A part of your heritage someone is trying to preserve

Great Sword technique, from Fechtmeister Joachim Meyer’s Kunst des Fechten

I’d like to introduce MR readers to The Association for Renaissance Martial Arts (The ARMA):-

ARMA - the Association for Renaissance Martial Arts, is an educational non-profit organization dedicated to the study and practice of historical fencing and the exploration and promotion of our Western martial heritage.

The ARMA focuses on the interpretation and legitimate reconstruction of Medieval and Renaissance combat systems as a modern discipline. The ARMA endeavors to approximate historical fighting skills through a curriculum of reconstructed techniques, principles, and methods for using a variety of swords, spears, shields, staff weapons, daggers, and unarmed grappling and wrestling skills as taught in period books and manuscripts

The ARMA’s efforts are directed toward resurrecting and recreating a legitimate craft of European fighting skills in a manner that is historically valid and martially sound.  We rely for our source material upon the dozens of rare surviving manuals of Medieval and Renaissance Masters of Defence.

The first revelation The ARMA afforded me was the depth of the lie of the Hollywood image of knightly combat.*  Knights are presented as lumbering armored buffoons hacking away at one another without a trace of finesse or skill.  I was aware of the Hollywood misconception of plate mail (it does not render the wearer a ponderous oaf, in fact one can do in plate mail most of what one can do out of it).**  I was not aware of how shabbily Hollywood was treating knightly martial skill.

Of course, much blame rests at the feet of academia.  After all, who in his right mind would only blame Hollywood for grossly misrepresenting western history when western historians can’t be bothered to defend or even know it themselves?  The ARMA argues its case well, as these quotes show:-

Historical fencing manuals and European martial arts in general, have been overlooked, ignored, and bypassed by art historians and military historians, arms experts, and even fencing historians. Excepting for a handful of fencing historians (concerned far more with where modern sport fencing came from) and the rest of us historical sword enthusiasts/students, there is no real interest in this from trained academia. One need only look at the subject matter that concerns current Medieval & Renaissance Studies programs to see this. The focus is not on pure history or personalities, institutions, and events, but more often on establishing things in to a revisionist context of modern “politically correct” views. A brief survey of the subject matters of major Medieval & Renaissance Studies organizations, societies, and conferences reveals a plethora of the most laughable topics if not for the fact they are dead serious. For the most part they seem really obsessed with gender, race, racism, sexuality, homosexuality, the “evils” of capitalism and Christianity, and the “patriarchy and misogyny” of Western civilization in general. Every modern political, social, metaphysical, leftist, fringe, or pop idea seems to be represented among them –all that is, except a genuine interest in historical European martial arts ...

Yet, and this is where it’s frustrating for historical fencing enthusiasts, give most any one of them Die Liberi or Vadi or Marozzo and they shrug. Good luck trying to interest them in Agrippa or Silver or Swetnam.  If there isn’t a clear way to further position or prestige, many of them are going to find it hard for any of this stuff to hold their interest. After all, the common view is that if it was “important”, it would have already been studied by now. All our material is just “old fencing”” to them, just “sword-play”. Boring stuff. It isn’t “real” literature. They have no idea how wrong that view is ...

So, we can expect that eventually the fighting manuals will be dissected, by larger academia, but perhaps not in the manner we would hope. What typically seems to concern them is pretty clearly not what concerns us or even the general public or the rest of the planet. To generalize, they are really in their own little world. Now, I’m not criticizing anyone here or addresing any political philosophies or doctrines, just pointing out that we should not expect a whole lot of great martial knowledge about the manuals and masters to come pouring our way any time soon. Unlike the good Dr. Anglo, they will be looking for insights into aspects of culture, mindset, zeitgeist, etc., etc. We can expect something along the lines more of, say:-

#  “Modes of Meta-Linguistic Textual Expression Dualities in 15th Italian Fencing Schools”.
#  “Gender-bias in Talhoffer’s Judicial Duels, or Why Isn’t The Woman In The Hole?”
#  “Ethnic Inequality and Racism of the Fechtschulen: The Significance of the Lone Negro in Talhoffer” (or…“Was Ringeck a                       Redneck?”)
#  The Long-Sword vs. Small-sword: Phallic Imagery Obsession of European Masters of Arms”
#  “Was Capo Ferro Gay? The Homo-Eroticism of Thrusting Nude Males in Renaissance Fencing Art”
#  “Marxist-Lenninist Underpinnings Within the Company of Masters: Or Why “Sir” George Silver Was not a Member”

(From The “Politically Correct” Study of European Martial Arts?)

Those quotes touch on why knightly combat has suffered such an Orwellian inversion, so let’s explore the how:-

While the term “martial arts” today is typically synonymous with “Asian fighting art”, for centuries highly sophisticated European martial systems existed.  It is from the Latin that we actually derive the English term, “martial arts” – from “arts of Mars”, the Roman god of war. The term “martial art” was used in regard to fighting skills as early as the 1550s and in an English fencing manual of 1639 referred specifically to the science and art of swordplay.  In reference to Medieval and Renaissance combat systems the terms “fencing” and “martial arts” should thus be viewed as synonymous.  Fencing was in essence the “exercise of armes” –and arms meant more than just using a sword ...

From about the 12th century, professional instructors of fencing existed across Europe.  Many of these “Masters of Defence”, or instructors in arms, became highly regarded international experts.  Over time they uniquely produced hundreds of detailed, often well-illustrated, technical manuals on their fighting methods which reveal their craft to be one of sophisticated and systematic skill. When studied from within their own cultural context these little known surviving manuals present a portrait of highly developed and innovative European martial arts.  Today, dozens of these obscure manuscripts and printed books provide an unequaled resource for modern students and practitioners.

The popular myth of untutored knights clumsily swinging crude swords while lumbering around in heavy armor is shredded by the actual evidence.  The unequivocal picture presented by historical sources is one of trained warriors expertly employing skillfully-designed weapons with brutal efficiency. But these masters were no mere “fencers”.  Theirs were complete fighting systems as suited to armored as to unarmored combat. They taught integrated martial arts of both armed and unarmed components. Grappling and wrestling techniques were vital elements.  The weapons of dagger, staff, and axe were studied as vigorously as pole-weapons, shields, and especially all manner of swords.  Their methods were specialized for foot or mounted, single combat or group ...

Renaissance fencing masters were commonly soldiers and scholars as well as accomplished men of learning. Among their patrons were nobles, princes, and kings as well as commoners, knights, and soldiers. Geometry, mathematics, anatomy, and philosophy played major roles in their teachings.  The early Spanish master Pietro Monte was a theologian, mathematician, scholar and even taught darts to Leonard Da Vinci.  He was a prodigious writer on martial arts, military theory, theology, and eventually produced volumes on wrestling, health, gymnastics, ballistics, and swordsmanship.  The fencing author Camillo Agrippa was an engineer, mathematician, and fencing instructor to the artist Michelangelo. The Frenchmen Girard Thibault was a painter, architect and even a physician ...

Renaissance Masters systematized and innovated the study of Western fighting skills into sophisticated, versatile, and highly effective martial arts eventually culminating in the development of the penultimate weapon of street-fighting and dueling, the quick and vicious rapier.  Through experiment and observation they discerned that the thrust traveled in a shorter line than the arc of a cut and against an unarmored foe would strike sooner and reach farther.

(From A Short Introduction to Historical European Martial Arts)

Reading around at The ARMA site, a picture of Medieval and Renaissance combat rapidly emerges that contradicts nearly everything Hollywood has taught us.  As a youth, I was something of a Niponophile, and in light of that fact and my gradual conversion into a Europhile into adulthood, I found this essay on The Medieval European Knight vs The Feudal Japanese Samurai especially interesting and gratifying.

I find it interesting to speculate on how different public perception of and interest in martial arts might be if the west was gifted with a Hollywood explicitly interested in strengthening and illuminating western history and tradition instead of weakening and obfuscating them.  Hollywood at best ignores western martial history, at worst disparages and misrepresents it, and universally promotes eastern martial arts as the sole legitimate martial tradition; what if we had a Hollywood with western man’s best interests at heart, that saw the eastern tradition not as a proxy fighter in a racial and cultural war but as a competitor?  Might we have had a film industry that vigorously sought out, popularized, and consecrated western traditions?  Might we have a thriving western martial arts industry instead of a thriving eastern one?  Might children be growing up watching a Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers  that glorifies western themes and styles instead of eastern ones?  Might “the way of the gun,” the sole western martial tradition that is taken seriously by the public reside in an entirely different context?  There is a myriad of such questions raised by this speculation.

As a final thought, I should address the inevitable (and supremely problematic) question, “which tradition is superior?”  I’ll leave the reader with this quote, from which I intuit a possible seed for my own answer:-

It should also be pointed out that Renaissance martial arts are approached from a different cultural context than are its Asian equivalents (and I might note, one that is far less alien to Western civilization). What’s really exciting is that it’s not that hard. Renaissance martial arts does not suffer form any obsession with aesthetics and hierarchy or accumulation of titles and rankings (at least not as we pursue it in ARMA). Instead it follows an empirical dialectic. It doesn’t involve mysticism and doesn’t take decades of esoteric effort under secret masters and hidden schools to learn the effectiveness of legitimate combat techniques (again, at least not with the ARMA approach). It’s not something spoon fed only to an enlightened and worthy few, but presented as a whole to be considered at length.

(From History and Heritage)

I recommend MR readers peruse the essays and reading and research pages at The ARMA Website.  I think it’s safe to state there is considerable overlap between the target audiences of both sites, and to suggest a link to The ARMA Website might be in order.

On a tangent, readers interested in role-playing games might want to take a look at The Riddle of Steel.  TroS has been endorsed by The ARMA for its historically accurate portrayal of combat.

* I regard as a plain liar a person who spends millions of dollars on a period film without due diligence towards accurately presenting history.  In the context of Hollywood as western culture-destroyer I think my view is even more justified.  (in other words, I’m stating that Hollywood’s presentation of knightly combat as in many cases its complete opposite is in no way, shape, or form an honest mistake).

**  The chief drawback of plate mail is not mobility, but heat; ventilation was a constant worry for armored knights of the high and late middle ages.

SVIGOR

Posted by Guest Blogger on Saturday, May 7, 2005 at 05:19 PM in History
Comments (10) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Next entry: Quote of the day: Two brains but no no-brainer

Previous entry: Towards a Tory future