Conversations
with ARMA Director John Clements
PART I, PART II, PART III, PART IV,
PART V, PART VI, PART VII, PART VIII
VI - ON ISSUES IN HISTORICAL
FENCING STUDIES
What do you
suggest could be done to improve the field of historical fencing?
I
don’t really know. Except, when it comes
to training and practicing –which is what it’s all about for us –I do know
something. I am firmly convinced there are
far too many subtleties of fighting with the longsword or the rapier that are never
explained in the source manuals, for instance learning to work strong on weak or hard on
soft within techniques, focusing of blows and displacements, pressing and winding
–all things learnable only through repetitive drilling with steel blades combined
with serious free-play or test-cutting. I believe in any armed combative system, a fencer has to constantly
reassess his position and try to it improve proactively.
Doesn't any martial arts
community reflect a wide range of interests and types of students, though?
Yes.
But, I think in all honesty, what troubles me about interest in our subject
is that, while for instance, in the Asian martial arts there are people who are mere
dabblers (and we all know them, heck, I was one myself in my youth), there are also people
of incredible fighting skill in them as well. Just
look at the Japanese Budo masters or some of the military special forces instructors or
the monsters who fight in the UFC events. These people are some serious machines’s,
they will seriously mess you up if you go against them, and many are also superb athletes
who prize fitness as part of their capability. Show
me in our historical fencing community today the equivalent? Where are there comparable modern warriors with
Medieval and Renaissance fencing skills? Where
are the dedicated Medieval and Renaissance fencing athletes of equal conditioning and
intensity? Do we honestly have any people of
such fighting level within our Medieval and Renaissance martial arts? (By this, I mean in
either historical weapons or unarmed skills). If
not, why not? And, assuming you feel as I do
that such formidable people are to be admired, how do we go about developing them within
our community?
Can you explain that
somewhat further?
I guess what I am saying is that, while we
aren’t going to go into real combat using these weapons and skills, if we are truly
serious about reviving them as genuine, and not just for pretend game play or part time
martial sport, then some of us need to approach it as earnestly as possible. And we should be supported in that effort by our
colleagues not derided by those who aren’t quite as interested in being
“martial”. Make sense?
Doesn't that
begin with respect for all kind and areas of interest?
Yes, I’d agree to that, there needs to
be respect on both sides, and those going about it “hardcore” should support and
respect those pursuing it more “lightheartedly”, because each certainly has a
historical precedent and each gains from the other (in a sense, this is the whole
“battlefield” value versus “court fencing” value debate). I wouldn’t want to see one or the other
–martial art or martial sport –entirely neglected. This,
incidentally, is another reason I’m against international efforts at awarding titles. We are seeing two sides emerge in historical
fencing: a “hard” external style and a “soft” sort of
“internal” style, and one group will tend to feel resentful when contrasted with
the other, if you get my meaning.
You’ve spoken out before on the
importance of serious displays of fighting techniques rather than theorizing, can you
expand on that?
I think what is a big problem, and I know
many of my colleagues agree on this, is when we witness demonstrations or interpretations
of techniques or methods from the source manuals that are combat ineffective. I
mean, it’s one thing to do something slowly and carefully in order to teach it or
explain it, and another to show the mechanics of how it would work in earnest with real
intent. There’s a big difference between the two, and things that can seem to work
fine in slow motion without real intent, fail miserably when tried against an earnest
opponent determined to hit you or keep from being hit.
But if moves are only shown or only studied out of range, off target, or
with weak effort, then you either can’t judge whether it really would work under
realistic conditions or else you clearly see it wouldn’t. In the last case, you should demand to see it
shown at full speed and force. If the
instructor can’t do that, then all the more reason to question their ability and
their knowledge of what they claim to be talking about. That’s not being insulting,
it’s being practical. We’re supposed to be studying real fighting arts after
all, which means killing techniques, not play fighting and not show fighting. Besides, without the historical masters still
around to explain what they wrote and drew, we have to assume there will invariably be
mistakes in interpreting their texts. We
won’t discover these mistakes unless we train in earnest. Make sense?
That view must not make you very
popular among some others in this field?
Yeah? Oh well.
It’s the only way to improve our ability and to raise the credibility of this
subject. This is why I always try to begin my seminars and workshops by pointing out the
definition of the word “martial art” as it meant in 16th century
Europe, and what these same skills mean to us today, and I always try to end my
presentations with a reminder that these skills were intended for men to kill one another
and that they achieved that gruesome result quite effectively.
How is this reflected in what ARMA does?
It’s no secret we stress a
“martial” approach to this subject –by that I mean we emphasize these
skills and technique were intended to be used with force to cause injury. To be relearned properly today it is only logical
that they must –must –be performed in earnest, with energy and speed. We sometimes express thi by saying you have to
practice with "intent". We must make the effort to practice them this way. I think a lot of enthusiasts unfortunately only
pay lip service to this fact in their activities, and that needs to change if we are to
establish just how sophisticated these arts were.
Aren’t there many ways to approach the
study of any martial art?
Yes, I guess so, but
we want to follow as closely as we can figure out, the art the authors of our source
materials practiced, right? There are
practitioners today who I feel don’t grasp the intensity that real combat must have
involved and how this intensity has to be reflected in study if you want a sound
interpretation of the historical methods. They may “feel it in their hearts” or
pretend they believe it, but I feel it’s not in their heads. The evidence for this
impression comes from my observations of their fighting practices and from viewing their
websites. Some folk focus more on the
pageantry and role-playing of knightly tournaments for instance, or on the
“deportment” of proper “technical exchanges” within a conception of a
courtly gentleman’s code of dueling. Although
these may be valid and worthwhile historical approaches, I feel all this is more ritual
than martial. After all, ritual combat in the
period was far outweighed by sudden fights and street violence. So, one of the things ARMA is trying to inspire
in modern students is a realistic appreciation of the martial content of the
subject we study.
Is this approach something new?
Well, it’s
no secret that neither traditional fencing nor theatrical fencing has really been able to
offer much information for the serious study and practice of Medieval and Renaissance
fighting arts (and it can be argued hasn’t bothered to find out, either). We on the
other hand, started out admitting we didn’t know, but saying we sure going to
find out! On top of this we can actually work
actively at it, not just describe it academically.
Changing gears, what part does safety play in
Medieval and Renaissance martial arts study?
That’s kind of like asking what part
safety plays in contact sports. In the military they taught us
that being unsafe is one thing and just being stupidly careless is another. I am reminded though, of the saying in the
Medieval Fechtschulen, Was hehrt das lehrt…"What hurts, teaches".
Essentially, it means no pain, no gain –a common understanding in many martial
arts and sports. This is why in ARMA
we used padded weapons for our contact-sparring and have rules that exclude full-power
blows, and why we also stress control in learning and
executing techniques –something Asian sword arts are known for and which I don’t
think was any different in the historical European schools.
But
safe practice is always a concern, yes?
Absolutely.
ARMA’s safety record is very, very good.
Injuries, in general, in the group are relatively infrequent and minor, no
more than you’d see in an average sport tae kwon do class. As an instructor,
I think I know this especially since I suffer injuries repeatedly by new or inexperienced
students, I suppose the sheer volume of people I encounter is a problem. I’ve been
cut in the face no less than five times in the last 4 years –each
time by a beginner, and I’m not proud of that. In South Carolina this year I got a massive bruise
on my thigh during some casual friendly free-play. There was no way to anticipate it
really, but it made me limp for days after. Recently
in Utah, I was thrown down on my shoulder blade on a concrete floor by a beginner, and
just days before my cheek was cut by another beginner’s thrust one inch below my
eye. Last February, my head was literally
dented by Tim Sheetz using a padded weapon in NY, and in Calgary my left palm was
punctured through my glove by a rapier’s quillon that left me unable to grip a weapon
for weeks, at SSi in May 2000 three of my teeth were chipped through my mask by a rubber
pole axe, and months before, my brow was split by a waster in MD. In the UK a large Scotsman with a blunt warsword
made a two inch bruise and one inch slit of my skin on my right shoulder even through I
had on a thick padded aketon, and in Chicago three years ago my thumbs were severely
sprained by an excessively hard blow that really interrupted my practice schedule. And this isn’t even including the normal
classroom room aches and pains, bruises, and self-inflicted training injuries I incur. So, safety is the first concern. As I get older (I’m 37 now) and take wear and
tear it’s a problem. I imagine I can’t continue with all the abuse much longer. On top of all this…I am embarrassed to say, I
am getting ligament problems in my fingers from working the mouse on my laptop all day!
Safety
is a mindset then as well as a habit?
Yes.
I could add we’ve noted a few incidents where others trying to copy
what they saw us do in demos or read about online and got seriously hurt as a result.
They’re unsafe, they don’t know our techniques, they are not trained in how to
learn them and do them safely, but they copy our lead. It’s like trying to do
something seen in a movie and accidents happen as a result, after which they blame us and
go on the net saying we are “unsafe”, it’s sad.
Changing gears again, how does
what you practice and teach today differ at all from what’s described in your first
two books?
Well, those books
were originally compiled from notes rather than as projects intended for publication. At
the time I wrote them, I tried very consciously to avoid as much technical jargon as
possible so as not to confuse the reader with having to wade through a mish-mash of
foreign words and terminology that would overwhelm the gist of the techniques I was
attempting to explain and the misconceptions I was trying to address. Nowadays, we take
the quite opposite view that to legitimize this subject as well as justify our viewpoints
we have to reference everything to a specific historical text’s teachings or
descriptions. Plus, it certainly demonstrates
the richness and sophistication of the historical methods when we can use exact quotes of
the old masters. This approach makes sense
now that we are trying to not just present general ideas to people, but construct
curricula following particular historical works. This
is also much easier to do now with so many more sources and translations available. Back around ’95 or ’96 I had a heck of a
time trying to get my few translators, who were not fencers or martial artist, to
comprehend what it was they were looking at in the few manuals we had. Of other translators, who were fencers or martial
artists, their views on fighting at the time colored their translations somewhat. On top
of all this, we could all communicate only via postal mail or limited email and that
complicated things.
Are you surprised by the success
and continued popularity of your first two sword books?
Yes, in one respect.
While there were no books like them available, they really were just simple efforts
(although they took months to draw). They
were intended to present some ideas not found around and offer a systematic way of looking
at the subject in order to get people to reconsider some of their perspectives. That, and
critique some of the assumptions prevalent within the subject. My future Training Guides over the next few years
will update and correct as well as expand the material, plus present much of the actual
ARMA curriculum. I think the newness of my
earlier books, in the sense that they were telling people that, yes, there are historical
sources to rely on and, yes, there are documentable facts as to what techniques were used,
made a big impact. It helped break down the
wall of ignorance surrounding Medieval and Renaissance martial arts --as well as open some
doors.
What can you say about the differences
of historical Asian combat systems to European?
I’d really
rather not address that, it’s a can of warms. I
will only say this, the main idea you hear expressed a lot is that Asian fighting arts are
extant, living traditions having survived passed through the generations. This is
certainly true to a large degree. They also were altered and modified to less warlike
conditions. So, I reject the suggestion that
Asian armed arts have a greater understanding of the practical application of ancient
weapons, since for centuries they too have not used them in actual combat either. And
unlike our systems, whose study material is lifted directly from the age, theirs is
arguably clouded by several centuries of having passed from generation to generation that
never used it for real combat. For the large
part they changed to fit less violent times and this resulted in a significant
sportification and artificialization (if that’s even a word). The main difference between the study of
traditional Asian combat systems and historical European, is that we lack what would be
called NET –or the “nuances of execution and transmission”. I have no doubt that just as much knowledge is
preserved within our historical source manuals as exists within Asian martial arts
traditions. But over the centuries as
technology changed warfare we lost our NET.
This is why in addition to acquiring a composite understanding of the
fighting texts, comparing and contrasting their teachings, we feel it’s necessary to
also study arms and armor, military history, and the cultures of the period. This is
needed to “fill in the blanks”. That,
combined with an emphasis on serious free-play/sparring and test-cutting will in my
opinion quickly close any gap.
Is there anything else
you’ve noted in the resurgence of interest in Medieval and Renaissance combat?
What I see at present
is two different, and not always compatible, communities emerging within historical
fencing studies. One is more interested with
having fun, with the pageantry and costume drama of performing and playing with historical
armor and weapons. Another is entirely
unconcerned with pretending and searches only for understanding of historical fighting
skills. Both interests use the same tools,
study the same materials, and offer insights, but they have different motives and
objectives. The lines between the two are
blurry and I would not speculate on the percentages of enthusiasts among each community. But as someone interested only in reconstruction
and redevelopment of historical fencing methods, my sympathies are decidedly with the
latter. Cliques will always form of
like-minded (or close-minded) individuals. The ideal is to stay above it all and be true
to yourself.
Hasn’t the growth of the
subject been a boon to everyone involved?
Yes, but sadly
we’re already seeing “turf battles” over research and interpretation, with
people working on a certain text or area acting like it’s their sole exclusive
property. If someone else starts working on
the same thing (which is inevitable) somehow it steps on their turf and, guess what, they
suddenly don’t like you any more. We’ve
see friends turn on each other and colleagues stop sharing. It’s pathetic. You see
the same kind of thing occurring all the time in the Asian martial arts community. But, I suppose expecting it in ours is somewhat
inevitable, I mean after all, the historical European masters didn’t get along very
well at all. Most 16th century
Italian masters trashed each other’s methods and books for example and such was
common throughout fencing history.
What do you think the effect
will be of emerging efforts to award people titles in Medieval and Renaissance fencing?
To be frank, I find it an embarrassment.
I’ve have been saying for some time that it will take a good decade or more for a
fully reconstructed and legitimate historical European martial arts style to emerge as a
respected combative system on a par with those taught by established Asian experts. Until then, we are all merely students. I think the most any of us can do is improve our
own knowledge and display our fighting skills in public through earnest demonstration and
open free-play/sparring (…a suggestion which sends fear through some instructors, I
know). I think banding together into cliques
to pat each other’s backs is a real shame, and I’ve written on this before, that
we have people using experience or credentials acquired in other fencing arts (or even
stage combat) to then claim they are “maestros” of Medieval and Renaissance
weaponry. It’s really rather pathetic that a craft that is still entirely in its
infancy is being subjected to this kind of smoke and mirrors.
So, is your view more
than just questioning qualifications then?
It’s not that so
much that, as the lack of real martial skills and knowledge within our community as a
whole that is the problem. I don’t think
it’s a secret that have at present a few who lack substantially high-level skills in
a range of historical fencing martial art areas (from grappling and close-in fighting to
serious full-contact sparring, multiple opponents, test-cutting, etc). Yet, these folk presume not only to declare
themselves “masters” but also the authority to accredit others who know even
less. It’s kind of silly. But I suppose in a way, such developments are in
keeping with history as this problem existed in Europe during the 16th century
(and it goes on unchecked today within the Asian martial arts community). Does it do a
disservice to our heritage? Does it damage
our community’s credibility? Does it
make the agenda of these people look foolish? A
lot of us think so. As John Waller recently
said, “anyone claiming to be a master nowadays …isn’t”. It’s more like the one-eyed leading the
blind. Of course, my view on all this makes
ARMA “persona non grata” among some circles (and those followers salivating at
being awarded their fencing “black belt” from their “master”). In the long run, for developing real no-nonsense
martial skill and understanding, quality and sincere ability will always outshine hype. I like to recall how the late Bruce Lee never
claimed or earned any title or any rank other than calling himself “teacher.”
So you are saying that claims of
“master-hood” are not wise in our subject at the present?
I think it lacks
integrity to do so…and I think it’s divisive.
I ask, how do you declare you’ve “mastered” something the
best of us are still struggling to reconstruct and rebuild!? How do you display “mastery” of skills
that few of any of us can agree on what constitute such skills in the first place? Consider this; anyone can call themselves
“master” of their own class or their own “system” or their own club or
whatever, and different such “masters” can all mutually recognize each other all
they want. But are they “masters” of “actual” Medieval and Renaissance
fencing? Forget about it. Besides, when you have anyone who says they have
been doing historical fencing for like 18 or 20 years or something when in fact 90% of
that time was spent using modern foils, epees, and sabers –which are 19th
century tools of very limited 19th century fencing styles –it’s time
to be suspicious, especially when you see them promoting themselves as being
“master” Renaissance fencers, let alone expert martial artists. I think the same assessment could also be directed
toward anyone whose career in historical fencing has consisted entirely of fighting in
only one set of highly artificial mock-fighting rules.
This isn’t a criticism of anyone’s knowledge or ability in whatever it is
they’ve been doing, just the suggesting that scrutiny is called for when evaluating
“resumes” in our subject.
But then, I’ve noted a degree of
obfuscation on the part of some teachers when pressed about what they know, what
they’ve done, and what they can do. You
get the cliché "secret kung fu" response from them --you know, the no one in
public has ever seen their “full interpretation” or “advanced
teachings”. From that viewpoint, we
could all pretty much say the same, I know very few have “seen” my full
“private” teachings either. So, to me, claiming to be a “Master” of Medieval or
Renaissance martial arts is an extraordinary claim…and as the saying goes…extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
So fencing skill is not some
“universal” ability, but exclusive to a historical style or system?
To a large part yes, I’d say
so. While I for one do not doubt the skills
of anyone who has valid credentials in teaching modern or classical foil/epee/saber, as
those tools are not my interest, I do know however, that such credentials in no way gives
them the de facto authority to teach "authentic" Medieval and Renaissance
weaponry –and certainly not to our satisfaction and or level. If the word “master” is used to
essentially mean just a teacher or one who communicates and gives example, it says nothing
about qualifications or ability to do either. But
that’s not how it’s really being used in our community, is it? When it comes to Medieval and Renaissance fighting
arts we all understand the implication of claiming the title “master of arms” or
“fencing master”.
Are there really people trying
to pass off their modern fencing titles as being connected to Medieval and Renaissance
fencing skills?
We’ve noted a few slowly making this
inference, either implicitly or by acquiescing as others do it for them on the Internet. They’re not just using the term Master to
simply mean a “teacher” or a “tutor”, as it was sometimes historically
used in Europe, but rather to deliberately imply fighting mastery and master-level skills
of Medieval and Renaissance swordsmanship. We have no illusions they know this and want to try to exploit that
implication in an attempt to relate their 19th & 20th century
style fencing pedigrees to skills entirely outside their original training.
A member recently joked with me
that he wished a “certain instructor” would hurry up and get terminal and
“leave all his really secret knowledge” behind for him, so that after they were
gone he could claim all sorts of stuff was secretly taught to him. He added it’s so much easier to claim a “special”
lineage than to stand on one’s own merits.
How do you propose we judge ability in
this subject?
Well that’s just it, how do
you objectively judge anyone’s personal level of skill in any martial art? It’s a very hard thing to quantify; it’s
very subjective –particularly in Medieval and Renaissance fencing since we are still
reconstructing the subject and it’s so open to interpretation. Obviously, fighting to the death for real as a
“test” of skill is out of the question, and any form of mock-combat challenge
tournament is only pretend fighting, not to mention will always be subject to rules and
conditions –and disputes over rules and conditions.
So, the degree of someone’s personal martial prowess can’t really be
defined, except perhaps, and this is the ARMA view, in terms of being able to perform
lethal techniques with power and speed using accurate replica weapons and the capacity to
demonstrate those techniques using precision and grace, as well as demonstrating
free-play/sparring ability with a partner. This
is what we and a few others try to do. But,
there is always a question as to whether some techniques would really work or whether they
are being done realistically enough.
Hasn’t it been said that all
fencing or swordplay comes down to the same principles?
That’s only one part of the truth
though. The other half is that there are many types of swords and weapons and many
specific ways of using them, not all mutually compatible.
Today’s fencing is obviously not the same now as it was 80 or 90 years ago and
back then it was not what it had been 80 or 90 years earlier. The weapons changed, the
conditions they were used under changed, and the manner by which they were taught and
learned also changed. The farther back you go
the more profound the differences. So, today’s fencing masters trying to relate
modern credentials to Medieval and Renaissance skills by virtue of some connectivity of
lineage is nebulous and weak. It would be analogous to someone saying that because they
are a Boatswains mate in the Navy today and were taught by people who were taught by
people who were taught by people and so and on, going back to like 1776, they must
therefore know how to fix a sail, take a sounding, or fire a smoothbore cannon. The fact is, the nature of the craft and of these
skills changed over the centuries.
What about international bodies to
grade or award titles in Medieval and Renaissance fencing?
I do not
see a need for international bodies to do anything –other than encourage exchanges of
ideas, but not “endorse” who is and who is not “legit” according to
some subjective, ill-defined, self-perpetuating criteria. This is a prescription for
disaster in our community and it stinks of politics.
If you look at Asian martial arts, there are so many bodies and
organizations for declaring who is and isn’t accepted in some style its absurd and
they most all despise one another as they jostle for position –and they don’t
talk to one another. I have been warning
about this for some time that this sort of thing does not help establish credibility for
our subject, instead it fragments and balkanizes us all into camps and pressures people to
conform to some self-appointed governing body’s unquestionable “approval”.
To many practitioners, the absurdity of being “judged” by folk you can outfight
and out perform or who have inferior technique is ridiculous –especially when
different practitioners can have decidedly different interpretations of source material. The self-righteous arrogance of any group of
people presuming to set themselves up as a sole monopoly to preside over who is and
isn’t “qualified” is insulting –not to mention risking an inherent
danger of bias based on personal politics. It
invariably leads to awarding friends and snubbing rivals and it just begs for trouble. Don’t get me wrong here,
I’m not talking about international historical fencing conferences (like HEMAC) where
different groups and people come together where everyone interacts and shows what they do,
I think those are really great.
The
real danger for HEMA in this
"maestro/master" thing though, is not the politics –which we are seeing in
the likes of behavior of some self-described leaders –but the potential of an
official "orthodoxy", in other words the "we are the only truth about these
arts" attitude.
So you don't think international
certification efforts bode well?
No, such things are all about gaining
control and eventually controlling a flow of money. Let’s
just say the “Law of Unintended Consequences” tends to eventually take effect in
such situations. I simply ask, how can folk
of very different attitudes and approaches and values in their training and teaching
declare whether or not someone else is a “master”? How can anyone today even make such outrageous
claims as to being a “master” of fighting arts we are ALL still struggling to
define and relearn? Think about that. How do you judge someone’s teaching capacity
and ability except by sparring and questioning them or taking a careful look at how good
their students are? And if they know more
than you do, or know things other than you do, how do you presume to judge them?
My track record
of predictions in this field has been pretty good since the early ‘90’s, so
we’ll see if my insight holds up. I
predicted back in ’98 that this sort of thing would inevitably happen to our
community and unfortunately, everything so far is proceeding as I forewarned. It’s
like the ninja craze of the 80’s where anybody with a black belt it seemed was
calling himself a “ninja master”. The
same thing is starting to happen within our subject. Any time you have two or three people
get together they can claim any title they want, all they need is a few close friends to
acknowledge it for them. So, people with
credentials in the classical fencing weapons of foil/epee/sabre are using them for the
most part to suggest or even declare “mastery” in Medieval and Renaissance
fighting skills. (In which case, I like to
point out why is it they never accomplished anything or wrote anything about the subject
until the late 1990’s? Why didn’t
anyone ever hear of them until now?).
We’ll come back to that, but it
sounds like you are saying we have to go at our study blindly?
Not at all. We have
the source manuals as guides. Just think
about this: no one living today has personal experience of others trying to kill them with
Medieval or Renaissance weapons. No one
living today was trained by any historical (i.e., Medieval or Renaissance) Master of
Defence or even by anyone who themselves was indirectly trained by one. Time has severed
the links. Yet…we have now people being declared “masters” of historical
fencing by the very organizations they helped found or are on the board of directors of,
it really does make a joke out of any claims to objectivity. The thought of these people imposing their
“stamp of approval” on others –who in some cases could fight circles around
them –is insulting to many.
If everyone
does their own thing then what’s it matter?
From one point of
view I guess it doesn't. Unlike some practitioners in the historical fencing community
though, our efforts in ARMA have always tried to reflect the philosophy that “a
rising tide raises all boats”, and that trying to trash anyone’s reputation or
credentials reflects poorly on our subject and the community as a whole. Whereas, working to raise the credibility and
legitimacy of the craft helps everyone involved regardless (which is largely why we oppose
self-appointed “master” titles). Unfortunately,
certain collections of individuals out there have yet to learn this lesson it seems.
They’d like to see us fail in our effort, they’ve even done things to undermine
us that are pretty despicable and fly in the face of an open and harmonious
“community” of fellows. We’re
really not concerned though; we’ll forge on ahead and we’ll continue to do the
right thing.
Are you saying newcomers would
have little way of knowing the politics at work within the community?
I can only speak from
my own experience or that of my friends and speculate from there. But the danger with such
self-proclaiming “authoritative bodies” is that they inevitably begin to play
favorites and spawn their own dirty politics. It will end up being exclusionary. Already such efforts are “invitational”,
which is a code word for “our friends and supporters only”. It’s like: “You don’t
question our credentials or ability, we don’t question yours, play by our rules and
we’ll all benefit, scratch our backs, we’ll scratch yours.” That’s the sort of thing we think we’ve
seen already going on.
What harm do you see from
international bodies trying to set standards?
I think a strong
argument can be made that it would discourage dissent and squelches diversity. It would inevitably suppress alternative views in
favor of a “standardized” interpretation “by committee”. Whose “standards” you have to ask”
Who set them? Who are they to be setting them
in the first place and what process was opened for setting them? There’s no question that eventually,
non-conformity would become the enemy for them. Human
nature being what it is, if you can show by contrast something that conflicts with their
“standard” practice systems or personal teachings (and that makes them look bad
in the process), they are not going to like it one bit.
On top of this, organizations by committee tend toward bureaucracy, and
above all else bureaucracies tend toward a self-perpetuating “rule by
authority”. So, I hate to sound
discouraging and alarmist, but it doesn’t feel right.
Can there ever really be
“Masters” of Medieval and Renaissance fencing again?
In the literal sense, no. But we could assert mastery over our own
interpretation or system. I think though, the
real idea is to be “Masters” of our own sword.
To control our own actions and be our own persons. Sheesh, I must sound
like Yoda here.
How is credibility to be earned
in this field then?
Well, you can’t
“award it”. It’s up to students to be informed and skeptical, not gullible. They need to first educate themselves so they
aren’t easily impressed. To paraphrase
Edmund Burke, the only thing necessary for the triumph of nonsense is for knowledgeable
people to do nothing. Most importantly,
don’t let yourself be overly impressed with instruction that only quotes from the
historical texts or offers technical fencing jargon if the person hasn’t demonstrated
they can handle weapons with realistic energy or defend well against a determined opponent
in free-play.
It has to be remembered, historically titles were
awarded for fighting –for demonstrating you could fight, not talk, not theorize, not
pose and dance, not even just teach, but fight. If
you could prove you knew your stuff and could hold your own or best your elders then you
obviously knew what you were doing and knowing it you could pass it along to others you
trained. For instance, in the early 16th century we know in Spain a Master of
Arms in the Art of Fence had to be trained to face off and fight against his entire board
of examiners, first separately then together. Then there was of course the English prize
playings and the German public displays that had their students fight numerous bouts to
earn rank, and the same mid-16th century France.
Here’s something I should add: If memory
serves, in the middle of the 20th century the Russians, who never really had
much of a fencing tradition, created one from scratch by officially “appointing”
brand new Russian “masters of fence” who combined the best of all the other
styles they studied. The international
fencing community laughed…until the Russians starting winning Olympic gold medals,
that is. Now, no one questions their
“credentials”. The new Russian
school of sport fencing is respected and considered to have its genuine masters. Unfortunately, this sort of thing can’t
really happened in Medieval and Renaissance martial arts, because we are not a sport and
we don't want to become one. We don’t
need international “tournaments” that make it all into a game of points and
rules ala’ sport kendo or tae kwon do. In
the same way, we don’t need “black belt” testing by ad hoc cliques.
So you don’t see such
attempts as well meaning?
I object to the seeming
“standardization” by committee --whether in execution of technique or of
teahcing style. The historical source manuals display a range of styles and methods among
different masters and schools, and they didn’t all agree, it should be no different
today. I think efforts to create
international standards and recognized credentials are potentially an attempt to play
king-maker, to dominate the subject in the same way that say, for sport fencing the FIE
(international fencing federation) controls all aspects of the sport and groups like the
SAFD (the Society of American Fight Directors) have pretty much a complete monopoly on
“professional” stage combat certification” based on their own
self-appointed credentials.
But with Medieval and Renaissance combative systems, how do you become
“approved” by others who may have little particular ability in using a weapon
they are judging? How does someone accept
“approval” from those who you haven’t seen prove themselves to your own
satisfaction in the first place? What if they
have only a fraction of your own skill in using say, sword and shield, or halberd, or
unarmored dagger, or long staff, or grappling, etc.?
So you feel that demonstration of
fighting ability should be the important element?
Yes, shouldn’t it? That’s how it was historically. You had to prove your prowess, not lecture and
dance around. So I ask, will these
international efforts be about fighting? Will
these self-appointed king-makers step up and prove themselves against any newcomers in
honest free-play and mock-combat? No way. It’s all at their “discretion”. Mind you…not having to show you can actually
fight well within a martial context will always attract a few students who salivate at the
prospect of not having to ever be tested in such a way.
This is why in ARMA, before senior members receive any license to teach we
have them repeatedly prove their skill in free-play with diverse weapons using historical
source techniques.
What about ARMA’s effort at
testing and ranking, isn’t that a form of arbitrarily created credential?
Yes, within ARMA we certainly have our
own certification system (just as many other groups do such as John Waller’s
Historical European Combat Guild), but this is not the same as an outside committee
presuming to judge you by their particular standards. It’s different when you are
talking about doing something in-house, local, with your own students and friends in your
own class or school or club. Ours is based on
our own standards, our own teaching curricula for evaluating our own students in our
methodology of reconstructing our interpretation of historical skills. Our requirements, both scholarly and martially,
are specifically laid out. We teach it and
review it ourselves. Anyone is free to bring
their own understanding and theories to it as well, but we test on our curriculum
in our system –and a demonstration of sparring/free-play skill is mandatory,
as is going up against diverse weapons and multiple opponents. Plus, for senior ranks, test-cutting and grappling
is included. In other words, you gotta’
prove you can walk the walk not just quote texts and pose.
What do you mean by that last part?
Well, I will
just say that, as a serious long-time student and practitioner, and as a professional
instructor, it’s exasperating to me when some people will claim great knowledge of
the longsword for instance when they clearly have no idea of the vital historical elements
of half-swording, of seizing and disarming, of closing-in actions, or even of proper
displacement and covering. Instead, they are
still using false-stances, edge blocking, and a 19th century
“parry-riposte” fencing mentality or stage combat theory. Hopefully, I am working to change this situation.
I’m not insulting anyone, as there are tons of folk I admire who've gotten it right,
I’m merely stating only what my impression has frequently been. I still see too many things out there that are
just flawed, primitive, or plain incorrect. Things
need to improve. If anyone disagrees on that, I’m willing to
listen to their opinion and weigh their evidence.
How
do you think things need to change?
Part of the problem is the multitude of
new “Internet experts” that have exploded on the scene. You have a guy with a
website and an acronym for his club and ‘poof!’, he’s now an
“expert” on swordplay because some 12-year old on a chat board baptizes him
that. Never mind this “expert”
isn’t known for any particular technical
ability or fighting skill; has never handled any antique
European sword in his life; raves about blades that aren’t remotely historically
accurate –let alone true reproductions; and dismisses test-cutting as
“overblown” (even while barely having ever tried it himself). On top of this, I’ve noticed a lot of the
internet experts have a track record over the past two years of doing 180’s on
earlier opinions and then squirming to deny it. Apparently,
none of this matters or affects their reputations. I
suppose its the nature of the internet medium. If someone is posting online about
something they read somewhere then they must be an “expert”.
Are you
criticizing the Net then, after singing its praised in an earlier interview (see Part I)?
The net is both
gold mine and bottomless pit. I don’t
think there is any question that with the power of the Internet now any three guys with
armor and some marketing savvy can become an instant organization with a sword training
“curriculum”. A website and a
digital camera can make “authorities” out of anyone with an interest in Medieval
or Renaissance combat it seems. You get
enough of these website groups linked and, whammo, it’s a network of “accredited
members”. This kind of thing is
inevitable, I imagine. But does it help
novices or mislead them? Does it really
improve the integrity of our subject or further undermine it? I
think everyone, even the most inexperienced student of this craft, has something to offer
, but it’s distressing to me when those without anything substantial to contribute in
terms of practical training tips or fighting advice will go on the net and bitch and whine
against those who do. It’s a pathetic
waste of energy.
Isn’t
this to be expected in a field that is growing like this one? Doesn't every subject that’s popular suffer
the kinds of problem you’ve been pondering here?
I'll just say
this: I don’t think anyone would disagree with the opinion that there is a great
range in the level of expertise of historical fencing enthusiasts out there at present
–whether they are students, teachers, or researchers.
Improving this state is a challenge and a problem. But what do you do about it? Do you just shrug and
say ‘oh well’? Obviously, we should
focus on ourselves and on strengthening our own knowledge. But can we afford to ignore the
continual perpetuation of cliché’s, errors, and misconceptions about our martial
heritage? Or do you strive to improve the
situation? Do you offer people the tools and resources to raise subject, and thereby
suggest there is indeed something better and that there are reliable people who do know
something? And do you do try to help
constructively, or with sarcasm and bitterness?
Incidentally, this sort of problem is
one reason for the ARMA’s new select panel of Expert Consultants. They agree with us there is a problem out there
and that we are doing good work worthy of their support.
They bring the things that we as martial artists noticeably lack, namely
specialized academic or professional knowledge.
It seems
there are so many difficulties in studying this subject and so many thing to could get
wrong, does this explain differences in study?
Without either historical masters or the
necessity of actual combat to guide us today, what we try to do with the source material
on Medieval and Renaissance fighting skills is more a simulacrum or representation. I’ve come to the conclusion that we will
never convince those who want to go about it more softly and casually that they are
missing elements in their understanding of combat effective skills. Instead, I have concluded that we who emphasize
practicing with more intensity and energy must agree to disagree with them and just try to
be positive by emphasizing our mutual similarities. We
are certainly not going to stop what we are doing and I think we’re not going to be
able to persuade others who prefer to do things with less strenuous effort. Yet, because I am a realist, I realize that in
side-by-side comparisons the contrast between these two approaches is significant and we
stand out for the better. While no one has
enough evidence to say unconditionally, “This is how it was done”, we have no
doubts that the degree to which it’s possible to misinterpret historical fighting
techniques is much smaller with our practice method. So, I feel that some of the hostility
toward ARMA in some circles is not due to the way I myself am saying things so much as the
facts we are raising that certain people will find unpalatable. They hate the messenger for the message and they
know, just as they’ve been doing, sooner or later they will have to emulate or adopt
much of what we’ve been preaching.
The support
that ARMA gets must make you feel somewhat vindicated?
Oh, absolutely. We
get emails weekly telling us what a service we’re doing and the appreciation is good
to have. To be positive here, I will say in my travels I am thankful to have come across
some especially talented and impressively knowledgeable people that I am proud to have
come to know and work with. It’s not a
secret, I don’t think an insult to anyone, to admit there is a lot of nonsense and
really bad fighting going on out there. There are a lot of mediocre examples of Medieval
and Renaissance fencing all around us and have been for a long time, it’s a shame to
admit it, I am sorry to say, but it’s there and there’s no use pretending
otherwise. As an educator in this field, and
a researcher, it concerns me, and improving things is a goal. Of course most everyone is going to say, “Oh
yeah, sure, it’s true...but not for us”. And
that may very well be the case. It’s
always the “other” guy who needs to get his act together. My philosophy has been to assume it is ourselves
who don't know and who must improve our knowledge and ability. That’s what makes a person progress.
How
many active members does ARMA have?
At present, including
local students and Youth members, over 225 actual registered Associate Members worldwide. We continue to grow and attract sincere people
from all over. It’s very exciting.
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 |
