|
His claim of
“revolutionary understanding” is possibly the most self-promoting
and egomaniacal thing he has ever proclaimed. His personalised
and inherently ad hominem claim to hegemonic martial authority
is false. His claim deserves and warrants direct and unwavering
refutation.
In refuting
his claim, I shall concentrate only on reference to the Ritterlich
Kunst (knightly/chivalric arts) of the German tradition, for that
is the tradition whereupon said director mostly bases his claim, as
this essay shall reveal.
That is because
the correct way to understand the Ritterlich Kunst
is to use the fundamental principles, the main moves, the directives,
the lore already provided us by the true historical late-14th
Century high-master of German Fechten
(fencing), Master Johann Liechtenauer, and by the true historical late-14th/early
15th Century master of German Ringen
(wrestling), Master Ott der Jude. That is the simple truth.
Master Liechtenauer
did reveal to generations of knightly warriors his Ausrichtungen
- his Directives. Those were/are a related series of techniques
and tactics, arranged in format of poetic Merkverse
(mark/memory-verses), all for remembering, meditating and training at
Fechten, specifically Bloszfechten
(unarmoured longsword fencing). Those Directives hold the most
basic key elements to correct combative swordfighting. Priest
Döbringer called them Fundament Principia und Pertinencia (Fundamentals,
Principles & Pertinency); Master Ringeck called them Rechte Haüptstucke
(Correct Main Moves/Plays); Master Talhoffer called them Uß Richtung
(Directives); and others named them otherwise. (Note this essay
conveniently uses the New High German equivalent of that last synonym,
Ausrichtungen.) As well, Master Ott did reveal to generations
of knightly warriors his Lehr
- his Lore/Lessons. And likewise, that Lore holds the most basic
key elements to correct combative wrestling.
Consider that
Bloszfechten and Ringen were two of a number of what were
historically and correctly called the Ritterlich Kunst (chivalric/knightly
arts) of Medieval & Renaissance Germany. Other Ritterlich
Kunst included Harnischfechten
(harness/armoured fencing), Reiten (riding/horsemanship),
Degenfechten (dagger-fighting) and so forth. Indeed, Master
Liechtenauer's Ausrichtungen were already a further condensation
of his greater Zettel (Summary/Reckoning), his complete body
of martial arts knowledge, made manifest is several Fechtbücher
(fencing/fight-books), many of which are now online amid the Inter-Web,
presented by their holding libraries and museums in proper and public
facsimile, for the scholarly perusal of all, neither forgotten nor unknown.
Consider that
someone cannot make Liechtenauer's Bloszfechten
any more concise than his Ausrichtungen, what he and his advocates
condensed, and yet have it remain culturally, traditionally and martially
correct. Those Directives do what their name implies - they direct
you directly to fighting in the Correct Way - what Master Talhoffer
called the Rechten Weg. Those Liechtenauer Directives numbered
seventeen to twenty, depending which later master was providing Merkverse
and even explanatory Glossa (commentary) for such - e.g. Ringeck
(1440s), Talhoffer (1443 & 1459), Von Danzig (1452), and others.
Similarly, the Ott Lore was conveyed by those same three masters in
most of the self-same works, and by others as well - e.g. Codex Wallerstein
(Part-A; 1450s) and Goliath (1510-20).
In turn, said
Directives were the basis for expanded and detailed fencing systems
by the later fencing masters, e.g. most notably Master Meyer (1560-1600),
whose own expert expansion of the fencing lore was afforded by inheritance
of the collective expertise of that entire preceding Liechtenauer tradition
and yet was demanded by the martial conditions of his own later environment.
So it had the base of the Directives, but included more things to address
its own posteval context. Nobody valid in that tradition presumed
to simplify it further. Indeed, even Priest Döbringer, Andres
Juden, Josts von der Nyssen and Niclas Prewssen, who evidently were
the very first inheritors of that tradition, added things to it with
their Ander Meister Gefechte
(Other Masterly Moves) (1389), which were interesting fencing moves
auxiliary to Master Liechtenauer's main fencing moves. So from
start to finish, from Priest Döbringer (1389) to Master Sutor (1612),
German fencing lore expanded as it evolved.
So, to paraphrase
a line from Dr. Strangelove: Liechtenauer and his boys will give
you the best kind of start, 17 to 20 directives-worth, and you sure
as hell won't stop them now. Again, that is because those Ausrichtungen
were laid out by Liechtenauer & company, thus actual historical
Fechtmeister (fencing/fight-masters). His Ausrichtungen
are not to be dismissed and belittled as mere theory, or conjecture,
or fiction. They have become well-known, well-researched and well-practiced
by manifold European and North American individuals and groups over
the past fifteen years or so, which is about the most time anybody can
validly claim to have studied them amid their most promising revival
in the late 20th Century. They are pure and simple,
and have been defined and interpreted by talented modern experts in
this beloved field of historical fencing. They are a considerable
yet reasonable number of things ready for you to learn and teach, if
only you are willing to pursue them seriously.
It simply never
got simpler than the Ausrichtungen, no matter what modern interpreter
presents it anew for modern martial artists, or claims an imitation
thereof as his revelation. Thus it is incredulous and irrational
for any modern interpreter of Fechten
- especially one who is wittingly illiterate at Mittelhochdeutsch
and is both self-admittedly & demonstrably incapable at Ringen
- to proclaim that he has devised a simpler, more efficient and more
workable set of core curricula for all so-called “Renaissance” fighting
than the Ausrichtungen and Lehr
given us by Master Liechtenauer and Master Ott.
Consider that
a half-dozen of the Ausrichtungen for Bloszfechten by
Liechtenauer were/are things like Vier Bloszen
(four openings); Indes, Vor, Nach
(instantly, before, after); Duplieren & Mutieren (duplicating
& mutating); Vier Versetzen (four displacements); Sprechfenster/Fühlen
(speaking-window/feeling); and Acht Winden (eight windings).
If we take those six and add four more things - the Motus
(motion/moving) from the Fechten of Priest Döbringer; plus the
Waage (scales/balance) and the Kunst, Schnelligkeit, Stärke
(skill, speed, strength) from the Ringen of Ott; plus the
Kron (crown) from the Fechten of Goliath - then you
get most of the paltry assembly of “new” things that the ARMA director
calls the “core assumptions” of his sadly incomplete purview of
fencing. However, those are not all the things that the
Fechtmeister and Ringmeister
of yore wanted fighting men to know. But not to worry - eal scholars
& martialists have already covered those ten things in proper context
of complete Liechtenauer Ausrichtungen
and Ott Lehr, as revealed later.
The totality
of Directives for Liechtenauer's fencing plus the totality of Lore for
Ott's wrestling already covers all the “lost and secret teachings”
which the aforenamed director characteristically mischaracterises as
his “original work” and “rediscovering”; for which he “will
accept credit”, after years of selfless “obsessive analysis” and
“self-critique” plus “experiment” upon his monetarily &
psychologically invested “apprentice” and his “novice and veteran
students alike” at his “private facility”; whose “testimonies
have been offered” that his “original way of looking at the source
teachings has profoundly affected them”. Instead, he should
have “forecasted” himself as “being unable to acknowledge erroneous
core assumptions and correct inferior practice routines”; and should
have made “prediction” of the “eventual orthodoxy” and “approved
consensus” of his person and association. What a “revealing
new perspective” that would have been - perhaps one that could have
led said director to an honest realisation of the Directives.
Thus a director who never killed anyone in battle with a sword or fought
for his life with his bare hands, yet would claim to teach better than
the real masters of mortal combat who did teach men to do exactly such
things.
Rather, we
may choose to follow the Directives of Master Liechtenauer and the Lore
of Master Ott, which taught lords and knights fencing and wrestling
for killing in duel and war. Fighting men who killed in battle
with longswords and/or with wrestling were taught by these real historical
masters how to face deadly battle both armed and unarmed. Why
follow the Clements-ARMA method when you can follow the Liechtenauer-Ott
method?
The aforesaid
director has never offered a definitive exposé of either the Directives
or the Lore - those things which were/are the core of Liechtenauer's
unarmoured longsword fencing or of Ott's combative wrestling.
Instead, he distorts their original summaries into his own distillation,
apparently somehow necessary since they did not already do so.
Instead, the director offers his own vision for such fighting, which
evidently is based upon the hubris that only he is able to make it simpler
for everyone, more so than even the past masters were able to make it.
Instead, he wants us to accept and regard him as a unique modern genius,
able to outdo the teaching ability of not only all modern peers but
also de facto the past masters. That is outrageous, or
at least laughable.
However, circa
2002-2009, certain modern scholarly martial artists actually have done
exposés of the Ausrichtungen
and the Lehr. They actually understand both the linguistics
and kinetics of Liechtenauer's Directives and/or Ott's Lore. And
yes, they have been martial artists for most of their lives (at least
the past quarter-century or so); have fenced forcefully with steel or
aluminum blunts and/or wrestled vigorously with multiple talented training
partners; can read the manifold primary sources; have taught their share
of students; have paid for it with their blood and treasure, etcetera.
They are authors like David Lindholm (Sigmund Ringeck's Knightly
Art of the Longsword); Hans Heim & Alex Kiermeyer (The Longsword
of Johannes Liechtenauer); Mike Rasmusson (Extreme Fencing with
the German Longsword); Christian Tobler (Fighting with the German
Longsword); Grzegorz Zabinski & Bart Walczak (Codex Wallerstein);
Dierk Hagedorn (Peter von Danzig: Transkription und Übersetzung);
and Tomek Maziarz & Piotr Szubert (Ott's Wrestling 1&2).
They all evince an “integrated understanding” of the “key elements”
of the German fighting arts. They have something to offer based
upon the works of the masters. (Unfortunately that does not mention
many modern scholar-martialists researching fine coeval English, French,
Italian & Spanish fencing.)
Those aforesaid
authors have revived all that fencing and wrestling over the past fifteen
years or so, before the prideful proclamation in late 2009 by the director
of ARMA, and without need of his “method”, and in contradiction
to his supposed exclusivity and priority. Naturally, all those
aforesaid modern works may have some flaws, and their interpretations
may not totally agree. (And admittedly such is applicable to my
own works.) Plus, being honest authors, they make no claim of
having unbroken lineage to the Liechtenauer fencing tradition or the
Ott wrestling tradition. (And indeed nobody today can honestly
and demonstrably make such claim.) Yet those said modern authors
have transcribed, translated and/or interpreted Fechten and/or
Ringen based upon the primary sources, the marvelous words and deeds
of masters and books of the Liechtenauer tradition and the Ott tradition;
and have reached their conclusions as to kinetic workability and martial
efficacy by hard work of mental and physical exertion. And there
are many other modern scholar-martialists doing who have done work relevant
to this field who sadly and presently go unnamed. However, in
closing, let me touch upon contributions by the following folks.
Consider that
the holistic/wholistic realisation of Fechten
has been advanced by others in the field. For in early 2009, as
part of the mission statement of the Meyer Frei Fechter Guild, its leader
Mike Cartier, a longsword fencer & pankratonist, presented what
Master Meyer advocated regarding the big picture of weaponry training:
By viewing
the manual [Gründtliche Beschreibung der freyen Ritterlichen unnd Adelichen
Kunst des Fechtens] the way we [Mike Cartier, Kevin Maurer & other
guildmen] believe Joachim Meyer intended us to view it, as a wholistic
study in the art of war, the art being taught in parts with each weapon,
but each part and weapon directly relating to the other weapons to form
the entire Art of Combat. We followed this path by listening to the
words of the fechtmeister himself when he told us how this or that element
cannot be fleshed out fully here but later in another weapon or how
this or that weapon relates directly to another weapon and the greater
part of its techniques are usable with little modification. This means
that knowledge of the longsword portion of the book is necessary to
learn from other parts of the book, and that the knowledge of the longsword
is not solely contained in the longsword portion of the book. Rather
the concepts bleed over between the weapons, with a solid strain of
conceptual basics holding the art together.
Consider that
the controversial yet plausible theory of a Pan-European art of longsword
fighting has been advanced by others in the field. For in early
2009, the martial artists & authors Casper Bradak and Brandon Heslop
announced such. (They mean to present it fully in their upcoming
book Lessons on the English Longsword.) In the article
The Method to the Madness at their LOTEL web-log, BH quoted
CB as stating:
I've been
a martial artist my entire life, really, and I've ended up more or less
seeing martial arts as martial arts. I see more of a whole than separates.
I focus on the similarities, of which there are far more than mere “stylistic”
differences...It's also easy to take stylistic differences in presentation
as being a far more significant than they were in real life at the time;
a cone of sight to the modern eye on something no one has seen in action
for hundreds of years…I believe most of the similarities [of European
longsword fencing] aren't even due to direct transmission of international
instructors, so to speak. The core of the art will remain similar despite
stylistic differences simply because when using the same weapon under
the same circumstances, there will be a de-facto core to the art. Just
as old style Japanese jiu-jitsu bears similarities to ringen, so will
the longsword in England bear similarities to it in Italy or wherever.
Same weapons, same opponents, same physical laws governing how one moves
and how one kills without being killed. All the frill laid on top of
that is what makes a style.
Consider that
underlying universal principles for combative arts have been advanced
by others in the field. For in early 2009, via a statement of
unifying and sophisticated simplicity in the book The Bare-Knuckle
Boxer's Companion, martial artists & authors David Lindholm
and Ulf Karlsson went well beyond any clumsy associational manifesto
to evince a superior understanding of the big picture of all
martial arts, whether European or otherwise:
…It is
evident that the techniques described in the old texts were intended
to be guidelines. As in all martial arts, duplicating a movement
will not make you victorious by that action alone. On the contrary,
the principle of the technique must be internalized by finding your
own way of executing it. We are all different, so we need to find
ways to make things work for each of us, first by copying as close as
possible the original technique, then leaving the level of the child
and striking out into an adult world of actually understanding what
we do and making it our own. As long as you comply with biomechanical
principles, the movement will be sound and work well.
So there you
go. No modern fencing celebrity & online personality telling
you with infomercial-rhetoric and blatant gainsay how swordfighting
needs to be digested through him, and redefined according to his own
personal revisionism thereof, only then to be regurgitated abusively
and sanctimoniously unto a constantly-renewed population of recruits.
No specious shortcut to the masterly teachings of fighting via a modern
egomaniac, character assassin & morale-killer. No need to
get trapped in the spider-web of America's largest and most aggressive
and egregious Renaissance martial arts association, along with required
maintenance of faith in its messianic director. No need to feel
like you are powerless to ultimately figure things out via your own
scholarship and training, perhaps even with the help of a good teacher.
Yes indeed - you have the power to gain your own knowledge and prowess
at the knightly arts of fighting. ~
Thanks
to
Mike Cartier
and MFFG for providing venue for this essay.
Donald Lepping
for advice regarding this essay.
About the
Author
Jeffrey Hull
earned his Bachelor of Arts in Humanities from Kansas State University.
His past martial arts experience involved Bushikan Jujitsu, Wing Chun
and Arnis, and now involves Ritterlich Kunst. His other athletic
pursuits included running, powerlifting and archery, and he has also
enjoyed hunting, metalsmithing and Western riding. He studies
Teutonic & Celtic philology & mythology, researches Medieval
history and art, and enjoys music. He likes to hike, paint, swim
and versify. He is the main author of the book Knightly Dueling
- the Fighting Arts of German Chivalry (Paladin Press, 2008), in
which he defined & described the Ausrichtungen
of Liechtenauer via Talhoffer (1459-Thott). He means to present
the Lehr of Ott in his forthcoming book about German Ringen.
Copyright
2010 of Jeffrey Hull.
|
