An art is an expression of the time that created it

An art or a system is the product of the time that it was created and evolved in.

 

It is an expression of what those that created it thought was important to survive and thrive in the context that it was intended for.

 The framework they give it will be based upon and expressed through how they and their culture understood the world.

They were of course still operating under the influence and effects of the world the same as we do.

In a culture before modern physics, but where the concepts relating to the physical world were expressed, these may well be used to communicate or support those Principles and Concepts contained in the system.

 

It can be hard for us now to understand things from a time before. We are seeing with a different baseline of how the world is. Both more and less naive.

 However, if we hold that our modern understanding of the world gained by a more refined grasp of the sciences, is true, those rules would have been affecting the people in the past as well. Even if the people then did not have the ways to frame that understanding.

 

For example, now have a deeper understanding of Physics and Physiology. We can study an action with a set of tools that the practitioners of the past did not possess.

That can be both a benefit and a curse. A curse because we cannot truly unsee these things. It, further distances us from them.

 

However, whether we have more tools at our disposal or not. We have to ask the question does that really matter.

While I may have a “better” understanding of the rules of biomechanics, time, and motion and so on, it does not mean I can impart he skills of a martial art any better to a student. Nor can they understand it better? Because, although this understanding is part of the make up of our culture, that does not mean it has a deep personal impact or meaning. Most people are experiential, and we as guides to a new skill, have to find those we work with, where their experience lies and build from there.

 

There is an old trope that people of the past thought the world was flat. However, people have known the world was round for tens of centuries. Does that mean everyone understood the word was round? Heck, we even no have people who think the world is flat and who try to use modern science to prove it!

However, we have to ask, how useful to most people in the past was this information? They had no experience of it, nor did it add to anything to their lives, as such it made no difference. So its truth was not useful.

 

So, what do we need to understand about the grasp of the world, people of the past had?

We need to consider and grasp what they thought was important. What they express in the words they leave us.

For example, George Silver says there are True and False times, that The True times are Time of the hand, Hand body, Hand Body Foot and Hand Body Feet.

It is not important whether these may or may not be “True” in a modern scientific sense; even if we can interpret them clearly enough to allow us to assess that in the modern sense.

We also need to recognise that it may not have been thought True then; I am not suggesting this is the case but making an example.

What we do need to recognise   is that those ideas were held to be True by Silver when he wrote his work.

Why? Because he used those terms and ideas to get people to understand his Practice and why it worked and why it was better, in his opinion, than those of others.

This does imply that his expected audience would recognise and accept these concepts with the frame of their understanding. Or that the use of these ideas would be influential to the audience he hoped to attract.

 

Conclusion

We need to consider that what we are studying is a product of its time. We need to think Holistically about the time, how it thought about the world and how it thought about its own past. We can use concepts from our time us practice the analyse these things. But we must not lose sight that while many things have remained the same Others have changed markedly.

However, the purpose, to convey ideas is one that still holds a place now, even if who we do it has changed.

Also that the motivations to do so may well carry through to the present day as well. Notoriety, fame, influence, ego etc.

Failure, expertise and time

"The one thing that all expertise theorists agree on is that it takes enormous effort to build" the expert mind, either in the realm of chess or in another discipline, Ross states. 

In the process, "motivation appears to be a more important factor than
innate ability.... The preponderance of psychological evidence indicates" that professionals with outstanding skills, in short, "are made, not born."

Research indicates that the key "is not experience per se but 'effortful study,'" according to Ross. Such study involves learning and practice that entail "continually tackling challenges that lie just beyond one's competence." 
In other words, Lewinski explains, as you gain in ability, "the bar is constantly moved higher so that your skill level must keep stretching and improving to reach it."

The brief goes to say later:
"Instead of departmental policies and priorities that encourage mediocrity, we need a training philosophy that encourages, nurtures and guides the development of expertise. It's what the community expects and deserves."

If you have the burning drive of a 5%er, determined to maximize your Skills regardless of obstacles, understand that "in the early stages, effortful study is very difficult," Lewinski says. 

"Pushing your limits inevitably involves a lot of failure. When you fail, you need to back off a bit, learn to correct your weaknesses, and build your way back up."

"To get really, really good takes time. Be patient with yourself, because you need that time for your training and experience to evolve into mastery."

To armour or not to armour

This is an involved and complicated subject. My primary goal is to briefly look at the use of armour/protection in training historical arts in the modern. However I will first briefly look at the use of armour in the combative environment.

-Armour in real combat – Protection versus Mobility plus other considerations
The decision to wear armour and what forms that armour may take has always been dictated by a number of factors. Of course the armour offers protection against attacks, However this advantage has to be weighed against other considerations. Firstly by wearing protection, ones mobility will be reduced, both in the range of movements possible and the speed at which movement can be carried out. The distribution of the weight of the armour will affect balance. The weight of the armour will increase exertion and its coverage of the body will also have detrimental effects on the bodies’ ability to loose heat contributing to the speed at which one will become fatigued.
Weather and environment factors will increase and exacerbate all the detrimental effects already mentioned.
The cost of armour, either in monetary terms or in the time taken to manufacture it contributes to restrict the use of and types of armour. These factors are linked to considerations of status. Armour re-enforces the distinction between the warrior and the civilian. The quality and craftsmanship of the armour, serves to help separate the high status warrior from the low. Such display of status could lead to individual being singled out in combat by enemies. However if you happened to be on the loosing side in the aftermath of an engagement, the display of your high status may lead you to being taken prisoner for ransom while your lower status followers are shown no mercy.
The likelihood of being hit and what you might actually be hit by and the effectiveness of the armour against those attacks has also to be considered.

Despite the negative aspects when we look through history, armour of one form or another is a reoccurring constant within in the context of combat. Someone wearing armour will be generally far more prepared and willing to aggressively engage the enemy than an unarmoured person will. This effect on the perception of risk can have both positive and negative affects in real combat and in training

-Not getting hit versus reducing the damage taken when you are when you are
A point that needs to be made is that armour is generally worn to protect the areas of the body, which are deemed most vulnerable, or those that will cause the greatest damage if hit. Generally the most vulnerable targets will be given priority when armour is chosen or issued. The Armour worn may redirect the impact or reduce damage taken from a hit, though no armour makes you completely safe. There is the paradox that as one wears more armour the potential for being hit increases as it reduces mobility.

Here I am defining Mobility, as the ability to move as freely as possible with the intention of not getting hit, versus protection, reducing the effects once hit has happened.
The less armour you wear the more of your mobility you maintain, arguably making it harder for you to be hit in the first place. Of course if hit, less armour will mean that you take proportionately more damage.
One has to strike a balance between mobility and protection. While arguably mobility is more important, In certain situations ones ability to move may be restricted by other factors, for example in a tightly packed formation on a battlefield, in which case protection, becomes more desirable.

Finding the right balance may be a personal choice, such as a 15th Century man at arms choosing between and Italian armour for its protection or a Gothic harness with its mobility. Or the decision may be imposed on you by someone else, for example the armour issued to a Roman legionary or modern soldier in Afghanistan.

-Armour in training - Replicating reality or reducing pain/injury
Armour in training follows two basic types. Firstly armour that replicates the armour that will be used in real combat. Secondly is armour that is used solely in training, it is used to reduce pain or injury.

If you are replicating armoured combat, then you should wear facsimile armour of the type worn in the combat you are recreating on a regular basis. While this may not be possible or even necessary all the time appropriate armour should be worn when possible and when training out of the armour, how the armour affects the movements and techniques must not be forgotten. In Japan a number of the oldest Bujutsu Ryu, regularly train their armoured combat techniques out of armour. In Europe it seems we see a similar situation in some of the manuals. The un-armoured half-swording and pollaxe techniques illustrated in Talhoffer for example, show what would generally be considered armoured fighting styles being practised in normal clothes. Fiore’s dagger plays are also illustrated with combatants in civilian clothes, a not uncommon situation when illustrating dagger. However text states that certain techniques would be better done in armour, while others work both in and out of armour.

What must be remembered is that when training for fighting against an armoured opponent the objective is to defeat or neutralise the armour worn. When attacking an armoured opponent one does not primarily attacked the armour. One has to learn to attack targets where there is less or no armour, or by making use of the opponents’ armour to help defeat them. The goal is to utilise and maximise the advantages offered by ones own armour, while reducing the advantages and to use and to do the opposite to your opponent.

Amongst those who favour sparing and freeplay as training methods, in the modern reconstruction of un-armoured historical combat, protective armour of some form is used as matter of course as a way to reduce the inherent risks. However many people who train in a more formal and structured way also use varying amounts of protective gear.

In this context the form protective armour takes and the function it really serves is an important consideration. In much the same way that a soldier needs to balance protection and mobility, a modern practitioner wearing protective gear needs to balance the desire to reduce injury with how that will affect ones mindset as well as the way the movements are carried out. Serious consideration should be made of what constitutes appropriate armour and when or if it should be used at all. It should be remembered that these effects on training would be both positive and negative, conscious and unconscious.

As mentioned above, for real combat the most vulnerable targets generally are armoured first. The same is seen in the protective equipment worn for unarmoured combat training. However this cause the problem, that by doing so, one has transformed unarmoured fighting in to armoured and this risks counter intuitive responses being conditioned in both attack and defence.

-Not getting hit and reducing the damage once you are
The rational of not getting hit at all, as opposed to reducing the damage once you are hit applies equally to training as it does to real combat. Arguably it is more important in training, as how you perform in reality will be dictated by how you have trained.

Two theories come in to play here Operant conditioning and Risk Compensation. By the rules of operant conditioning, learning takes place through positive and negative re-enforcement. In this context positive means that something is added and negative means something is taken away. As a basic illustration, a child learns that fire burns by touching the candle flame, it hurts and is unpleasant and positively re-enforces the parents warning not to stick ones hand in the flame. In terms of operant conditioning the gloves negatively reward me for getting hit by taking away the pain. In the terms of risk compensation the gloves make me feel safer which can encourage me to take greater risks.
The danger of this is that rather than training me to not get hit it is actually encouraging and rewards getting hit.

If not wearing armour one can not afford to be hit and one learns to deal with the opponents attacks by avoiding them through movement and/or by controlling them with your available tools, in this context being your offensive/defensive weapons.

By feeling exposed to the threat posed by your opponent an appreciation of why it is better to not get hit is encouraged stimulates the desire to perfect ways of not getting hit.

We should not forget that even if your armour does take the hit, the armour is not infallible and might fail. Energy can still be transferred through the armour into you, and damaging you anyway. The hit might disrupt or take your balance, which will already be affected by the armour. Or it may damage your armour, further reducing your mobility. All of which allows your opponent to keep attacking and hitting you and this will increase the likelihood of you taking more damage and in the long run, loosing.

-Increased safety increases risk taking
I mentioned above the theory of Risk Compensation. It stems originally from research in to road and traffic safety. Basically the theory states that in general people will take risks based upon their perception of danger or upon their perceived ability to deal with that danger. This has shown that the improvement in anti locking brakes and seat belts as has actually increased the risks that drivers take when driving and not improved road safety. It has also be found that where stretches of road have been made “safer” by improving visibility etc., that it has actually increased dangerous driving.

In a training context there is an important other side to the equation, the more protection my partner wears the less awareness of their danger I have. It can encourage poor control, “if i hit too hard or my targeting is a bit sloppy it doesn’t matter because my partners gloves etc. will take care of it”. Not only are we encouraging poor training for and application of the skill, we are also increasing the likelihood of having an accident.

Research found increasing numbers of cyclists wearing cycle helmets and other protective gear has not improved cyclist safety, partly because the cyclists take more risks because they feel safer but also because car drivers drive more aggressively around cyclists who wear protective gear.

A combative analogy is boxing. Here, hand and wrist injuries occur despite or arguably more often, because of hand and wrist strapping and the design, size and weight of boxing gloves which has lead to an altering of punching technique away from what is practical or effective with an un-gloved hand. This is also a reason why quite often when boxers get in to fights not wearing their gloves, they often do more damage to their hands than those who are less skilled. Bigger and heavier gloves is also the likeliest cause of brain damage in boxers, largely due to the fact that the gloves encourage hitting the head, while their weight and size turns hits into heavy concussive pushes rather than snappy punches.

-Awareness of danger increases safety
Understanding your own vulnerability and that of your opponent and by avoiding protective equipment you increase truer intuitive awareness, this ultimately increases safety in a far more sustainable way. However this requires a different approach to training, different parameters than training with protection does. Having more appreciation for the danger develops more control of your actions, position and distance. Your safety becomes your responsibility, not that of your armour.

-If you are worried about getting hit or have been, look at how you are training rather than adding more protection.
I have seen a tendency that people who fear getting hit or injured or who have been hit or injured in training jump to the decision to start wearing more protective gear. However it should be considered what may be wrong with the actual training methods employed or how and why certain techniques are carried out that could lead to the accident happening.

Misunderstood or poor training methods and/or poorly applied principles generally lie at the heart of almost all accidents. Adding protective gear does not address the core issue behind the accident, all it does is reduce the pain etc. once it has already gone wrong. If anything adding protective equipment, as we have seen with Risk Compensation, will actually increase the chances of accidents happening in the first place

However there may be times when wearing some protection is helpful. A strike delivered to target with force may help both attacker and receiver understand the dynamics of an action better. In such a case protection would be needed.
For example in some of the older Bujutsu use is made of padded protective gear to allow strikes to specific targets in certain kata. Others make use of armour and weapons similar to that used in modern Kendo so they can incorporate aspects of freeplay in their training. It should be noted however that this is by no means a universal practice. Though carried out by some classical Ryu, they are ones that trace their lineage to the peaceful period of the Tokugawa shogunate, many of the oldest Ryu make no use of protective equipment at all but rather rely on the physical aspects of training to minimise risk in training

-Conclusion
Armour and protection are by their nature designed to alter how those engaged in combat can operate. There are pros and cons to it use and combatants throughout the ages have taken these in to consideration.

If one decides to use training methods that require the use of armour and protection then one should take time to consider the implications of its use. The effects of the protection, Operant conditioning and Risk Compensation will have on what and how you train and in the long term how it will affect your ability to actually practice the skills you have been training. It may actually increase risk taking and therefore not improve safety. Protection can be used, but such use should be context specific and appropriate to the situation being trained.

None of this is to say that those organisations that wear protective equipment while training are wrong. Rather it covers some of the reasons why the Guild does not use protective equipment in regular training.

Always remember that the best way to avoid pain and injury is by not getting hit. One should achieve this either through movement, by dealing with the opponent’s attack with your own weapons or through a combination of both.

Jonathan

Those that can do those that can’t teach

For a long time I, like I believe many people, took this to mean that those that were good at doing something did just that, they got on and did it. Those that could not do it made their way by teaching it. It conveyed a sense that those that were teaching were in some way deficient in skill and/or knowledge.
Now of course there are people who claim to be teachers of various subjects who should not be teachers, who have neither real skill nor real ability to improve others. However there are many good teachers who themselves are not at the top the game in their chosen field.

Over time and the more I have taught and watched others teach and learn and read and researched, my opinion of this of old piece of advice has changed.

The skills of doing and teaching how to do are different things, they require different skill sets. Just because someone is a skilful martial artist for example, doesn’t mean they are going to be good teacher.

The obvious examples of the difference between those that do and teach are world class sportsmen/women and athletes. Their coaches generally are not world class in the activity themselves, though some are, far more often they have been good but not at the top level. However what they do excel at it is getting others to be the best.

The greatest reason for this is that when one reaches near peak performance of a skill, you become increasingly unaware of the precise details of what and how you are achieving it, this has ceased to be a cognitive thing and is happening on a deeper neurological level. The ability to analyse moves and actions and to put that understanding in to words or to help someone else will not be there. In fact that awareness is there while performing a task is there, it is actually likely to inhibit the highest level of performance.

A personal example is doing and teaching shoulder rolls, I have done…. Well so many I can’t think how to count them. I am not aware of all the details of what I do when I roll anymore. Sometimes when I am teaching rolls or for some reason I think about rolling while doing one, it does not work, it hurts a bit. I end up engaging mentally in the process, or re-investment as it is know in sports training, more than I should, the result, it doesn’t work as it should.

How one does something at a high level may be markedly different from the way one does it while learning, so doing as a master does it may not actually be the best way to do it a lower levels of proficiency. It certainly may not be where you need to be on the journey of acquiring skills. It could in fact be counter-productive to properly acquiring the skill. So another part of being a good teacher is seeing where the student is and ensuring that they are doing things appropriate to their level. This is something that the master practitioner may not be able to do.

Also at some point you have to stop teaching, they have to get on with it and gain understanding through their own experience. Really calling someone a Teacher is a misnomer, a better word is Guide. Teaching implies that you are giving them something that they do not already have or that they can’t get without the Teacher. When really you are guiding them to let the kill out, to get them to find it in themselves.
Going back to learning how to roll, once I have shown you what to do, and watched you do some and given advice on those, the next phase lies in you doing it and gaining experience and understanding from that. If it hurt, felt rough and disorganised, then you didn’t do it well. No pain, felt smooth, then you did it well. Of course the value of the guide is that they can see what you did and can observe the things that are off, using their own experience, to help frame your experience. However I can tell you all day long what is wrong or right, but until you can feel the difference and act on it yourself it won’t really mean anything to you.

Often the skill of the teacher is not what they say, but what they don’t say. Someone does not necessarily need to do all the things that were wrong just the one or two key points. The student doesn’t need to know everything that you know they need the one or two things that will help them now. What is important is where they are on their journey now, not where you are on yours.

So if you want to judge a teacher, do not necessarily look at how good they are with the skill, look at how good their students are, and if you really want to judge how good a teacher they are, don’t look at the best students. Look at the average in that group. Its easy to teach people who have lots of ability, but only a good teacher can really raise the levels of everyone. Also don’t judge the teacher on how much they talk, or how much information they can regurgitate, but how simply they pass the appropriate information on to the students.

Perhaps the old saying should be changed to
Those that can, do.
Those that can teach, teach.

Jonathan

The wasted waster

Attributes needed for suitable training weapons

I recently got a chance to handle some wooden wasters that someone had bought. The finish was good and they had been nicely put together. Yet I was amazed at how badly they handled in comparison to the thing they were supposed to be replicating, a sword. As is often the case with wasters, in attempting to make the waster look like a sword, they have missed the most import thing any training weapons needs to replicate, weight and balance. Although having said that they try to make them look like a sword, I should point out that they are actually often poor visual replicas of real swords as the proportions of pommel, cross and blades are wrong, so they actually do not really look or feel like a sword. So what one ends up with is a vaguely sword shaped lump of wood, that handles like….. a lump of wood!

It is vital that any training weapon should replicate the handling properties of the weapon it is meant to be. Of all the things it needs, the least important is how much it looks like the actual weapon. For a sword, weight, balance and length are the most important statistics to be reproduced. Ideally the dimensions of the cross and also the pommel should be as accurate to the original as possible as long as at does not effect the handling. It is possible to have a training weapon which weighs more than the real thing, Roman soldiers were recorded as training with weapons made much heavier, to increase the soldiers strength and stamina when in action with the real weapons. It is also advisable in certain situations to use weapons that are lighter. However, in these cases the balance and length should not be compromised. I should also mention that how the waster/training weapon reacts when striking is important so that is behaves in the way that a steel sword wood, often wasters bounce more. Also how they respond in the Bind, when the blades are in contact, should be considered.

I should also note that the handling or heft of a weapon is also largely a personal matter. What feels “right” in the hand to one person can feel awkward to someone else. However, weight balance and length can and must be accurate

Similar problems to those found with wasters are also encountered with the steel swords that people use for training or for re-enactment. To make a weapon that appears to be sword like yet has an edge that is safe and does not take too much damage, the edge is made thicker as is the distal taper of the blade itself. All this changes the weight and balance of the weapon. Or in an attempt to make a better weight and handling weapon the blade length is reduced, which changes fighting distance and how techniques are carried out.

The impossibility of making a training sword that really looks like a sword was recognised by our ancestors as evidenced by the few training swords that survive. These are generally for use in two hands and are now commonly referred to by the historical German name federschwert. These handle almost identically to the real weapon, but when compared look very little alike.


Other materials were and can be used. Aircraft aluminium can be used for blades giving good handling, length, balance and weight while having a thicker edge.

Historically there are references to baleen being used to make the blades of training weapons or those used in tournaments. Baleen, sometimes referred to as whalebone, is actually formed of keratin, the same substance that hair, horn and fingernails are made of. It is found in the filter plates of certain types of whale. It was used historically for making many things that needed flexibility and strength, including the stays in corsets. In modern times many of the items historically made from baleen are now made of plastic or fibreglass.

Many groups use modified Kendo shinai to drill and free-play with, these are made of bamboo. Good for their original purpose they are not ideal when adapted to HEMA, though they can be made more suitable, this requires quite a lot of work.

In recent years various groups and companies have been developing training weapons in various synthetic materials. Some are no better than the worst kind of wooden wasters, but made in plastic. However the latest being produced by Red Dragon Armoury, are very good. They handle well and still manage to look like swords. While obviously a modern material, as mentioned plastic fills the role that baleen did in the past, so the jump to a new material is not too great. Bryan Tunstall, the owner of the company and also a Guild member has invested a great deal of time and money in developing the products so far and is looking to increase the number of different training weapons available in the range. Daggers, sabres, poll axes, spears amongst others are to follow. This can only be a good thing, as the need for effective training weapons of all kinds specifically designed for HEMA is vital for proper training and development of skills.

Of course the popularity of free-play and sparring has added another set of demands on how a weapon has to function. In this situation it is not only important that the weapons handles correctly but that it allows a wide range of attacks to be carried out making contact with an opponent while reducing the risk of injury. In this situation it is probable that the concerns about safety will out weigh considerations of handling. While this is understandable, it is another factor to bear in mind when considering what elements comprise ones training and which parts you compromise by the training you use

If we consider the situation from a historical point of view, a warrior of the past would in all likelihood be far more pragmatic towards the tools they used to train with. After all, the goal was to have the skills to survive in a life or death situation and therefore the need would be to have a weapon that maximised the training as a preparation for using the real weapon when it really mattered. I suspect that often people today want a training sword to look like a real sword because it adds to the escapism they get from training experience.

No one training simulator can fulfil all the varied uses that different practitioners might put them to. As such, consider the type of training that you will do. Remember that how the weapon handles is vital, how it looks is less is far less important.
At the end of the day suit the tool to the job at hand. Check with your Teacher and handle weapons to understand how they feel and function in the hand

Jonathan
Guild Secretary

More life in the shades of grey

This was a reply to a comment but developed in to something that I thought was worth posting on the blog.

Paul wrote -It was written by someone on the subject of training...and I paraphrase here "By the age of seven a child should have seen his blood flow, and heard the sound of his bones break"-

I would suggest that any child that has reached the age of 7 without seeing their own blood or been in a situation where they could have broken a bone, are either extremely lucky or they have lived in an overly protective bubble. I know for myself and everyone I know, that by the age of 7, had seen their blood flow and a number had broken bones, I have been lucky enough to not break a bone despite having been some dodgy incidents that could have resulted in it happening. At the end of the of the day it's called growing up. Also that is hopefully something that people have done before they come to me to start training with weapons, it is certainly not something I want them to be doing in my classes. However my experience, people who have not had this kind of experience are far less aware of the dangers in their training.

So I am not saying that that HEMA training should include blood spilling and bone breaking. I've also argued that in the past, though they may have been more accepting of the potential danger involved in training, serious injury was not promoted as part of training, though of course it could happen.

Of course, we can not say for certain what exactly what they did or how exactly how they trained, yet we may find educated possibilities. I am concerned sometimes that some people are desperate to re-invent the wheel.

Neither should new materials and methods be ignored, but neither should the methods of the past. I for one welcome Guild Study Group Leader Bryan Tunstal's new synthetic weapons, as they more accurately replicate a real sword than any of the wooden wasters on the market.

Anything that reduces the risk of injury is of course welcome,yet if the possibility of injury is unacceptable, then it is perhaps time to look for a new thing to do. However should bear in mind that if a tool isn't working it may not be a fault of the tool, it might be a fault in the way we are using the tool.
Jonathan

Living in the shades of grey

This is a response to a comment left by Hugh on my post on Training methods.

I think that the grey area is where all training takes place, as close to reality as we can get to make it have some value and meaning, while balancing it with safety. In the long term it is all shades of grey, what works and when it does are suggestions not absolute truths.
Especially when studying and recreating historical arts, where the process is in many ways the goal. It also depends very much on what actual arts, skill, you want to recreate. Better, more safe weapons, better protective equipment, may be great, especially if your goal is more free-play and competition.

However we are trying to recreate a lost or historical arts. So as well as trying to find out what they did, or how we can go some way toward how they put those skills into practice, should there not also be an equal drive to understand how they learnt it? What methods they used, how their training might of developed? Is this not the other wheel of the cart of understanding what the people of the past did? What they could do and how they actually learnt it.
I'm not saying that one has to but its worth considering.
Jonathan

The Reasons to study Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA) in the modern world

I previously looked at the reasons why people studied martial arts in the past. I will now look at the reasons or ways of HEMA in the modern world. (Thanks to Rory Miller for voicing a number of these ideas relating to Martial arts in general, they seemed a good fit with some adaptation to HEMA)

Of course there will be some overlap between the past and the present day, but there are some important and major differences that need to be considered.
Again my aim is not to claim that there is any ONE right way, rather we should consider what we want to get from training in HEMA. We can then determine how we focus our studies; which arts are most likely to give us what we are looking for and equally, which modern approach best facilitates it.
Much of what is written here may equally be applied to someone considering which of the more “conventional” martial arts to study and again I make no claim to be presenting anything new. Rather my goal is to, perhaps bring together different trains of thought and to highlight areas that I have observed in the HEMA community at large and in the EHCG specifically.

Many of the subjects I will be discussing below could be explored in much greater detail and in greater depth. For some of the topics I will do just that in later articles.

As I discussed previously, historically people studied martial arts for different reasons.
In the modern world the study of these historical arts can be broken down in to the following five categories:

1 Self-defence/Professional use of force
2 Tradition/Physical art/Self-discipline
3 Spiritual Growth/Health
4 Sport/Tournaments
5 Entertainment/Education/Demonstration

There are now a huge number of historical martial arts being studied and an even greater number of groups studying one or several of them. Each group will be working from the materials of one or more masters, or one or more versions of the works of those masters or the traditions they spawned or evolved from. Other groups, like the Guild will deal with the under lying common Principles found though out the arts.

As such one should consider the goals stated or otherwise of the group that you train with or are thinking of training with and how that relates to which of the five ways you wish to follow.

The following will go some way to defining these areas of focus.

Self-defence/Professional use of force/”Learning how to fight”
Historically this would have been the reason why most people learnt the skill, though was not always. Self-defence here refers to those skills and techniques that one can use when suddenly and unexpectedly attacked, in daily life. Professional use of force here refers to those skills used by members of the armed forces, police and those involved in personal/professional security.
If your goal is to learn self-defence then there are many better ways of doing so than by studying HEMA. I am not saying that there are not valuable lessons in these works for someone who knows what they are doing, or that the skills of the practitioners of the past were not effective, they clearly were. In some ways that is where the problem lies, what was acceptable in a self-defence situation in the 1400s may not be legally or morally acceptable today. Also most of what constitutes self-defence is to do with situational awareness, and about how to avoid the places, people and situations where you are likely to become a target. In most cases by the time you need to be using the physical techniques which we see and are described in the manuals and which it should be pointed out are similar to many techniques seen in different cultures and in different eras, its already too late. Again all of these skills need to be addressed first and foremost in the modern world.

If your interest is in the professional use of force, then you should be someone currently involved in the legitimate professions for whom these skills are necessary. As such you should already be involved in the study of appropriate skills.

Of course one can want to study and learn in these areas from a tradition/historical perspective, though in this case that is better addressed in the next focus

Before moving on. What we must not forget, is that in the historical context, these skills were very much practised with a deadly intent. We should then approach the recreation and development of these skills with the respect and seriousness of intent that such skills warrant.

Tradition/physical art/self-discipline –
Tradition is, I would argue, where most of us stand. We are interested in history, we are interested in developing a skill that was used in the past and in wanting to find out about our past we strive to understand how our ancestors applied martial skills. Recreating these traditions is a worthy and valuable cause.
The physical art that goes along with this recreation is in itself worthy of learning and developing any skill to a high level is a worthy practice. The self-discipline required can allow us to master ourselves in ways that other pursuits may not. If for no other consideration, Tradition, Physical art and self-discipline are reasons to study and train in HEMA. After all, these are some of the main reasons why people study Asian martial arts

Spirit/health –
The development of the physical and mental discipline required of any martial art, will arguably develop your spiritual growth, and can also arguably make you a better person, though this is not always the case.
Almost all warrior/martial traditions contain aspects that one can label “spiritual”. After all, if such traditions are to function within a larger society, then those that practice them need to know when to kill or harm and when not to. Also, those that make the use of violence part of their lives generally try to come to terms with the act of doing harm or taking the lives of others. They generally also address and attempt to come to terms and accept that serious injury, disability or death are likely results to themselves. At least they should if they want to retain some mental stability. As such, I would argue that this form of “spirituality” is a by-product of the other aspects of the training, rather than a goal in itself.

There are also those who seek to use martial arts to develop both inner peace and harmony that goes beyond the aspects offered by the self-discipline discussed above. This si something that one can see in Japanese martial arts when one looks at Bujutsu and Budo, in Budo the art is used to develop spirtual growth.
As yet this is something that is not really encountered in in those groups studying HEMA, though there are a number of groups, studying arts of dubious genuine historical ancestry that do emphasise spiritual growth as a major goal.

Health is likely to be a greater lifesaver than any other aspect of HEMA. Keeping physically active offers a number of health benefits that I don’t need to go into here. Training in HEMA is just as effective at keeping one physically fit as many other forms of exercise, without going down the path of “Swordfightercise”© etc.

Sport/tournament –
This is a growing aspect of the HEMA community. Some see it as fun addition to their training, some take it more seriously training, preparing, and approaching it as one would for any other sport and seeing in the sporting aspects, a way to popularise HEMA. Yet others try to emphasise rule sets, weapons and protective equipment to come as close as possible to real combat with the skills and weapons that were used. They seek to test their skills in what they see as the closest approximation to real combat that is currently acceptable, because of its un-scripted nature and competitive drive.
None of these approaches are in or of themselves wrong or bad. However it must always be born in mind that sportive and combative are very different one from the other and ability and proficiency in one does not of itself prepare you for the other.

Of course historically tournaments were a major aspect of life for certain parts of the fighting classes, These tournaments in a similar way to their modern counterparts, emphasised protective equipment, safer weapons and rules, all of which moved the action away from real combat to a greater or lesser extent. However there is one major difference between the past and the present. Generally in the historical context, certainly during Middle Ages, such “sporting” events were an adjunct to actual combat. Someone who fought in a tournament could and often did, fight in actual combat, either on the battlefield, in self-defence or duelling in earnest. This balancing of the sportive with the combative, the reality with the game, is something that is, for obvious reasons, missing from the modern practice of HEMA. This should be born in mind when considering and comparing the sporting aspects of HEMA in the past and present.


Entertainment /Education/Demonstration
An understanding of the HEMA can obviously be a great benefit when creating fights for film, theatre and television, whether to make the action more historically accurate or to produce more efficient movements. Understanding how to use entertainment to bridge the gap to education is vital if one wants to attract a wider audience to an understanding of history in general and specifically HEMA.
So a Fight Director, fight performer, Historical interpreter, historical show fighter, can and arguably, should all make use of HEMA. When done well and with proper consideration of the other areas already mentioned above, are all valid aspects of HEMA, which should not be looked down on as inferior or less serious reasons for training.


Conclusion
Everyone interested in studying HEMA should ask themselves questions including;
What aspect/s of the historical martial arts draws their interest?
Which of the modern ways offers the best opportunities to achieve that in the modern world?

One should try to understand what it is they want from their study and training in HEMA.
The different focuses have different goals, and will have different optimal mind and skill sets, and these will be best brought about by different training approaches.

I would maintain that the different ways are not mutually exclusive and that one can address and do well in many or perhaps all of them. However to do so, requires that one properly understands or at least recognises the differences between. One must also not forget that, by spreading ones focus over a wider range of study it is likely that one will not achieve much or gain as great an understanding as if on makes a tighter focus of one area of study.

Aggression, violence, martial arts and what they are for.

This is part of an ongoing series of pieces about what martial arts are about, what they try to be, and how we as people think about and train them. They will look at how we can find ways to make sure that we are honest in our assumptions and expectations so that we maximise what we get from our training and our interest. All these pieces are short and in no way comprehensive, all encompassing studies. Firstly the subjects are too large and varied to be able to cover in a series of large books let alone a blog or website. Secondly I don’t claim to have the knowledge to go in to the depth that parts of the subject deserve. However I put them here to hopefully start people thinking.


Violence and aggression, two of the things that drive and have driven the development or Martial arts in all it various forms in different cultures and throughout history. Violence and aggression are hugely complex areas to try to understand. They come in many different forms and cover a wide range of situations and levels of intensity and threat.
Although they are often linked there are differences between violence and aggression.
Similarly Martial arts come in many different forms and are and have been used for many different reasons.

Any one studying or considering studying a martial art today should understand what it is they want to get from a martial art, and then consider what the various arts offer so that they get out of their training what they need.

What should those of us who are studying historical martial arts do?
Firstly we should consider what the historical martial arts we are studying were designed to do. We should also consider what we personally want from our study of the past, and then consider how we go about achieving it.

We must be careful that we don’t start trying to fit a round peg in to a square hole and start manipulating what we study or how we study it to achieve the wrong goal and we must be honest so that we do not lead ourselves to artificial conclusions.

Let us look at violence briefly. It can be broadly and perhaps crudely divided in to two categories. There is Inter-species violence. This is the basis of the Fight or flight response, a predator threatens you, or you are the predator. Your options are to get away, to kill or be killed. Commonly know as fight or flight. We then have Intra-species violence; this is violence between members of the same species. This is a far less black and white situation, here violence and aggression is used to achieve a goal, to gain something, generally relating to status. Status in the group, maintaining your status against someone whom has challenged you or your perceived self worth or position in your group or society.

Humans like most animals have in built inhibitions that generally prevent Intra-species violence going too far. This does not always work but generally it does. These inhibitions are there because it is counterproductive to kill off members of your own species, and also because uncontrolled violence, while allowing you to kill a rival, can leave you seriously wounded or maimed. This is why in most species the males use ritualised violence to gain or maintain status, and that generally these contests end before either party is badly injured. It is also why most species do not act violently towards the female of the species, or if they do that the violence is controlled.
Humans have this ritual violence. To quote Rory Miller, who uses the term “Monkey Dance”, because of its in built and instinctive nature from our ape ancestors.
The problem with humans is that we have invented numerous implements and tools to give us an edge and which in effect short-circuit our biological inhibitions. After all one good punch is likely to finish a conflict between two humans but is also likely to leave both relatively uninjured, however, put a club, knife, sword into that swinging hand and the out come is likely to be very different.

We have also, on occasion, managed to control the mindset we can apply to violence in certain situations. We can consciously or otherwise turn on the hunter predatory mind set, that allows us to view opponents not as other humans but as prey, and this allows a different set of rules to be applied. Alongside the above two developments, we have also developed systems to allow us to maximise the physical skills and mind set for the kind of violence we are going to undertake, martial arts, for lack of a more encompassing phrase.

I will not go into an in depth discussion of the physiological and psychological, biological and evolutionary drives and processes that have governed and shaped human aggression and violence, but hopefully this gives a broad outline.

Historically people had a different mindset and attitude to violence than we do today, or at lest some of them did. Yet we must also remember that we are not all that different, the majority of the changes are superficial and are to do with whom we were brought up and the norms of the society we were brought up in.
People used violence and the skills of violence for many reasons and many not that different from how violence is used today.

Self defence –
This is dealing with either stupidity or bad luck. It is primarily about recovery, recovery from the surprise of being on the receiving end of a bad situation that you weren’t expecting. Some manuals deal with this, specifically on occasion, more often in a general way.

Duelling –
This is something that was in general, forced upon the individual, by the expectations and standards of the society to which they belonged or on how they perceived themselves to fit in to that society. In effect this is a type of Monkey dance, in that the goal is to maintain or regain status. Generally governed by rules and expectations of behaviour. Many manuals deal with this, and the teaching of the master’s focuses toward people preparing for this.

Sport –
Different to a duel in that the participants have chosen to engage in the activity, there are also rules and officials to control how far things go. Again something that was if not explicitly stated in the works of many masters, the preparation for fighting in Tournaments or at the barriers, was a not uncommon feature of the fighting classes.

Combat –
Here we are referring to battle. Warfare is consciously or subconsciously a ritualised affair. The optimal approach is obedience and teamwork, rather than individual skill. The skills needed, though linked to what is seen in some manuals, are often quite different.

Assault –
This is a predatory mindset; the aggressor in a self-defence situation is likely to approach the situation in this way. In a modern context this is the approach and mindset of Elite Military units, hostage rescue teams and SWAT. Here the goal is to maximise your advantages and minimise theirs. Here there are generally no rules, other than use force to achieve your goal with as little risk or cost to yourself. Perhaps in a historical context we could look at the Vikings, raiding vulnerable targets and using hit and run tactics to gain advantage and achieve the best result for themselves, when they did engage in combat it was generally when they had the best chances of winning.

Fitness –
Keeping fit, training and learning skills your body and in some ways your mind fit and healthy. Many manuals talk the physical benefits of training in the martial skills

Entertainment –
Here the skills are used for the enjoyment and possibly education of others. Show fighters of the past, often berated by “real” fencing masters. Of course a tournmanet could be entertaining, but the goal in the tournament was not the entertainment as such. Of course there as overlaps, but basicallym we are looking at "show" fights

Spiritual growth –
Some people have used and still used martial skills for this. Ultimately this is rather a dead end. Training for an engaging in life and death situations would teach you something about yourself, and one could argue that the “warrior” mind set has a strong spiritual element, for one the acceptance of death and or sever injury. However one perhaps emphasise that this is part of the development, not an end in itself.

These are obviously broad categories. However they do help us to start thinking about the focus of the violence and martial skills of the past. Then we can address where our own field of study, masters work, manual, or tradition of interest lies and then begin to put it in context and think about it appropriately. We of course will find situations where one or more categories apply, or the master of the past was advocating that the skills he taught could be used in a variety of situations.
The important things is that the truth is, that despite what may be thought commonly or suggested on occasion, is that no one martial skill can do everything, each has its on demands, requirements, mindset and skills. Also no training method or framework of interpretation or reconstruction can fully cover all the different demands of the different skills. We need to understand what we want to study and tailor our approach accordingly.


In following pieces I will look at ways we can go about starting to achieve it.