and
circumstances necessitating their development, but turning the conventional view of
fencing history on its head, in terms of personal combat the violent milieu of the 14th
to 16th centuries was far more demanding of both arms and men. The evidence I’ve compiled is exciting and
compelling and points persuasively toward the conclusion that as fencing became synonymous
with the craft of private duelling using single sword, it lost a great deal of its
diversity and heritage. After all, it’s
no secret that somewhere along the way fencing went from the art of using any arms for
self-defense in any situation, to the sport of scoring a point in a mock dueling game.
Moving on somewhat, there’s no question you’ve
been a muckraker and rocked the boat in being openly critical of earlier practice habits
within the subject, has there been any noticeable reaction?
Funny you ask. One of my associates
recently suggested to me that if there were “tabloids” for the historical
fencing community, I’d be on the cover every other week for things I’ve
supposedly said or done, most all of which are pure fiction (–and I would add no one
ever bothered to contact me to ask for my side of the story). It’s fiction and it’s a waste of
time. And the worst kind is that which is
half-truth, because it has the ring of authenticity behind it to hide its vindictiveness. There will always be those types who invent
gossip. Dr. Sydney Anglo refers to these web
types as “Internitwits”.
What could you possibly have dome
that may have earned you enmity?
Maybe it was that I pointed out a
lot of things in my writings that needed to be pointed out.
But I will confess, my early work in some ways threw a bucket of cold water,
so to speak, in a lot of people’s faces. I
think it likely bruised a few egos and stepped on toes in a lot different
communities…sport fencing, SCA, stage combat, re-enactment, live-fantasy, etc. As a result though, a whole community, who had
either always seen or suspected the same things I pointed out, stood up and said
“right on!” and backed me up. Some times you have to just say, “The emperor
has no clothes”. But, in doing so, in showing
new information or revealing flaws in some people’s beliefs, you earn their wraith
for making them feel bad. So, among some
people in some organizations, I am not very popular for this very reason. But I recall
with glee that Bruce Lee was not very popular among the old rigid traditionalists whose
status quo he upset with his insistence on pragmatism and his innovative no-nonsense
approach.
Some people really get that upset
with you over this subject?
For some of these guys, and they are
a fringe, it’s an assault on their very identity to point out their misconceptions or
limitations and they take it very personally…and then lash out very personally at me
in response. I just ignore it and go about my
work. Whenever you point out your insights or express the value of your experiences, you
run the risk of offending some enthusiast’s sensibilities. But I think any clever person can make claims
about how to use a sword in fighting if he has no opportunity to really carry them out.
One of my favorite quotes though is by Joseph Roland, fencing master to a British military
academe, who wrote in the opening of his 1809, Anatomy of Fencing, “That there
are persons of mistaken ideas in almost every Art or Science, is what few will deny. Yet I
am inclined to believe there are more erroneous opinions entertained with regard to the
Art of using the Sword than on most other subjects.”
So true. I just love that quote.
Have you notice any particular example of this spite which
you can talk about?
Not that I care to bother remembering or are worth mentioning.
Except, we’ve actually referred people asking for teaching in styles or weapons we
don’t study to others who do, but those same folk never returned the favor. Same
thing for hyperlinks. We had several links on our site, some for upwards of a year, and
they never reciprocated, but they knew we had included theirs. So, we got the message of
how they felt to us.
Are there different mentalities involved among those
pursuing assorted forms of Medieval and Renaissance combat studies?
There are definitely a different mentalities involved. When it comes
to what we do in ARMA, I think that people who do various forms of Medieval and
Renaissance mock combat as competitive martial sports and tournament games simply fail to
distinguish what ARMA is doing in terms of interpreting and reconstructing actual
historical fighting methods from the source manuals.
They don’t seem to grasp that although we are all using the same tools,
our motives and objectives as well as our methods are quite different from theirs
How
does this reflect in disagrement and debate in our field?
Another
trouble area, as I mentioned in another chat, is that of rapier cuts or cutting with
rapiers. A good number of practitioners today are under the illusion that with rapiers
they can dismember arms and legs, lob off heads, or cut deep into torsos, and it just
isn’t so. A true rapier’s narrow
and thick blade cross-section is not designed for nor capable of shearing cuts or even
deep slices, As I continue to point out, we cannot find a single instance of lethal rapier
cuts within any of the true rapier manuals or even in any historical account of a duel
with true rapiers. Rapier cuts were made
only as harassing, distracting, provoking actions to wound and sting the adversary so you
could open him up to a more lethal thrust. So
when you see “cuts” described in the true rapier manuals, they are not the same
equivalent “cuts” as you would do with a short sword or a backsword of a long
sword. Unfortunately, a lot of fencers today
don't want to hear this. They prefer to fence
with rapiers like they see in the movies. They want (and need) it to be true
because its convenient for them under the tournament rules they fight under or the stage
shows they create.
So have you been affected in anyway by all the publicity?
Not that I can tell. I’ve
always been a non-conformist in this subject matter. From the very beginning I was on my
own, doing things in my own way for years, not following the status quo, and not accepting
the rule of the common denominator. The
result of that attitude speaks for itself, I think. Here
I am now, part of a worldwide network, with a large influential organization respected and
admired for its accomplishments, and there’s a whole group of us my fellows around
the globe going about studying our own way on our own terms. It’s good.
Do you have any advice for new people coming into this
subject and getting turned off by the politics and animosities they see?
I would tell new enthusiasts not to get discouraged. You are going to
see this kind of jockeying for position and recognition occur for some time to come. So go about your own business and avoid the
Internet rumormongers and know-nothings. Devote
yourself to sincere and honest study with like-minded fellows; there are plenty of us out
there.
That sounds like a good place to
end for now.
To comment on this or any
other portion of the
conversation interview series send an email to theARMA@comcast.net |
