Man yt Wol

And Before All Other Things...

2011-12-09T16:35:00.000-08:00

And before all things you should know and understand that the Sword is only one Art and it was devised and thought out hundreds of years ago. This art is the foundation and core and it was completely understood and known by Master Liechtenauer. Not that he himself devised or thought out what is described, but he travelled and searched through many lands since he wanted to learn and experience this art. - Doebringer (Lindholm).

* Sword and shield picture from Dresden's manuscripts of the Sachsenspiegel, probably from (approximately) 1230 AD. Text (not seen) beneath it reads: Die Sonne soll man ihnen gleich zuteilen; which I, drawing upon my background in Old English, poorly translated as "The sun shall not assign them equal." Jeff Hull, however, has proffered the following:

Literally: "The Sun shall one them equally allot."

Or better contextually - thus the translation that I recommend as correct:

"One shall position them equally in the sunlight."

Thus it is an instruction or recommendation to a possible judge of a judicial duel to have the combatants start their duel with equitable juxtapositions relative to the bright Sun.

-B.

ARTICLE SOON!

Weak and Strong Spectrums of the Pan European Theory NEWLY UPDATED...AGAIN

2011-12-03T21:32:00.000-08:00

It was recently suggested to me that “It's the name that really bothers people” regarding the Pan-European Theory. I had not thought of this before, but I think it must be true. And how sad that it is true, given that we cannot - essentially - call an apple an apple without someone spluttering with indignation. It is called the Pan-European Theory because it was effectively pan-European. Furthermore, I have no idea why "pan-European" should be deemed potentially offensive. It's simply a descriptor. The fact is, if you acknowledge that strong analogies can be accurately made across the various linages and traditions of the CMA / HEMA, then you're a "pan-Europeanist." The semantics are immaterial.

TPET has been going the rounds for a while, and lots of people have weighed in, staked out contrary positions (some vehemently so), or jumped on the bandwagon (albeit in a weak-kneed, weasel-wordy kind of way). And, of course, we had absolutely nothing to do with their rather sudden declarations at all. No, the loudmouths screaming through bullhorns from the rooftops went completely unnoticed...

...Right.

That said, there were proponents of some kind of "one Art to rule them all" while I was still laboring under the sad delusion that Fiore's art was more defensive, and thus very different from Liechtenauer's seemingly uber-aggressive berserker art. However, the parameters were never really all that clearly defined. Then we came in and produced much of that material. Thereafter, Michael Chidester did the HEMA collective a favor in further defining TPET by splitting it into two overall arguments or positions: weak and strong. Here, I simply took it one logical step further, and broke these down into developed "weak" and "strong" spectrums (well, after a few rough drafts), with their respective arguments presented.

Most modern practitioners of the CMA / HEMA fall somewhere within the above chart's array of positions. This is meant to be the final version, though I’m willing to revise and collaborate if anyone out there has some good ideas…

The “Weak Spectrum” of the Pan-European Theory:

1, De Facto Pan-European Argument: The "strongest" of the arguments within the “Weak Spectrum” of the Pan-European Theory. Its argument is nine fold, and asserts that:

(1) A wealth of quotes derived from the source materials unmistakably point to the existence of a common core for all lineages, traditions, schools and styles within the Knightly Arts of medieval and Renaissance Europe. This considerable body of evidence,

...(2) coupled with the essentially "international" nature of feudal society,

...(3) and the existence of a historical fighting elite (the knightly class / warrior aristocracy / nobility) that operated within that society, also point to the existence of the postulated core. Furthermore,

...(4) one must acknowledge that it was the selfsame warrior aristocracy which was ultimately responsible for the organic emergence, maintenance and transmission of the Knightly Arts;

...(5) which were adjunct to, necessary for the propagation of, and indivisable from the cult of chivalry itself (which bound the aforesaid class/ caste together across tenuous borders). Additionally,

...(6) the identical weapons and other equipment of the aforesaid class also stand as strong indicators for the postulated core Art. Not only this, but...

...(7) the strong correlations and similarities (and in many cases even completely identical techniques / concepts) easily observed in the material of the known lineages and traditions when cross-analyzed;

...(8) together with the limitations of biomechanically effective fighting (as well as those capabilities and limitations imposed by a weapon's design), all stand as irrefutable proof that there was indeed a pan-European Art of combat, from which all constituent fighting arts of medieval and Renaissance Europe were derived. And in conclusion,

...(9), all of the above provides a clear, verifiable, and most importantly necessary a priori framework for the CMA / HEMA source materials and their assorted traditions, lineages, arts, schools, styles and amalgamated canon.

A caveat: the aforementioned applied almost solely to the chivalric clique, which existed as an effectively borderless caste, with an elite culture which knew no “nation,” but only an exclusive, overarching, hierarchical, insulated society built on familial and political bonds (these same inextricably intertwined with the feudal system of the day).

The De Facto proponent holds that anti-PET arguments are untenable, and that due to the considerable evidence presented in favor of TPET, the burden of proof now lies with its detractors. Moreover, De Facto practitioners assert that any definitive counterargument must take into account, and thoroughly refute all nine points of the De Facto Pan-European Argument.

De Facto grants that the foundational Art was flexible enough to allow for self-evident subtle variation, though it asserts the primacy of the aforesaid foundation; and moreover posits that, due to the lack of any direct living lineage, it is beneficial to study more than one source / lineage / tradition. However, it maintains that, though the foundation is primary, a particular tradition or lineage’s method of presentation, or pedagogy, is important; precisely because each offers the modern student another glimpse at the overall Art.

Lastly, the De Facto position has the largest body of evidence to support it, is arguably the most well-rounded, refined and clearly delineated of all the various positions within either the “weak” or “strong" spectrum of TPET. It acknowledges the following:

Art, the (the definite article): The ecumenical principles that form the underpinning, integral foundation of the fighting arts found within medieval and Renaissance Europe. Particularly relevant to the longsword, but applying to all weapons, and even fighting without them.

art (lower case A): the method of presentation, or pedagogy, of an individual master. Related, but not identical to Lineage (see below), as there were/are demonstrable differences to be found even within the same lineage (compare Vadi to Fiore, for example. Vadi is clearly within Fiore's lineage; yet Vadi's "art" differs in minor ways, and excludes some material found in Fiore's canon). A given master's derivative "art." Within Fiore's art there are techniques not found in Liechtenauer's, though both find their origin within the greater Art.

Lineage: An unbroken line of teaching from a single master.

School: The teachings of a single master within that master's school of defense, as influenced by the applicable lineage and tradition to which that school belongs. There may be considerable overlap with other traditions and lineages. Very few masters learned from a single source.

Style: A style is a completely personal way of fighting, though it still conforms to the instruction that helped to form it (or a good one does, at least).

Tradition: The amalgamated lineages within a given region, or regions. May or may not contain several lineages, though one usually has a place of prominence. One of the main determining factors for a tradition is the weapons of choice found within it.

Evidence: see above.

Strength of evidence: Very strong (9 points).

Examples: Bradak, Heslop, Hull, Marsden (???)

* * *

2, The Apathetic Pan-European Argument: holds many of the same opinions as De Facto, but views their expression or emphasis to be of little value. Moderately acknowledges that differences in weapon design will produce different overall arts, but holds that these differences are often circumstantial, and that all fighting arts will have an appreciable degree of overlap; occasionally even going so far as to posit that the differences between Kenjutsu and the Art of the Longsword are in many respects marginal. There are perhaps a few degrees or gradations within this position alone, ranging from weak, to moderate, to strong. May (but not necessarily) hold that studying more than one lineage / tradition / source is beneficial; and furthermore, may or may not necessarily acknowledge the primacy of the foundational core.

Evidence: identical weapons and other equipment; strong correlations, similarities, and even completely identical techniques / concepts observed in the material of the known lineages and traditions when cross-analyzed; the limitations of biomechanically effective fighting (as well as those imposed by a weapon‘s design).

Strength of evidence: Moderate (3 points).

Examples: Michael Chidester.

* * * * * *

The “Strong Spectrum” of the Pan-European Theory:

3, Hardline Pan-European Argument: the assorted traditions of the Chivalric Martial Arts / HEMA are so directly interrelated as to allow only the most negligible, flimsy individual expression. Pedagogies or instructional presentation are of little importance at all. The Hardliner also asserts the (ostensible) “superiority” of the Chivalric / Knightly Arts, as well as its branch-off arts, over all other comparable martial traditions (though this may simply be something of a knee-jerk push-back against the supposed “superiority” of the Asian martial arts, as touted by practitioners of the same).

Evidence: several quotes directly derived from the source materials which clearly and unmistakably make the case for a common core foundation; strong correlations, similarities, and even completely identical techniques / concepts observed in the material of the known lineages and traditions when cross-analyzed; the limitations of biomechanically effective fighting; because they say so.

Strength of evidence: Moderate (3 points)

Example: John Clements.

* * *

4, Generalized Pan-European Argument: holds many of the same views as Hardline, but more moderately so. Additionally, Generalized is arguably more well-rounded and does not necessarily posit any ostensible “superiority” to other martial traditions.

Evidence: several quotes directly derived from the source materials which clearly and unmistakably make the case for a common core foundation; identical weapons and other equipment within medieval / Renaissance Europe; strong correlations, similarities, and even completely identical techniques / concepts observed in the material of the known lineages and traditions when cross-analyzed; the limitations of biomechanically effective fighting.

Strength of evidence: Fairly strong (4 & ½ points)

Example: Heslop three years ago.

* * * * * *

Other:

Purist: there is no pan-European fighting art. Furthermore, you should pick an altar to pray at forthwith. There are two options: Fiore or Liechtenauer, and only fools bastardize them by mixing, to any degree. If one does so, then it follows that one does not practice “Historical European Martial Arts;” as to engage in mixing of "styles" precludes faithfully reproducing some imagined, stagnant and hermetically sealed “tradition.” Never mind the fact that the historical masters tell us they themselves sought out many masters and selected the elements which worked for them, or that they deemed best (Fiore, for example; though he's hardly the only one). Also, real swordsmen do not test cut or spar. Why? Because they say so. But they'll qoute Doebringer out of context to support their claims; even though Doebringer expressly praises "play," or sparring. In short, you'll need to get comfortable with cognative dissonance if you espouse this position.

Evidence & strength thereof: Negligible-to-nonexistent.

Example: Hugh Knight.

* * * * * *

Sub-Positions:

(5), Dogmatic: In a sense, this is essentially the default "agnostic" (Purist being the full-blown "atheistic" view) or noncommittal position to TPET. The Dogmatic practitioner may perhaps be dimly cognizant of the credence of TPET (to one degree or another), but does not treat with, let alone delve into more than one lineage (and may even eschew whole traditions, preferring to focus on one lineage alone, or perhaps even the work of a sole master. See "Liechtenauer fetishist" for more information). A strict adherence to "canon" is paramount to this view, and will often exclude source materials which they deem to be "outside" of their view of what constitutes "canon." An example of the Dogmatic view is the exclusion of Talhoffer from the canon of the Liechtenauer lineage because Kal fails to mention him.

Evidence & strength thereof: doesn't bother with such trifles.

Example: Jake Norwood (???)

(7), Moderate Pan-European Argument: To be found somewhere between Generalized and De Facto. Its defining characteristic from Generalized is that it is perhaps more defined, and provides additional evidence. Moderate is nominally part of the "Strong Spectrum," but is the weakest thereof.

Evidence: several quotes directly derived from the source materials which clearly and unmistakably make the case for a common core foundation; identical weapons and other equipment within medieval / Renaissance Europe; strong correlations, similarities, and even completely identical techniques / concepts observed in the material of the known lineages and traditions when cross-analyzed; the limitations of biomechanically effective fighting (together with those capabilities and limitations imposed by a weapon‘s design).

Evidence: Strong (5 points).

Examples: Heslop about 2 years ago.

* * *

(8), Minimalist Pan-European Argument: like Moderate Pan-Europeanism, the Minimalist stance is something of a sub-position; though it falls within the “Weak Argument Spectrum.” In many respects, Minimalist Pan-Europeanism is very similar to Apathetic Pan-Europeanism. To wit, both posit that the emphasis of the foundation or nucleus of the Knightly Arts is of little value.

However, whereas the Apathetic sees at least some value in the exploration, analysis, and expression within argument of the ecumenical principles of the Art, the Minimalist sees no value therein, holding such to be immaterial. Moreover, the minimalist holds that a great amount of overlap within martial arts will always be present, regardless of weapon design or similarities or differences (great or small) between respective cultures (say, European vs. Asian); and that, because of these factors, it is pointless to make appeals to the core (one could get the same benefit from studying Kenjutsu) and thus asserts the primacy of style / pedagogy. Lastly, the Minimalist sees no merit in studying more than one tradition / lineage. The Minimalist may, however, dabble in more than one tradition / lineage from time to time.

This position has the least in terms of supporting argument, source material evidence, or literature to support it; and moreover is inherently self-degrading or entropic (leads to Dogmatic/Purist). Though a sub-position, Minimalist Pan-Europeanism is nominally within the “Weak” spectrum, and is the weakest of the Weak arguments.

Evidence: the limitations of biomechanically effective fighting.

Strength of evidence: Very weak (not even a whole point).

Example: Bart Walczak.

-B.

A Salute to Wiktenauer

2011-11-27T23:13:00.001-08:00

No, this isn't a facetious post. I know that I have often ragged on this fine resource. I've even questioned its motives. But recently a dispute which I've been privately privy to was resolved. Moreover, it was handled with grace and dignity, (two traits I lack). I have been proven wrong, and I am truly glad for it.

I've just spent a couple of very enjoyable hours pouring over the site, as well. That it is an excellent resource simply cannot be denied. Indeed, if it had been around five years ago, I would have had a lot easier time disproving the fallacious statements of chowderheads. Not only that, but our work on Lessons on the English Longsword would have been much less difficult. It's ironic, really: the very resource of which I would make an enemy, is in fact a priceless aide to my cause. And all for free, too. Not bad.

I don't like eating crow, but I'd like to take this opportunity to publicly state a few things: Wiktenauer stands as an incomparable achievement in the indexing and cataloguing of the source materials. Mr. Chidester and Mr. Michels have accomplished much in a very short span of time; and more importantly, they have done so honestly and with a great deal of integrity. I admire honesty, and so I must congratulate them. Lastly, some of my remarks regarding this subject have stemmed from knee-jerk reactions, and that's disgraceful. I therefore humbly offer my apologies. Keep up the good work, gentlemen.

Veritatem fratribus testari,

-Brandon Paul Heslop.

Hugh Knight made me do it!

Rebuttal To B. Walczak, Part One: Evidence

2011-11-26T21:32:00.000-08:00

It was bound to happen sooner or later: the first negative review of Lessons on the English Longsword has at last materialized. Considering the somewhat limited array of possible candidates to author such a critique, it perhaps verges on the cosmically apropos that it ended up being Bart Walczak who ultimately penned it. Fortunately for us, the negatives of this aforementioned review are all, rather unsurprisingly, academic in origin. This narrows the scope of his review, which is ensconced in a magazine for medievalists (Black Belt Magazine it isn’t, folks).

The following rebuttal is in two parts: Evidence and Context. A forewarning: it is a polemical response (surprise, surprise). If you don’t like it, that’s too bad. Polemic debate has a long history, has much to recommend it, and is appropriate when addressing the obtuse. The danger of a polemic is that one can alienate some among one’s audience; but this is the price of the Truth and of conviction. Personally, we don’t feel too badly about choosing such a mode of response, particularly given the unsupported (and anemic) ad hominem attacks made in Mr. Walczak’s review. Still, we were a little surprised that he did not, as a courtesy, make us aware of it; especially since it was going to appear in print. That’s what we would have done, but I suppose we really must give him his due for being Machiavellian. “No enterprise is more likely to succeed than one concealed from the enemy until it is ripe for execution,” after all. Bart may well have thought that such a publication, largely confined to Europe, might sail under our radar.

What follows is a point-by-point refutation (and/or acknowledgement) of the issues raised by Mr. Walczak in his review of Lessons on the English Longsword, as it appeared in Medieval Warfare I.3, (September 26, 2011). It will be kept as brief as possible. However, considering the profound depth of Mr. Walzcak’s misunderstanding, be it deliberate or merely born of his ignorance, any attempt at brevity may well be an exercise in futility.

The reviewer’s points appear in italics, Heslop’s answers are in bold, and Bradak’s are in plain text. This gives the effect of a modified analytic Socratic dialogue, filtered through a polemicist’s lens, and that’s intentional. It’s possible that we may press into service a third party to edit our response as it appears here, and submit that edited version to the aforementioned magazine (to comply with their guidelines; they're not overly keen on polemics) for publication. If so, Mr. Walczak will likely publish a response to our rebuttal in the same issue. We haven’t decided whether or not to do this yet, honestly. In any event, we begin with the first of his complaints, and end with the last. Positive points made by the reviewer have mostly been omitted…

Unfortunately, no facsimile is included in the book, and since the authors relied on third-party transcripts, proper critical verification of the text is not possible.

True. However, the Harleian manuscript has been in print - facsimile and all - for over a century: it appears in Hutton’s Sword and the Centuries. Regarding the other two texts (there are, in fact, only three. Man yt Wol is tacked on at the end of the Harleian, though it is probably older, perhaps 14th century), we had a very reliable source for the Cottonian (the source is an accredited academic herself, and is cited openly in the book), and every pain was taken to ensure that the Ledall manuscript was presented as accurately as possible. Moreover, one of the authors has conferred via email with fellow scholar Terry Brown regarding the accuracy of Mr. Mitchell’s transcript of the Ledall document, and was assured by that party that it is indeed quite good. Therefore, this seems to us to be an extraordinarily shallow complaint.

[In Breaking the Code] the authors attempt to make an argument for a Pan-European fighting style that would transcend all borders (but only in Europe), and allow for direct near-instantaneous transference of skills and ideas between various parts of Europe. Certainly, one cannot deny that many similar elements, especially those of the most basic type, are present in all combat systems from that period, and that such exchange did indeed happen. However, to argue that the differences are "at most stylistic", betrays the lack of in-depth understanding of the subject.

This is a gross and frankly unforgivable oversimplification of our argument. For those interested in knowing what our argument actually is, they can read our thesis Unified Theory: the Pan-European Art of Fighting here. He must be confusing us with John Clements, whose views on the subject were never particularly refined. Moreover, our esteemed colleague Richard Marsden expands and expounds upon many of the points made in our thesis in his own, which can be read here. And lastly, Mr. Walczak has blatantly ignored the words of the author (or authors) of one of our primary surviving sources, the Hanko Dobringer manuscript:

“And before all things you should know and understand that the Sword is only one Art, and it was devised and thought out hundreds of years ago. This Art is the foundation and core; and it was completely understood and known by Master Liechtenauer. Not that he himself devised or thought out what is described, but he traveled and searched through many lands since he wanted to learn and experience this Art,” (Lindholm translation).

This type of complaint is invariably academic, or specialistic in origin. Most experienced martial artists find our position self evident. In contrast, most of the naysayers (and that's really what their arguments amount to: nuh-uh!), are academics and internet trolls of all stripes; from those masquerading as long dead masters on Facebook, to the cowardly senders of anonymous emails.

Well, he also ignores the words of Master Siber (to be found in our book), as well as other masters. And his rather reluctant admittance that there were “certainly” basic similarities reeks of damage control.

It does. In fact, last I heard, Bart Walczak is about as far away from pan-anything as anyone could get. I recall quite distinctly one heated debate (if you could call his style of discussion “debate;” see Context) I had with the aforementioned. It’s sadly now irrevocably lost in the wastes of the ARMA e-list, but it involved this very subject. In brief, he was (and I can only assume still is) convinced that Master Liechtenauer had invented the Art of the Longsword - and all of its constituents, or component techniques - whole cloth. I’m not kidding.

So, according to him, before Liechtenauer, there was no such thing as a Zornhau, (the most basic, powerful strike one can perform with any weapon), or the Zwerchhau (which the Doebringer manuscript praises as the most excellent in that it both defends the body and strikes the adversary simultaneously). At least as they applied to the longsword. To him, Liechtenauer was the first guy to connect the dots. He thinks Liechtenauer invented the wheel; never mind that the Doebringer manuscript specifically says that he didn’t.

The ironic things is, were that extremely unlikely assertion to be taken for truth, it would make what we see as self evident even easier to prove: 1, Liechtenauer invented the Art of the Longsword; 2, the fighting men of the day had to be trained to be effective, and thus sought instruction in the use of the weapons of the day; 3,
knights and men-at-arms throughout Europe possessed longswords. Therefore, the Art of the Longsword was/is pan-European. Of course, that isn’t true. The Art of the Longsword is pan-European, but not because Liechtenauer supposedly invented fire.

Right. He even alludes to this belief in his review, when cites an unnamed master: “…a strike that not many other masters can tell anything about…” But what did this shadowy master mean by strike, specifically? And regarding the Doebringer quote, Mr. Walczak simply dismisses such things as “grandiose;” he said the same thing about the Siber quote. Perhaps Meyer, too, was being “grandiose,” and Ringeck when he claimed that all fighting comes from unarmed fighting (thus implying a fundamental and necessary core foundation which was universal). Fiore echoes this when he talks about the principles of Abrazare being the “pillars of the Art.” Perhaps we cannot trust Fiore, either.

But of course when we’re talking about unarmed fighting, we’re talking about human biomechanics. Humans aren’t radically different in terms of physiology. So, in this sense he’s right about there being natural overlaps. But when we consider the core Art in whole, we must take into account the weapons used within it. The longsword is radically different from a katana; however, it cannot be called radically different from itself from region-to-region within medieval and Renaissance Europe. Therefore, any distinctions or divisions within the Art of the Longsword are proven to be inherently artificial rather than organic; and thus less important than the core. But he won’t hear of this, or simply ignores it (he certainly did in his review). And if he’s right, thank goodness for academics who can tell us which bits are trustworthy and which are not.

Yes, because the foundation, according to Bart is “immaterial;” as he recently claimed on Facebook.

Indeed, it’s only the branches of the tree that matter. But taking that position necessarily reduces the Art to the stereotypical view the Victorians held about the earlier methods: it diminishes the assorted lineages into so many bags of tricks bereft of any cohesive unity, or governing laws. It’s touting the subjective over the objective, the Sophist over the seeker after truth. And that’s simply ludicrous. That won’t stand. There must be governing laws. There must be a foundation; furthermore, that foundation must be primary, and cares nothing for Bart’s opinion. Because it’s a reality.

Moreover, I’m incredulous. Specifically, I question whether or not he’s actually qualified to make the statement that we lack “in-depth understanding.” As far as I can tell, he studies the German Tradition exclusively. I doubt he’s ever given Fiore so much as a second glance. He can claim that he’s trained with, or crossed swords with “Fiore-ists,” sure. But has he studied the material himself? He may have, but from my exchanges with him, he seemed woefully ignorant of Fiore’s material.

So, looking at one piece of the puzzle is apparently enough for him to cast judgment on our overall knowledge of the subject as a whole. I think not. In light of all that, it’s a rather unwieldy statement he’s made about our lack of “in-depth understanding;” it lacks the vocabulary to complete the sentence. It is the postulation of a functional illiterate. And I really must therefore take his call for “more than one source” on Facebook to be laughably hypocritical. Besides that, we’ve given him numerous sources and he invariably poisons the well.

And what’s more, this is circular logic he’s engaging in. It springs from a strongly-held consensus, particularly in Europe, that the known lineages and traditions were “very, very different” to quote Matt Easton (this was on the ARMA forum). A certain amount of national pride may (key word, may) play a part in this consensus, (and remember that von Danzig comes from a region that today is in Poland, so they can “lay claim” to the German Tradition). This pride is understandable, if perhaps somewhat misplaced; but it certainly doesn't make the aforesaid consensus true. Now, Bart proceeds from this consensus to a desire to enshrine it in legitimacy. When that legitimacy is challenged, the counterargument, no matter how cogent, is challenged and deemed to be “immaterial.” This or that bit of evidence is inadmissible for such-and-such flimsy reason. And then we’re back to the false consensus, and the push for legitimacy. The strategy is to “nickel-and-dime” the asserted position, regardless of evidence in its favor, into oblivion.

The Pan-European Theory has been given a lot more credence, and has gained a much greater degree of acceptance in America. It doesn’t do too badly in Canada and in Australia, either. I think in some respects it may be easier for we “colonials” to see it; because while we may have a fondness for Europe and its assorted national identities (I do), we don’t have the emotional baggage that goes along with all that.

He should start a religion, really. Liechtenauer personifies the Art for him. He has deified him, made him Hercules. He treats the entire subject as if it’s something akin to religious canon; and he is the inquisitor, and we’re the heretics. We’re the Cathars, the Gnostics who worship the “God beyond God,” as it were, and he’s got to stamp us out in the Name of Yaldabaoth. Because the heretics can be tolerated only so long as they stay quiet and don’t get uppity; but the minute they publish a book, they have to be purged.

And it’s not as if our view has remained static. In my own case, quite the contrary. I began my studies in this subject believing - as many others did, and some still maintain - that Fiore’s “art” was inherently more defensive than the “art” espoused by the Society of Liechtenauer. And why did I believe this? Because Flos Duellatorum was available to read online, and I studied mostly that. The only real exposure to the German material I’d had at that point that wasn’t effectively secondhand was Medieval Combat; that awful translation of one of Talhoffer’s treatises. The German material therefore seemed mysterian and very aggressive to me. The truth is, of course, that Fiore’s “art” is just as aggressive as Liechtenauer’s “art.” And we had several arguments about this, and you kept testing me, and I kept testing you, and we tried a lot of things out. And gradually more German material became available, and as it did it began to make more sense to me. I began seeing the connections.

So, our view has been refined by the lathe of the crucible, and by taking in more information than some do. In this way, we have taken every precaution possible to avoid circular reasoning. If that’s not “scholarly,” nothing is. Now, Bart may have gone through this process, or he may have not; but if he has, I can’t see it.

Neither can I. And I think you’ve got a point about the American thing, too.

Well, there are other opinions on that: there’s at least one that I know of who holds that we upstart Americans should “listen to the European HEMAists,” before we form our own opinions. I suppose it must be that they live in the same geographical region that the masters did, and thus the Art is somehow less inscrutable to them. Which is patently absurd. They used the same line of attack against Clements (not that I like Clements): “the Historical European Martial Arts were not invented in Houston.” Well, no, they weren’t. But that said, modern day European martial artists are no closer to the masters than Americans, Canadians, Australians, or New Zealanders, or what have you. The idea that they mystically somehow are closer to the masters is perhaps the finest example of groupthink I’ve ever run across. The culture’s changed in thousands of ways since the 1700’s, let alone the Renaissance or the medieval period. This last bit is a non sequitur, however.

It’s also revoltingly sycophantic and pure brownnosing. And yes, that’s just more context. It doesn’t make our case. But again, the other points do that. We don’t provide it as proof, just background. Those new to the subject and its modern practitioners don’t know the underlying politics involved within the “HEMA” collective.

I can already see Bart’s response to the religion analogy: “Cheap shot!” That’s special pleading. A cheap shot it may be, but that doesn’t make it untrue. It may be untrue, of course, but I doubt it. Besides, it’s “material by analogy,” as he says. The unsupported ad hominem that he throws in at the end of the quote is rather cute though, all things considered.

Yeah. Look, if you’re going to insult us, fine. Just back it up.

He doesn’t have the artillery to do that, and he knows it. That’s why he’s hiding behind foppery.

And so much of his method of "debate" is dependant upon the perception that he is holding some spurious high moral ground. He plays a game of attrition, all the while betting that he can outlast you on the merry-go-round. He knows that you’ll get exasperated with him and tell him to fuck off…

I did.

Right, and as soon as you do that - as far as he’s concerned - he “wins” by default; he can claim some hollow “moral” victory.

It’s called being an academic. I hate academics; they make a living out of being obtuse. But of course, that alone doesn’t disprove him. It’s just ad hominem, albeit supported with ample prior personal experience with the man in question.

No, but our other points do. I mention it because they’ll see, in his response to this, that what we’re saying is true.

Yes.

The authors fail to take into account the fact that the long sword was a relatively recent innovation at that time, and that the invention, and propagation of the evolution of both skills and the weapon itself takes time.

We did? This is news to us. It’s right there in the book. Maybe he didn’t read it. And again, Mr. Walczak is apparently under the delusion that the Art of the Longsword burst forth into being, in its entirety, like some episode of spontaneous combustion.

If I understand his logic correctly, the longsword was invented, and once the advent of the weapon occurred, then there was a sudden, never-before-experienced need for skill in its use. That’s, well, preposterous. Any rational person knows that things simply don’t happen that way.

Furthermore, we provided the framework for that evolution in the section entitled The Lineage of the Longsword in Chapter I. Briefly, the longsword is a descendant of the earlier epee de guerre, the form of which underwent transitional changes due to advances in the armour of the day, ultimately becoming the longsword. The Art evolved along with the weapon, the weapon with the armour, and any number of other factors. It was an organic process that took quite some time (which, as it happens, is exactly what the Dobringer manuscript says).

So, once again, we must conclude that Mr. Walczak either did not read our book, or else he is deliberately misrepresenting its content. Also, there are early transitional “longsword” types still in existence from as early as 1240.

(Early transitional longsword from about 1240)

From Chapter I: “…the longsword represents an adaptation...a refinement of the earlier cutting sword (epee de guerre)…its method of use dictated by its design, and its design dictated by the conditions it faced: war, tempered by the needs of the duel - while still drawing heavily on what came before it, tangible or otherwise. It is this art that Liechtenauer (among others) codified…Finally, the art of the longsword as it comes down to us (that is, in its recognizable form) is a refinement of the mid-to-late 14th century and no sooner…”

That much is no secret, and provides ample time for propagation and evolution. We didn’t think that when the weapon physically existed would be called into question by another researcher.

We expected more from you, Bart.

In fact, they themselves admit that not everyone could know everything, because during this period secrecy was key to one's survival.

Yes, we do. A lot of that had to do with not allowing a potential opponent to see you train, and thus pick up on any patterns. Boxers watch recordings of those that they're going to go up against in the ring for the same purpose. Does that divide modern boxing into seperate "arts?" It's more about personal styles, which constitute the thinnest sliver of the overall Art. How this pertains to Mr. Walczak’s “point,” whatever it is, I’m stumped on. It can only be that, once again, he seems to be tacitly misrepresenting the content of our book in such a way as to defend the indefensible. Namely, the opinion that the various martial traditions of medieval and Renaissance Europe were very different from one another.

True, and the context is either skewed or misunderstood as well. Master Fiore admitted that not everyone could know everything, and any martial artist who says so now is a liar or an egomaniac. This is separate from the issue of secrecy, in which information was deliberately kept out of the hands of the common people, yet shared within the ranks of chivalric elite, as Master Fiore also states.

"A strike that not many other masters can tell anything about", as one fencing master aptly put it, could have saved one’s life more than once.

Doubtless it could have. But, as another master aptly put it: “For as we are not all of a single nature, so we also cannot have a single style in combat; yet all must nonetheless arise and be derived from a single basis,” (Meyer, Kevin Maurer translation). And another: “There are some Leychmeister ("dance masters") who say they have invented a new art, thinking that the art of fighting will be improved day by day. I, however, would like to see one who can come up with a fighting technique or strike not part of Liechtenauer's Art,” (Doebringer, Brian Price translation).

The sources strongly suggest that for at least fifty years the teachings of Johannes Liechtenauer remained a closely guarded secret, unlocked only by the later generation of students, when the knowledge was perhaps common enough not to warrant the secrecy any longer.

Yes, but again, a closely guarded secret within a certain class: namely, the warrior aristocracy. Not only is he attempting to draw a correlation here to when when the longsword began to fall out of practical use, he's suggesting that it began its descent way too early! Besides, the various pedagogies were already deeply commingled long before the point when the longsword's combat applications were beginning to deteriorate.

And furthermore, if it was so very secret, then how did the secret get out to the degree that the aforementioned secrecy was no longer warranted? If what he's saying were true, then someone must have been able to “unlock” it in order for it to become "common" in the first place. But if this secrecy was so very impenetrable as he suggests, then wouldn't it preclude that very thing from happening, (unless, of course, there existed an underlying, universal foundation)? No. The only thing that's impenetrable is his circular logic. Because Liechtenauer was likely a mid-14th century figure, and if Doebringer (1480's) constitutes one of the latter students directly instructed by Liechtenauer himself, then we've still got the whole 15th century to go; and the longsword was still more or less a combat-effective weapon well into the first part of the 16th. That's a long time. More than enough time for the Liechtenauer lineage to intertwine itself with any number of others. So, even if he were right, he'd still be wrong.

So, it would have been a secret within the warrior aristocracy, yes; but given the nature of feudal society, not all of the aforementioned would have been German. Fiore himself had both Italians and Germans for students, and likewise learned from an international set of instructors; and he speaks in no uncertain terms about keeping the Art a secret. But not from other members of his class, but from the peasants.

He hasn’t thought this out. Sure, they tried to hone the Art, to outdo the competition. Certainly, they attempted to keep their efforts and their points of focus secret. But how successful could such an endeavor have been? Though their applications were infinite, the options - the underlying principles - were and remain finite; particularly given the fact that we’re talking about an integrated system: “Thus will you learn gallant and cunning fighting with the longsword [upon foot]. Therewith you – without gauntlets and without full harness – guard your hands and all your body. [This goes] for all hand-to-hand weaponry – thus for sword, for spear, for halberd, for long messer, and for other weapons,” (Hugues Wittenwiller, Jeff Hull translation). And we know that there was intermixing of pedagogies! Attempting to transmogrify Liechtenauer into some kind of Archimedes of swordsmanship won’t change that. And no, that’s not a “cheap shot,” it’s a valid counterpoint.

And let’s say, just for argument, that perhaps the teachings of Master L. truly were as closely guarded as he claims. How closely guarded could they really be within his undoubtedly wide-ranging branches of schools? Even if his system were hermetically sealed to a chosen few out of an already elite group - numbering in mere the thousands at a liberal estimate - how different could it have been; and how truly secret amongst such an already exclusive demographic that promiscuously cross-trained with one another, and learned from as many instructors, some of them presumably form different martial lineages? And before you go there, yes, there is proof that others existed at the time.

Right! Exactly. The chastity of the Liechtenauer lineage had been violated long before he thinks; and more importantly, it's mother was of easy virtue within the class that made use of her. The practitioners of the Art were already closely interconnected by familial bonds, the cult of chivalry (which encompasses an entire, insulated culture unto itself; and one which, for the caste that espoused it, transcended borders), feudal oaths of loyalty, politics, and much else besides. That they might want to attempt to keep Liechtenauer’s pedagogy secret from their fellow elites, we do not contest. But were they successful to an appreciable degree? Were the Free Masons successful? I don’t see how the practitioners of the Liechtenauer pedagogy could be completely successful, particularly given the fact that the fighting men of the day traveled far and wide to learn from as many masters as they could.

Let’s take Siber as another example. He says that his “art” contains the teachings of masters from all over Europe. Does Liechtenauer’s martial lineage contain the super-secret ninja techniques of the West? Things right out of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (this is called hyperbole, people). If so, then Siber’s “art” should display a tremendous degree of diversity from the distinct Liechtenauer pedagogy. But it doesn’t. He uses the same vocabulary and technical syllabus that the other Germanic masters do, (the Society of Liechtenauer included): winding, Schädelhau, Langenort, Krump, Zwerch, etc.

Yet, Siber says he studied under masters from all over the place, and he‘s not the only one. With all this intermixing, just how secret could this clandestine art of the esoteric elite-of-the-elite be? And since we’re talking about strikes, what about what Vadi says? “He that knows many strikes brings poison with him,” (Luca Porzo translation). Other examples are Fiore and Doebringer both using “iron gate” in an identical way. But wait, Doebringer’s part of the Liechtenauer canon. It must be a conspiracy! You can accuse us of cherry-picking if you want; but we're ending up with a wheelbarrow full of cherries.

Now, let’s examine the case of the Codex Wallerstein. There are a lot of techniques in there that are fairly unique. You - generally - don’t find them in other sources. This supports Bart’s conclusions, right? Wrong. How does the Codex Wallerstein begin? With the basics: stance, weight distribution, striking, binding and winding. The foundational principles which are supposedly "immaterial." From there, it enters into the verboten techniques, the apocrypha. That’s right, the secret, hush-hush stuff. And yet, one or two of these even show up in the English material, and you can see others in different sources. You can see some of it in Fiore. There’s a lot of mixing. So, just how secret was it? Yes, no one can know everything. Fiore says so plainly. The Art is vast, but that does not mean that it’s not the Art, the definite article. Does this negate, or lessen the value of the foundation? Of course not. That’s an asinine position to take. The issue at contention here is one of primacy: we say the core is primary; Mr. Walczak is at pains to prove that it’s not. A difficult proposition for him, considering the amount of evidence. I really hate having to spell things out. It puts me in a foul mood.

Bart’s assertion contradicts itself: the core foundation doesn’t matter, but there were basic similarities; the fighting men of the day learned from as many sources as possible, yet the different traditions and lineages were completely stagnant, self-contained, and somehow mysteriously very distinct from one another. This is pure cognitive dissonance. His argument that the assorted lineages were substantially different arises from a single data point: “A strike that not many other masters do not know about,” is useful, yes. But it does not comprise an Art. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Moreover, the truth stands up to scrutiny, whereas Bart’s assertions simply fall apart when you put any weight on them.

Interestingly, the conclusions of the later part of the book are defensible without such unnecessarily strong, antagonizing, and often baseless statements on the part of the authors.

Ah, the old fallacy of tone argument has reared its head. Much of our work is admittedly polemical; that said, we do not view polemical as a pejorative. Furthermore, there is a reason much of our work is polemical, and much of it has to do with the reluctance of certain parties to acknowledge the merit of overwhelming evidence. We are indeed a pair of ruthless antagonists at times; but antagonists armed with cogent arguments backed up with evidence. So, polemical, yes. But baseless? Hardly. And yes, it is "interesting," isn't it? I wonder why...

And let’s say that we had made our case less strongly. What would his line have been then? It would have been that our evidence is weak, and therefore we didn’t make our case. We had to make it as strongly as we did, precisely because of the obtuse proclivities of some in certain corners of the “HEMAsphere.”

I would like to hear what was so very baseless, so that I might serve him up the desired basis for our statements on a silver platter. Heap after heap after heap of basis. We didn’t make it up, people. What is, in fact, baseless is such a claim made without any specification, example or evidence. We must’ve hurt a feel bad.

Analogies drawn between an English style of fighting and those coming from other parts of Europe are credible in their own right, and rely mostly on basic skills, which indeed were most likely common throughout late Medieval Europe.

No argument here.

[The following chapters] lack [the] scholarly discipline that I personally would prefer to see in this kind of publication.

This is nothing more than an academic sneer; the strutting of a peacock. A Sophist's argument. And due to the fact that this statement is made without any bolstering argument or evidence, and given previous conversations between our part and the reviewer, I therefore dismiss this statement as a mere ad hominem attack. Not that we personally find anything wrong with ad hominem attacks, per se; we simply think that they should be supported with proof. We feel that the weight of the evidence presented favors us, and that the burden of proof lies with Mr. Walczak. Well-reasoned arguments bolstered by the words of the masters themselves stand as our proofs. And therefore, if Mr. Walczak wishes to do more than simply twist our words and poison the font, he should produce better evidence. As it stands, and in light of the merits of the respective arguments, we also feel that any reasonably objective person must be compelled conclude that the reviewer’s case is not proven.

Sadly, no illustration in the book, with a single exception, is credited, and some are outright misleading. A good example is an unattributed woodcut of a wounded man by Duerer, modified with a straight cross dividing it into four quarters with a stylized caption "Silver's four quarters". If one was not familiar with the picture, it would be easy to conclude that this picture was a faithful reproduction from George Silver's treatise.

Yes, because they had Windows Paint in the 1600’s. No, really, they did.

All kidding aside, I find this quibble very silly. We selected what we thought was a suitable picture - and still think that it is, given the nature of what it depicts - and overlaid it with two crossed lines to illustrate the four quarters. Yes, there is a stylized font (which we also felt was appropriate). Nonetheless, it is painfully obvious that the picture was altered to suit our purposes. Neither of us is terribly great at production quality. We simply wanted a period image with which to convey the concept. We do grant that it is not attributed, however.

That said, Mr. Walczak’s wording here leaves something to be desired, and is itself misleading. He makes it seem as if there are simply scads of pieces of unattributed historical artwork in the book, with “only a single exception.” In fact, there are only three in total.

Admittedly, I knew before placing the “wound man” in there that it might irk an academic or two. We thought it was suitably tongue-in-cheek; rife ground for academic criticism and martial amusement, well within the tradition of the original fechtbucher themselves (Fiore is a smartass, for example). We all know academics have no sense of humor. Given that Bart’s review was entirely academic, I’m not surprised; but yes, I must admit it was unattributed, however inane attributing it might have been. Spoiler alert: there are a couple of jokes in the recommended reading list as well.

[The] aesthetical experience is poor – the pictures are very contrasty or dark, and some details have been lost because of the black and white printing. Furthermore, the foliage in the background can be quite distracting at times.

Well, on some levels he's talking in the purely subjective here. Nonetheless, the actions depicted in the pictures are always clear. I wouldn't have allowed pictures in the book in which the reader would be unable to tell what we were doing. Otherwise, we concede the point.

I never noticed. I like the cool "light saber effect" we got in some of them from the sunlight. Actually they could’ve been full color, etc. but you’d have to pay a few hundred more. Also, Bart is apparently distracted by trees. Interesting...

The reference section is rather weak, and should be treated mostly as a first step in the exploration of the subject, and not in any way as a definite resource.

See? Remember what I said about if we'd made our case less strongly? Ha! We openly admit that it’s not meant to be a comprehensive bibliography. We merely listed those books which we felt were essential to our work on Lessons on the English Longsword, as well as those which we thought the reader might find useful. Pretty simple, really.

Actually I think it’s one of the better recommended reading lists for the Knightly Arts in any book out there; and in my opinion it is definitive for the specific subject of medieval/Renaissance swordsmanship as it applies to the Kingdom of England. But he's right; it shouldn’t be confused for a complete bibliography. In fact most of our sources are attributed outright, or are to be found within our extensive footnotes, (a hallmark of any scholarly work, in my opinion). If I wanted to be a dick, I could draw comparisons to his published book, which lacks recommended reading and footnotes, besides having some critical mistranslation.

I’ll be the dick. I don’t care.

Perhaps we should show a little mercy…

Pugnare ad digitum!

No, I think we’ve said enough; we’ve made all our points. We could go on, but it’s not worth the bother. He knows he’s wrong. And if he doesn’t, well…I’m not going to go there.

The reviewer then goes on to trash the production quality of our book, but this is really directed at the fine people at Paladin Press. Our editor, Jon Ford, was fantastic. I know the quality of his work. The layout is excellent. The info flows well. We didn’t put that together. The folks at Paladin did. And this from a Paladin Press author, no less. In all seriousness, the comments are so shabby that they simply aren’t even worth deigning to redress.

Yeah.

Today this book enjoys the monopoly on being the sole book on the subject…

Do you bite your thumb at us, sir?

Note: given our numerous articles and multiple theses on some of these subjects, we feel the burden of proof is placed firmly in the court of those who wish to disprove our views, (something we’ve never seen attempted). Therefore, in future, when and if further reviews surface, we will simply refer the reader to a pre-existing refutation, or refutations. The ammunition we’ve seen being unloaded at us all these years has been pretty meager, and Bart’s review is no exception.

- B & C , 11/26/11.

PROCEED TO PART TWO: CONTEXT

Rebuttal To B. Walczak, Part Two: Context

2011-11-26T21:22:00.000-08:00

In the interest of full disclosure, we should perhaps make the reader fully aware of some background: both of the authors of LotEL have debated Mr. Walczak before, and these exchanges have not always ended as amicably as they perhaps could have. We believe that this should be taken into consideration when reading his review of our book. That said, keep in mind that this post does not stand as proof of our arguments over his, nor is it explicitly a counterattack. It is merely context. Context alone cannot stand as proof, but what it can do is shed light on motivation and on modus operandi. In this case, the motivations and M.O. of one Bart Walczak.

We are no strangers to the difficult task of jousting in the realm of ideas with Bart. Combined, we’ve debated several subjects over the years (Brandon less than Casper, however). And, if we are to be completely honest - as indeed we wish to be - in addition to being a degreed physicist, he is a learned and eloquent opponent. However, these do not number amongst the reasons why he is a difficult adversary to find sitting across from one at the debating table…

Simply put, there is no debating with Mr. Walczak: if one finds oneself inhabiting a position that is contrary to his own, he simply will not permit a debate regarding the matter to occur. He engages one in an obtuse exercise altogether different from a debate: he will “converse” with one on the matter, and in a round about sort of way, inform one with canonical certainty that one is irredeemably wrong. This process may or may not be accompanied with evidence or actual arguments in his favor. If one protests at this, he will not hear of it, and will tell one in the in the most condescending fashion he can muster that one is - still - wrong.

You can provide counterpoints, back them up with solid evidence and good arguments that directly disprove, or simply cast doubt upon to his position. It’s of no concern to him: he will inevitably either refuse to acknowledge their merit by poisoning the well, engage in special pleading (“cheap shot!”), proffer non sequiturs (“do you trust Doebringer’s magical spells, too?“), or simply ignore them and come at one again with the same talking points, albeit in a slightly more oblique manner. In sum: to debate Mr. Walzcak is to - unknowingly or unknowingly - purchase a ticket for an amusement park ride that does nothing but circumnavigate an infuriating circle, ad nauseum, for what seems like an eternity. It’s enough to make one wish he had been aborted and therefore would not have had to endure that particular excruciating, pedantic merry-go-round at all. It’s a game of ever-depleting attrition, and no evidence, no matter how strong or material, will break the cycle. He will see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

Due to this predilection on the part of Mr. Walczak, we do not intend to engage him in a debate regarding his mendacious review of our book. We could no more do that than walk on water. We can merely offer a thorough rebuttal, which you will find above this post.

And yet, again we must say that Mr. Walczak is indeed the keenly intelligent, well-spoken individual we have said he is; albeit one who has rather unfortunately taken it upon himself to defend an untenable standpoint. Indeed, he has chosen to ignore the words of the masters of the Art - the final authority (what other sources do we have?) from whence all modern practitioners derive both knowledge of the Art, and ultimately, skill in it.

This is all we wish to say regarding this matter.

- B & C.

New & Improved...

2011-11-24T19:33:00.001-08:00

-B.

http://lessonsontheenglishlongsword.blogspot.com/2011/11/positions.html

The Mandrake...

2011-11-24T15:27:00.001-08:00

To those who have contacted me to inform me of how angry, upset, or offended they are (all three of you) by some of my recent words on Facebook, I have only this to say: I was going to go away. I was going to leave off active participation in this subject, become a passive online participant who cranks out a video or so a month, but otherwise focuses on other endeavors. But now, you have reinvested me in the fight, and in the process have summoned up a bloody-minded demon you're going to have a hard time shaking off. You don't pull up a mandrake without expecting repercussions.

-B.

http://lessonsontheenglishlongsword.blogspot.com/2011/11/context-from-fiore-and-aristotelian.html

Context from Fiore, and Aristotelian Metaphysical Formula as Refutation...

2011-11-24T13:42:00.000-08:00

It has been asserted that the plainly self-evident foundation, or "core" as the Doebringer manuscript puts it, is immaterial. That this is a ludicrous position is equally self-evident (or should be), but why? In answer, allow me to make something of a poor pass at an Aristotelian formula:

Can a house be built without a foundation? Can the architect design, or the engineer erect a skyscraper without a firm grounding in mathematics? Can a man come into being without the building blocks of DNA? Can a martial art be spawned and thereafter thrive without workable underlying principles? No.

With that self-evident premise in place, then: can houses, or skyscrapers be different from one another? Yes, they can. But we must - crucially - take into consideration the prevailing aesthetic of the locale, the available materials, the tools, and the technological capabilities of the builders. Within cultures, these will vary, but within the general region - while there may well be subtle differences - there will nonetheless be striking similarities. Likewise men may appear differently from one another, but we are nonetheless over 80% the same, and the remainder is cosmetic and rather unimportant. To argue otherwise is to champion the vagaries of the subjective over the truths of the objective, the mercurial over the lasting, and mere pedagogy over substance.

...none [of my pupils]...ever possessed a book on the art of combat, with the exception of Galeazzo da Mantova. Galeazzo used to say that without books, nobody can truly be a master or [good] student of this Art. I, Fiore, agree with this; for there is so much to this Art that even a man with the keenest memory in the world will be unable to learn more than a fourth of it without books. And a fourth of this Art is not enough to make one a master...I, Fiore, know how to read, write, and draw, and have books on our subject, which I have studied for over forty years. Yet, I don't consider myself to be a perfect master of it... - Fiore dei Liberi, adapted from the Leoni translation.

What are we to infer from the above information, particularly given the fact that Bart Walzcak has so baselessly asserted that the foundation is unimportant? What is Fiore really saying?

1, it is impossible to be a good student without books on the Art. Moreover, Fiore himself states explicitly that he possessed books - plural - on the Art. Now, a further question should be suffixed to this, namely: were all of these books which Fiore says that he had of Italian extraction, or from a single martial tradition, or lineage? Given that Fiore's place of origin was on the fringes of "Italy," a concept that was in constant flux at the time, it's not very likely. Moreover, Fiore himself states that he learnt the Art from both Germans and Italians. Lastly, it's even been credibly postulated that Fiore was not a native Italian himself (which really should be immaterial, particularly given the border-hopping activities of his class, the "free knights").

2, Fiore refers to the Art as "the Art" - singular - and asserts that one cannot possibly be a good student without books on the subject, because the Art is so vast that it defies the capacity of human memory to adequately contain it. This paints an altogether different picture than the one presented by advocates of the supposed primacy of pedagogy, such as Mr. Walzcak. Furthermore, Fiore states that he has studied the Art for over forty years, and yet does not consider himself a "perfect" master of it. Now, when he conveys this, is he referring to one master's, or one lineage's (for example, Liechtenauer's) pedagogy alone? He can't be, because these are mere diluted fragments of the strongly alluded to underlying Art, or "core."

To argue that it would take over forty years to master the distilled teachings of a single lineage, or to assert that - within that amount of time - the collected teachings of such a martial lineage could not be adequately digested so as to be contained within, readily accessed, communicated, and/or transmitted via teaching by means of simple human memory strains the bounds of credulity to total breaking point. Rather, Fiore stresses the importance of the "core" foundation, and collecting and keeping as many and diverse books on the Art as possible, so as to be able to study and ultimately put into action the clearest and most comprehensive understanding of that Art (from which all else is drawn) as possible. So, which is the more immaterial, the base or the garnish, the pillar or the relief work adorning it? Fiore answers this implicitly.

So, now we have analyzed Fiore's quote and drawn the appriopriate conclusions. This, combined with numerous other information from the source materials should settle the matter, right? Wrong: Bart has called such quotes (such as Doebringer's "one Art of the sword" quote, and Syber's assertions to have studied under many masters from England to Russia) "grandiose," and he therefore simply dismisses them out of hand. But what is this other than poisoning the well? He has further stated that we cannot trust one source. I agree with him on this point, but I've given him several. The case is therefore made, in direct evidence from the source materials and in cogent supporting argument. The pan-European theory is therefore not a negative, and the burden of proof lies with him. To deny that is simply to be obtuse. Further, is not the ostensible primacy of mere pedagogy the negative, considering the ample proof we have that strongly suggests otherwise?

Mr. Walzcak's textology 101 appears to have led him rather sorrily astray. He seems altogether too easily swayed by the shallow arguments of Sophists. I cannot share his thinking, trusting instead to Socrates and Aristotle, who valued truth over style. And, to conclude, if the foundation is immaterial, why then did the author (or authors) of the Doebringer manuscript, Master Syber, Fiore, and Meyer (amongst others!) go to such pains to emphasize it?

It is possible to fail in many ways...while to succeed is possible only in one way.

If at first the idea is absurd, then there is no hope for it.

The fewer facts you have in support of an opinion, the stronger your emotional attachment to that opinion.

-Aristotle.

This is just the beginning. Our official joint refutation is still to come.

-B.

http://lessonsontheenglishlongsword.blogspot.com/2010/08/entitas-ipsa-involvit-aptitudinem-ad.html

Yup.

2011-11-24T05:39:00.001-08:00

http://www.hroarr.com/index.php

http://www.hroarr.com/announcement-arma-censorship.php

"...one of them engaged in very bad behavior!"

Now this simply will not stand! My behavior was clearly the worst, and easily the most consistent! Why, I've been consistently bad for years, Goddamnit! Can I win at nothing? I demand acknowledgement!

-B.

To our Polish visitors...

2011-11-24T04:44:00.000-08:00

...nice to see that you're dropping by. And so many of you, too. We appreciate it. Now, we know that you're all keen to boil us in oil (I did tell your infuriating, win-all-arguments-by-attrition countryman to "fuck off" on Facebook, after all. It's true, I'm guilty. And oh, we love him, anyway), but our refutation to Bart Walzcak's review isn't going to be up until sometime over the weekend. You can flay us alive for our insolence then.

Thanks.

Btw, you've got some excellent wrestling vids.

-B.

: )

Hull the Mighty...

2011-11-23T20:55:00.000-08:00

http://hemaalliance.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1612&p=20029#p20029

-B.

And furthermore...

2011-11-23T18:23:00.000-08:00

One Art, many systems, even more styles. A person traveling to many masters to learn the use of the same weapon, for instance, in no way indicates that he was looking for several completely different methods of using said weapon. Any martial artist should know this. I've been around the country to study under different instructors in the same Art to perfect my own skills, not to become ineffective in many highly divergent ones. Because many masters of one Art have many styles, strengths, insights and specialties.

Take the knife, for example. I've studied from many sources and instructors. Does that mean I now know many systems, or are they more part of the whole of my style of using a knife? The answer is self evident, particularly if I lived in an age with one knife, one cult of chivalry, and one Art, not a different school for each Asian nationality on the block.

Because in the time and the theatre we're treating with, there wasn't a Filipino knife school down the street, and a kenpo one next door. There were Italians teaching you to use a rondel dagger here, and Germans teaching rondel there, etc. Therefore, we are not dealing with effectively divergent cultures, weapons or targets, but identical ones. There was one Art, one rondel.

The burden of proof is on those who wish to show differently.

-C.

And, to be clear: I am not part of any perceived "hema community," nor have I ever considered myself so, fringe or otherwise. At most, I consider myself a consultant of sorts.

http://lessonsontheenglishlongsword.blogspot.com/2011/11/context-from-fiore-and-aristotelian.html

A Refutation to M. Chidester...

2011-11-22T22:23:00.000-08:00

The problem with pan-European claims is that the strong ones tend to fall apart when prodded…

More or less, yes.

…and the weak ones tend to be tautological.

Yes. But what's the reason? It’s not us. We’re not to blame for others failing to recognize the obvious, though we have felt compelled from time to time to shout it from the rooftops. Regardless, the fault doesn’t lie with us.

Were martial arts across Europe generally similar in their objectives? Yes. Did they all use one of a very small set of basic methodologies? Yes. Do they generally share the same technical syllabus with few techniques unique to a single tradition? Yes. While these claims may have been controversial five to ten years ago, people have learned a lot since then and these days very few would dispute them.

I can, in fact, name a slew of individuals that would - and do - rather feebly attempt to refute such glaringly obvious points. In any event, we’re in agreement here.

However, the salient question is this: Why are these propositions true?

Something’s either true, or it isn’t. Implying that there are purely contextual truths is the mark of intellectual cowards, dilettantes, Sophists and edge-skirters.

A few fringe HEMA personalities like to present this situation as representative of the superiority of some imagined, homogeneous "Western" cultural heritage.

After communicating with Mr. Chidester, I have learnt that this was directed at someone else. However, it should be stated that we never posited some monolithic, overarching culture...So, the real salient question is not why, but to whom does the Pan-European Theory properly apply? In the case of continental medieval and Renaissance Europe, we’re talking about a very specific, relatively small and exclusive set of people: the warrior aristocracy, the knightly class, the squires, the men-at-arms, the fighting elite. It is this aforementioned argument that many of our detractors - time and again - tacitly ignore. As for the "fringe HEMA personalities" remark, nicely done. I like it. I'll take that flag and run with it. I'll emblazon it on my chest. What's more, considering some of the twaddle being put forth in some other circles within a particular demimonde of the "HEMA," I consider it a compliment.

However, that doesn't represent historical reality as we understand it, and really comes down to propaganda--a nonsensical sort of "European nationalism…"

Again, this was directed at another (prominent) party. Nonetheless, let's just be clear that the Pan-European Theory cannot, even in the remotest sense of the term, be considered nationalistic. Why? 1, we are talking about an exclusive group. 2, the group in question was bound together by the feudal system, the cult of chivalry, oaths of allegiance, and shared religious ties. These, amongst other factors, superseded any conception, no matter how primitive, of anything approaching patriotism. 3, the very idea of nationhood, as we know it today, was sketchy at best during the period. 4, the idea that German, or Italian, or English fencing (or what have you) was substantially different from their counterparts is the very definition of a nationalistic notion. The Pan-European Theory is therefore not nationalistic, but profoundly anti-nationalistic.

…that mashes together all of the diverse and quite different European cultures into a single mass to which one can then claim loyalty. This is the political agenda that Jean alluded to.

The greatest loyalty of the aforesaid group was to their specific and exclusive culture, to wit: the knightly culture, which itself was inextricably intertwined with the (though dying) feudal system of the day. This culture, and those few who belonged to it, was never properly part of those arguably "quite different cultures" in the first place; or if they can said to have been, only nominally so, (that is, circumstantially and somewhat superficially). Rather, they had their own distinct, international martial culture, from which the medieval and Renaissance Art of Defense arose. This culture took precedent over all other loyalties, and though it occasionally “promoted” outsiders into its ranks, it was still more or less exclusive. I am not a knight, and have no hope to be so. Therefore, neither I - nor anyone living - can possibly lay claim to any such mantle, imaginary or otherwise.

My brand of "pan-European" martial arts metaphysics has an alternative explanation. European martial arts tend to be similar for the same reason that martial arts from all corners of the globe tend to be similar--human biology and the physical properties of weapons.

Our argument exactly.

Japanese sword arts and Chinese sword arts and historical European martial arts (and probably even Mexica martial arts from the pre-Colonial period) all share similar objectives, methodologies, and technical syllabi. This is not because they all spawned from the same primeval martial ooze (theories about Alexander the Great's conquest of India notwithstanding), but rather due to convergent evolution caused by the factors I mentioned. In a similar fashion, the early 20th century American sport wrestling champion Martin Burns declared that Japanese Judo was basically the same as his Catch-As-Catch-Can style, except that they three in a few chokes that sport wrestling didn't allow. Bottom line, the fact that diverse martial arts are similar does not necessarily have any implications beyond their similarity.

This is perhaps oversimplified.

Finally, the claim that all historical European arts are identical (rather than similar) necessarily requires us to dismiss most masters as liars. Fiore delli Liberi, Martin Syber (who you quoted above), Filippo di Vadi, even the Hochmaister Johannes Liechtenauer himself, they all must be lying when they claim to have devised their own method and created a new art better than the ones before.

This is a deliberate false dichotomy. Mr. Chidester has painted a pretty picture in hues of only black and white. He may believe that that is precisely what we were doing, as well; and hence he does it here, in an effort to make us "eat out words." But it's not so: we never denied the numerous shades of grey. We simply posited that they paled in comparison to the common underlying foundation. There must be an a priori:

"For as we are not all of a single nature, so we also cannot have a single style in combat; yet all must nonetheless arise and be derived from a single basis." - Joachim Meyer.

And whereas our words were used in an effort to highlight the tendencies of some to completely disregard what the masters say, Mr. Chidester appropriates them here for the sole purpose of turning the tables.

On the other hand, the fact they they travelled and studied with many masters from many regions of Europe seems to suggest the opposite of this hypothesis: that there were a number of subtly different arts being practiced around the Western world, and these masters learned many of them before picking out their favorite bits and defining their own styles.

We are actually 100% in agreement here. The Pan-European Art to which Casper and I refer is the core, the foundation of those subtly different "arts."

Regarding Jean C.'s points - if one can stretch the meaning of the word almost beyond capacity - I'll confine myself to this: his views are so rooted in widely-disproven Victorian bias that, frankly, they are not worth my time to address.

-B.

Just when I thought I was out...

2011-11-19T17:17:00.000-08:00

...they pull me back in.

Hello,

My name is Brandon Heslop, co-author of Lessons on the English Longsword. I understand that your publication reviewed a portion of my aforementioned book. I am therefore formally requesting a transcript of that review - in full - and the author's contact information.

Thank you,

-B. Heslop

* * *

[Return email withheld]

* * *

Dear Mr. [withheld,]

Thank you for your compliments regarding Lessons on the English Longsword, and for your prompt reply. As to your kind offer for a free copy of the issue in question, again, thank you. We understand, however, that it is a very negative review. We were actually alerted to its existence by one of your readers - who, as it happens was unswayed by Mr. Walczak's arguments, whatever they were - and purchased our book after reading the review. He went so far as to use the word "unfair," and thusly we are of course most anxious to see the hit piece in question. I only learned that Bart was the author today. I know Mr. Walczack through mutual "HEMA" ties, and have debated him before, and thus am quite capable of contacting him should I feel the need. Be assured that I do understand your perfectly reasonable policy of not providing authors' contact info. We (meaning my co-author and I) have something of a personal policy of our own. Namely, we always answer negative reviews. Sadly, there is perhaps more than a little friction between Mr. W. and our party, and consequently I hold out little hope that the aforesaid review is objective. I only wanted the contact information so that I could do your reviewer the courtesy he did not do us: to wit, make him aware of our forthcoming rebuttal. As I have just learned that the author is Mr. Walczack, however, there is no need.

Returning to your generous offer of a free copy of the issue, as we understand it is a negative review, I trust you can of course understand that it's not exactly something we would desire to have for framing, or what have you. We simply desire a complete transcript of the review so that we can take a look at it and craft a rejoinder. A simple cut-and-paste of the complete text via email would do quite nicely. We're of the same temperament as Norman Mailer in this regard, I'm afraid: we prefer, upon meeting a critic in the proverbial street, to "put up our dukes" - in a purely literary sense, that is.

If a simple cut-and-paste of the full text is not possible, then of course we would appreciate if you would send us a copy of the issue as quickly as possible. My address is [withheld.]

Thank you again,

-Brandon Heslop.

TO BE CONTINUED.

Every Journey Has An End

2011-11-18T05:01:00.000-08:00

I’ve been dodging this bullet all week. Many times now, I have sat down, cracked open the old laptop, fired up the word processing software, and set myself to write what you are now reading, only to end up with no words. And in truth, I’m still not quite sure how this should be said, but I suppose I should simply get it over with…

…I guess this kind of thing calls for a certain amount of reflection. Well, that shouldn’t prove too difficult. After all, I’ve always been pretty good at reflection; reflection being a function of hindsight. It’s foresight, at least in regards to my own sometimes rash actions, which has always been somewhat elusive to me. I have a slightly crooked nose for a reason, you know. Several, actually. But I’m rambling. I have a tendency to do that. You might not have noticed…

It’s been three years now that this blog has existed, and in that time Casper and I have put forth a lot of material here. I know, because I’ve just performed a long overdue sweeping away of the cobwebs. Out of over three hundred accrued posts, roughly half of that number remains. Thus far, the only material that has received the proverbial axe treatment has been in the form of out-of-date updates, a few crusty rants, and assorted ramblings. The more substantial material retains its place here, at least for the moment. Much of that material has offended some drifting out there in the HEMAverse over the years, but we maintain that it’s all well-reasoned and supported by evidence, if not outright fact. And that’s probably the very reason why our work here has proven provocative, controversial, bold and irritating. Facts tend to not be malleable, but instead to be unyielding and uncompromising; no matter how much some might prefer them to be more amenable to circumlocution and navel-gazing. And of course, the pan-European theory has been the most provocative of all. It was not born here, but it was here that the argument in its favor took its most compelling form - the first place where any argument of any real substance was presented, actually - and these arguments have yet to be refuted, (nor do I expect them to ever successfully be so).

The funny thing: this blog was never intended to be the repository of any of the aforementioned. When I started it, Casper wanted nothing to do with it (his first post still graces these electronic pages), and he only began posting to assure people that he wasn’t as crazy and as rude as this Brandon Heslop guy. I can’t really blame him.

You see, the blog was initially meant to be an advertisement for Lessons on the English Longsword, a place to post updates regarding it’s eventual publication, answer the odd question that might come our way, and of course serve as a platform for rebuttals to any hatchet-job reviews that might materialize after the book finally came out, (such as those that Masters of Medieval and Renaissance Martial Arts suffered, mostly unfairly…mostly). That’s it. Nothing more. But then a handful of people - as predicted - invented the “preemptive review,” as I call it. And then Casper had his falling out with the Director of the ARMA. Then I simply couldn’t contain myself any longer and began the campaign to systematically answer the critics and the anti-pan-European crowd (mostly one and the same); pouring over the source materials and presenting new (i.e., arguments that weren’t in our as-of-then-still-unpublished book) arguments in favor of the pan-European theory. Then Casper joined in. That was when the blog became something more, and people really began to take notice. But it was never meant to be…

Which brings me to the point of this post: As I said earlier, it’s been three years; and we’ve done a lot here in that time. I’m damned proud of the remaining material, in fact. That said, Casper and I have conferred on the subject of this blog - for some time now, to be honest - and we feel that the time has come at last to effectively end the journey we began three years ago. To wit, there will be no further substantive written posts here with either of us as the author/s. The reasons for this are many:

The long stretches with no new material, the feeling that our posts were becoming repetitive, the paucity of relevant (or interesting) topics, and the inability to obtain regular new material from other authors and sources. The well’s run dry, folks. And we feel that it’s not just that way here, but in the Chivalric Arts in general.

What do I mean by this? Well, to put it bluntly, we are well past the reconstruction phase. The yeoman’s work has quite simply already been done. In all probability, we were rather fortunate to be the authors of Lessons on the English Longsword, as it was one of the last, largely untapped sources for the Chivalric Arts. We genuinely feel we jumped on the cart at the very last possible minute! Oh, new books will be published, material will be reexamined, the same tracts will be re-trod, and an army of pedantic fusspots will argue that so-and-so’s translation of Dobringer is better than Lindholm’s, that Mele’s treatment of Vadi is inferior to PJ Diddum’s, or some such nonsense. But fresh ground? Not likely. Anything further will be derivative, with perhaps a few very silly, straw-grasping theories thrown in. Academic stuff, in other words. Alas, all that remains is one long, ever recycling course of reinventing the wheel, and the relentless, rabid scramble to scratch out personal niches in this or that tattered fragment of the assorted source materials (the real reason for resistance to the pan-European argument).

Yet, the facts are plain. Failure to see them as they are simply speaks to personal inadequacy, or perhaps a subnormal intelligence of the type that usually flourishes in universities, where the smart go to become profoundly stupid. Harsh words, I know, but - I believe - true. In fact, of all the possible books that may or may not materialize in the future, I can only think of four that I actually am in anticipation for: Jeff Hull’s hush-hush project, Terry Brown’s treatment of the English longsword texts, a full translation of Fiore - ANY of the four known manuscripts - complete with high-resolution scans of the illustrations, and the rumored Marsden treatment of the same master’s work. And speaking of Fiore, Mondschein’s recent book is hardly worth the twelve or so bucks I shelled out for it. To borrow a phrase from Mr. Mele, I am “thoroughly under-whelmed.” Not even the high-res scans, though of merit, of some (key word: some) of the illustrations make it worth purchasing. Don’t bother.

To speak on a purely personal level: I am, at present, thirty-two years of age. My youth is fast dwindling, and frankly I want to do something else. And that something? Get paid more than a pittance to write. I’ve put the same damned novel I’ve been writing on and off for years on the back burner in service of the Art (something I say without the least pretense, but from the heart), and it’s time that I see it through and make a real stab at being something more than a petty sub-king amongst the niche-of-the-niche-of-the-niche market (as charming of a slum as it may be).

Amongst other reasons.

So, what does the future hold? Well, for starters, look for videos here. They won’t be related to the English material in future, but we have discussed doing a series nominally entitled The Flower of the Art: a once-a-month-or-so serial covering Fiore’s Getty manuscript and Vadi; as well as the odd video featuring sparring bouts, etc. No further written material will be forthcoming from Casper or I, but the blog is not going anywhere. We WILL STILL TAKE SUBMISSIONS FROM OTHER WRITERS. And of course if anyone decides to put out a nasty review of LotEL, we’ll rain Hellfire down on them here and then post a link on Amazon, or wherever.

As far as the previous material found here, it may well be collected, reorganized, and have fresh material added to it to form a book (or perhaps a particularly lengthy and grandiose PDF file) tentatively called The Philosophy of Steel: a Polemical Thesis on the Chivalric Martial Arts. We may see if Paladin wants to bite. Nothing’s written in stone, and we have yet to discuss it in any depth.

As far as the work by others which can be found here, it of course remains the intellectual property of the authors who provided it, and will remain available for future reference (unless the author/s wishes otherwise).

And that, I suppose dear Reader, is that. Thank you for stopping by all these years and reading our words. We wish you and yours all the best. And rest assured, though this is an adieu of sorts, the ringing of steel shall forever sound in our ears.

-B & C,

Four-Fifty-Seven am, on November the Eighteenth, in the Year of Our Lord Two-Thousand-and-Eleven.

A Recommendation...

2011-11-18T04:11:00.001-08:00

http://www.amazon.com/Vendetta-High-Cunning-Birth-Renaissance/dp/0753825724/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321618240&sr=1-1

Even the odd cheap shot at the NRA and the Iraq War are forgivable in this excellent book. Buy it.

-B.

Man Yt Woll Series: The Final Three

2011-11-14T19:27:00.000-08:00

And at last, we come to the end of the Man Yt Wol Series. We do hope you've found the information contained within these videos helpful and insightful. The final video brings you four different plays (we threw in the 8th Chase as a bonus), which we think were pretty successful execution-wise. The Cottonian longsword material had to be slightly modified due to space restrictions, and I had not memorized it, so it was done move-by-move, as it were. Additionally, my editing software let me down in one or two spots. Nonetheless, it's all there and should be understandable, so not too bad.

Enjoy!

-B.

Man Yt Wol Series Redo: The First Flourish of the Ledall

2011-11-13T23:00:00.000-08:00

-B.

Happy Halloween...

2011-10-31T03:24:00.001-07:00

Btw, the Halloween story is finished. You can read it's startling conclusion below.

-B.

How the Gods Kill, Part 2

2011-10-27T04:21:00.000-07:00

This is William Cain III, signing back on. I’m here in my car with B. P. Heslop and B. G. Bradak in disembodied form. Well, disembodied quasi-form. Whatever. Personally, I think they’re more decent people dead, even if Bradak’s torso is constantly flopping around, and his guts keep slipping out due to his horrific injuries. No offense, guys. No, please don’t wipe any spectral blood on me. Thank you, sirs. Just…just sit down, please. Now, why aren’t you wearing seat belts? I don’t care if you’re dead! If you’re in my car, you’re wearing seat belts. Thank you. Now, just give me a moment and we’ll be on our way.

…What? No, you may not “borrow” my eyes! Now, be good or I’ll turn this car off right now and your memories will be all misaligned when you get back from Hell! Honestly, you’re like a petulant child, Brandon. Sit - just sit down - and shut up, you hear? I don’t care about some werewolf who’s got LVT. And I don’t know what LVT is, but it sounds really disgusting! You keep your netherworld diseases to yourselves!

All right folks, we’re moving. I’m going to stop recording now, but I’ll report anything interesting we encounter in our strange journey.

* * *

“So,” said Casper, “this is the Lake of Iniquity.”

“Frozen Lake of Iniquity,” said B.

“Right. Looks slippery.”

“Extremely. Not too thrilled at the sight of all those jagged clusters of ice shafts sticking up all over the place.”

“They do look as if they’re strategically placed, don’t they?”

“One slip and you’re impaled.”

“Yes. On the bright side, I think I can see the island in the distance.”

“Shall we, then?”

“I suppose so,” said C.

“I wonder what happened to Cameron the Werewolf?” said B., taking his first tentative step onto the glassy, oddly luminous surface of the frozen lake.

“I’d be more worried about the giant, glowing eyeball watching us from beneath the ice,” said C.

“Ah, yes. So, that’s the mysterious light source. It looks like it’s got a fanged, ring-like maw rimming it’s cornea.”

“And the pupil is a gaping hole, it seems.”

“A gaping hole that appears to be expanding.”

“The fanged maw also appears to be twitching rather frantically.”

“Just keep moving.”

“The eye is getting bigger, B.”

“No. It’s not getting bigger. It’s getting, um…well…”

“Closer.”

“Yes. Keep moving.”

“It’s attached to a massive tendril.”

“Its mechanism for travel, it seems.”

“It’s not unmanly to be a tad concerned that it’s now directly under us, right?”

“No. No, not all. To be perfectly truthful, I am also a bit concerned, particularly now that it seems to be ramming the ice from beneath our feet.”

“No seeming about it. That’s what it’s doing. Nearly lost my footing. And I’m starting to think that the jagged bits of ice sticking up all over the place around here were caused by this gigantic eye thing, B. What do you think?”

“It sounds like a valid hypothesis I would say, old chap.”

“Hmmm. A thought: how about we go a little faster.”

“A capital suggestion, my friend. Let’s.”

“It um, I mean - by my observance, it um - well…”

“It’s keeping pace with us.”

“Indeed. Is it right that it is hissing? And should I be able to hear it?”

“Profoundly disturbing, I would be compelled to say. I wouldn’t be opposed, you know, to going even faster. Well, a bit faster.”

“Good idea. Careful, you nearly fell. That would have been a nasty tumble. That sharp bit of ice would surely have penetrated your ocular cavity.”
“Gramercy for the steadying hand. I suppose I shall have to keep an eye on the ice.”

“Ha ha. Good one.”

“I thought so. It works on at least three levels.”

“Four. You’ve got no eyes, remember? You truly are a master wordsmith.”

“Oh, yes. Curious how I can see. And thank you, old chum.”

“The eyes are merely organic constructs that allow you to see on Earth. Here, you’re operating purely upon psyche, or soul, or what-have-you. You don’t need eyes. The eyeless sockets in your head, or the image of your head, are merely psychological scars carried over from the traumatic event of our rather grizzly deaths. As for the master wordsmith bit, I was perhaps inflating your abilities a smidgeon.”

“Ah, well. At least I’ve made an anti-materialist out of you.”

“Death has made an anti-materialist out of me. Would you mind if we went a bit faster still? Cracks are beginning to form beneath us.”

“Not at all.”

“One thing puzzles me - hey look, we’re getting close - why are we being so damnably nice to one another?”

“This truly must be Hell,” said B.

“B., I rather think we should be running at this point.”

“Yes.”

“And another thing: why are talking like Noel Coward?”

“I always do when I’m nervous.”

“What a revolting habit,” said C.

“I know.”

“You’re a strange, strange man.”

“We’re nearly there! Ha! Looks like big ol’ eye monster isn’t going get lunc-”

“You’ve impaled yourself, B.”

“You don’t think I know! Get me off this thing!”

“Damn you…”

“Hurry, it’s almost through the ice!”

“No, it IS through the ice, and now I’ve got freezing shrapnel in my clavicle and cheek.”

“Thank you for pulling me free.”

“Run. Don’t you dare fall again!”

“Its cornea fibers are unraveling…”

“Acid-dripping tentacles…”

“The ice is melting!”

“We’re there. We’re on the island. B., it’s okay, we’re on the island. You can stop screaming like a little girl!”

“Oh, good.”

“Come on, we’ve got to find that tree.”

* * *

No, I don’t care what you say, Brandon. I’m dehydrated. I need to stop somewhere for a something to drink. Hmmm…The Sunbeam Shoppe…an interesting looking place. Is that a golden statue of a guy in a toga? Looks like he’s blowing something. And a rainbow on the sign. Awesome! What do you mean I shouldn’t go in there? Brandon Heslop, I never took you for a bigot. For shame. It looks like a wonderful establishment, and I’m going to patronize it in the proper sense of the word. Just you wait here. I don’t want you scaring the clerk.

I wish you could see this place, readers. It’s beautiful. The whole interior is enveloped in a warm, pristine glow. It’s positively radiant. The floor is flawless white, smooth and reflective. Hmmm. Those are some odd-looking, almost Masonic symbols on the vaulted ceiling. The golden angel statue which dominates the interior appears to be animatronic. Its eyes follow me wherever I go. Wow. I wish you could hear this too. The automatic doors open to the sound of harps. The air smells like lilac, and heavenly choir music accompanies your shopping experience. What a wonderful, wonderful place. There doesn’t seem to be anyone working the register, however. Oh, dear: Brandon’s out of the car. He’s peering in at me with his oozing sockets, waving his hands frantically and mouthing something. Ha! Looks like “Get out, you stupid idiot!” I’ll ignore him…it…whatever.

It’s odd, though. I feel…I feel…weak. I’m all clammy. Sweating. Never felt this way before. The strangest thing: the angel’s eyes are boring into me. As if…as if beams were being projected forth from its flashing yellow pupils…burning through my skull and boiling my brain. Every ounce of strength is being sapped from my body. Hello! Is anyone here? I think…I think I need help. Heslop’s screaming something. Something about the angel being dangerous. Oh, fuck. Its mouth is moving. It’s opening. A little black screen is protruding from its jaws. It’s flashing. Red letters: NANCY BOY. I think…I think I’d better get out of this place. I’m gonna throw up, or something. I’m moving back towards the door. No! No! Shit…the door is…it’s blocked. Some kind of portcullis. See if I can lift it.

AAAAAARRRRRRRRRUUUUUUUUHHHHHH!!!

Shocked me. The superstition-loving barbarians have rigged this horrid place with an electrified drop gate! I can’t get out. You can’t hear it, but there’s an alarm blaring. I’m not sure if my audio will be decipherable. I can see Bradak’s disembodied spectral whatever outside. He’s pointing and laughing. What an unmitigated asshole. Wait! Wait! A panel I didn’t notice before is opening up in the floor. Something - it looks like it’s covered in a plastic sheet - it’s coming up from out the floor. I can’t…I’m on the floor…I can’t stand any longer. The sheet is slipping away from a figure beneath it. Kind of like a sloughed-off skin. Someone’s passing me. I think…yes, it’s Heslop. He’s running at…at the angel…just shoved his fist into, no, THROUGH its face. Sparks. I think he…he toppled it over. Yes, it’s convulsing on the floor. I feel better. Getting…getting back on my…on my feet.

“!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

Heslop’s saying something about a robot. I -

I’m on my ass. That thing that came out of the floor just knocked me clear across the room, and is now emitting a high pitched frequency…barely audible to me…it’s driven Brandon’s ghost, or whatever, back outside. It’s tall, and rather haggard-looking. A stark raving mad recluse with a Jesus fixation. Or kind of like an Old West gunslinger. I think it is an Old West gun slinger.

“Well, WwOoooooEeeee! Another fancy lad! Your little friend the unclean spirit can’t saves yer worthless hide now, little girl. Go fer yer guns!”

“I don’t have a gun,” I said to the psychotic android.

“I knowed ya got none, boy! Just a figure ah speech. Was gunna do ya quick, but since your prevert spirit fella done hurt the angel…well…I think I’m gonna have to make ya squirm a bit. Y’understand, right?”

“Sure,” I say. “But first…do you mind terribly if I just get a little something to drink? You know, last request.”

“Hmmm. Lemee think on it…All right, you squealing, good-fer-nothin’ bender…have yer blasted drink.”

“Thank you, sir. Oh, the hot coco looks rather nice. I’ll have a cup of that, if I may?”

“Sure thing, ya big sissy.”

“You’re too kind,” I say to the automaton, and make my way over to the hot chocolate machine. Odd thing. The nacho machine, which is right next to the hot chocolate, appears to be covered in sticky gore. Looks like gray matter…

“He he, HooooEeeee! S’right! An’udder’uuna’you came in here not sixteen minutes ago. Attendant’s still out tryin’ to stuff the bugger down a storm drain.”

“Ah,” I say, and make my selection. “Vanilla looks good.”

“I’d a thought you’d be wantin’ something more fruity.”

“No, I think I’ll have vanilla,” I tell it. Man, in addition to being a psychotic gunslinger, this android has a really lame sense of humor.

“Jehoshaphat Smythe’s backside! Mah circuits! Yer’ve gone an’ thrown the coco in my face!”

“No, I don’t think you’ll be needing your six shooter,” I say, as I swiftly step offline and deliver a deft Krumphau to the robot’s shooting arm. “My, your hand is twitching and smoking upon the floor. Lost your gun, too. What a pity,” and now a ferocious Zwerch from the Krump, and…your head explodes in a shower of popping, frizzing sparks. And, of course, down you go.

“You’ve destroyed the Porter Rockwellbot!”

…cries the belated store attendant, obviously having just slipped in from the back door.

“And you’re talking to yourself! I -”

“Yes, you! You. You are party to the slaughter of the person who came into this awful place just before me,” I say, assuming Vom Tag.

“Look behind you, mister. Someone wants to say hello.”

I do so, and I don’t like what I see: the animatronic angel has crumbled to bits. Or it’s exterior has, anyway. Hatched from it is a deranged looking thing of the same basic form, but clearly not what I first took it to be. It holds a trumpet in one hand, and a thick book in the other. Black sludge is oozing from its mouth, and -

“SILENCE, MORTAL! YOU STAND IN THE PRESENCE OF MORONI!”

“The Italian Renaissance painter?”

“THE ANGEL, BLASPHEMER!”

“What a ridiculous name for an angel,” I say, as it moves towards me in jerky, disjointed motions. I’m presently moving away from it and readying to strike.

“THY SWORD WILL DO THEE NO GOOD, SINNER; FOR I AM IMPERVIOUS TO ALL MUNDANE WEAPONS! BEHOLD THE HOLY BIBLE, TOGETHER WITH THE BOOK OF MORMON, THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE, AND THE DOCTORINE AND COVENANTS! AT LEAST ONE INSTRUCTS THAT YE SHOULD BE PUT TO DEATH. AND SO SHALL YE BE!”

“That’s nothing,” I say, as I produce from my coat pocket my own book. “Behold, angel: the Traveler’s Compact Origin of the Species, by Charles Darwin, (Simeon & Shyster Unabridged First Edition, 1975). It says you’re a load of bullshit! Here, allow me to read -”
“NO! YOU MUSN’T!”

“Oh, so the big mighty angel is afraid of this, is he? Oh, dear me. Why, I wonder what happens if you make contact with this forbidden little tome.”

“AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHkkkkKKKKKkKkkkkkkkCCCCcccccccFFFFFfffffffFFFFFFFGGGGggggLLLLLLLLLLLLLLlaaaacucuchtttt!!!”

Great, now I’m covered in angel guts. Sigh. Oh, well. “You,” I shout, turning my attention back to the clerk; “get me an iced tea and raise that portcullis!” I’m presently standing by the door and waiting as he does just that. “Give me that. Now, raise the gate. Good boy. Oh, by the way…this is my friend Brandon. He says he’d like to borrow your eyes.”

* * *

* * *

“How many corpses are there, do think?” inquired B.

“Moot. Anyway, there’s a lot.”

“Look at all the swords!”

“Yeah, let’s pry a couple of the ones in better shape from their cold dead hands,” said C.

“Curious…”

“What is?”

“These guys are all armed with swords. I mean, exclusively.”

“You’re right. There is a definite paucity of other weapons.”

“Is it symbolic?”

“Probably; we are in Hell, after all.”

“Live by the sword -”

“Die by the sword.”

“Yeah.”

“Come on, B. Let’s just find a couple of decent specimens and then get to that tree.”

“Agreed. Ah, here’s a fine blade. Hilt looks good, too. It is encrusted with entrails, however.”

“You can’t be too picky. Some of these are completely saw-toothed, most are broken. Wait, here’s a good one. Yes, this one will do. Make sure to take the scabbards, as well. Should come in handy. I hate it when people rest the points of their swords on or in the dirt. A cardinal sin, in my book.”

“Got mine sorted. Wiped most of the gunk off.”

“Good. I’m ready, too. All right, let’s go. And be careful not to trip over any of the poor devils, as we go now.”

“Point taken. Where from here, do you think?”

“Well, there does seem to be a something of a path heading in that direction towards…”

“The center of the island?”

“Looks that way.”

“Shall we follow the yellow brick road, then?”

“Sounds good to me.”

“Okay. You first, Dorothy.”

“No, Toto. You first. I insist.”

“Fine.”

“B…”

“Yes?”

“Do you see…”

“…The squirming thing in the sack? Yes. What of it?”

“There are noises coming from it.”

“So?”

“So, um…”

“Get back!”

“What was that?”

“Looked like a peasant bursting from forth from the bag, clutching his bloodied throat and screaming his head off before running away.”

“Ah, the old Wallerstein peasant-in-the-bag trick. Alas, I was born too late.”

“Ha! Yes, indeed. I think I’ll venture on ahead a bit. I want to see what’s over this hill.”

“Knock yourself out, O Grammaticus the Black.”

“Well, I found the tree. There’s a broad plain down here. Looks like a battle ground. The bodies we’ve already seen were probably just stragglers, scouts or skirmishers. The main event was over here.”

“Let me see! Hang on. Is there any fighting?”

“As you can see, no. Over and done with.”

“Ugh! No! I truly am cursed. Even in Hell I’m denied a decent fight.”

“See the tree?”

“B., it’s the sole fucking non-horizontal feature down there. It’s as obvious as the pan-European nature of the Art, or your next cheap shot. You’d have to be a total moron not to spot it.”

“Big, huh?”

“Yes. But we’re wasting time. Let’s hurry it up. I‘m tired of this place.”

* * *

“So, this is the place, eh?”

“…………………………….”

“Well, let’s get to it. But didn’t you say that one of your fractured, or fragmented murderous impressions is running about this place?”

“……………………………..........................................................................”

“I’m safe as long as I’m with you? Because they fear reintegration?”

“….”

“All right, then. Let’s go.”

Well, readers, this is your friend Will, and we’re presently getting out of the car and heading towards the low stone wall that surrounds the graveyard. I would be lying if I said I wasn’t a little nervous at this point. This certainly wasn’t what I was expecting when I drove up to Utah from California to look into the unusual and untimely demise of two infamous fellow students and practitioners of the Art. And yet, here I am, a man of reason, about to perform some bizarre voodoo ritual while accompanied by two blood-drenched ghosts, or whatever you’d like to refer to them as.

Okay, readers…we’re nearing the heart of the cemetery now. I can see a large rectangular mausoleum up ahead. Heslop’s making a beeline for it. Looks impressive. A combination of white marble and granite, I’d say. It’s got a central corridor and is honeycombed with lots of empty niches, so it’s fairly new. I’m walking around one of its corners now, roughly southerly. Bradak’s lingering a little behind me, which puts me on edge for some reason. Heslop’s stopped at an old gravestone in the cluttered orbit of the mausoleum. It’s a Grecian column, whitewashed, and surmounted with a bust of a rather severe-looking man. Odd thing: someone’s gouged out the eyes. Heslop’s gesturing adamantly to a nearby patch of ground semi-surrounded by trees and a few bushes. Must be the place. Guess I’ll just get it over with, then.

“ Right, so…what do I do, Brandon?”

“……………………………......................................”

“I have to cut away the sod, and then walk in a circle counterclockwise while chanting. All right, what do I chant?”

“……………………………....................”

“What?! Oh, go fuck yourself! I’m not chanting that.”

“!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

“All right, all right. Hang on.”

I’ve just cut up the sod with my sword, readers. Bradak and Heslop are now standing upon the bare dirt where the sod once was, and I’m cradling a small grass carpet like its baby and am about to do the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever done, and as an advocate of meaningless gestures of social justice, that’s saying something.

“Okay Brandon, I’m starting now. I’m facing west, just like you said. I’m doing it. First go round - sigh - Klaatu, Barada, Nikto! Klaatu, Barada, Nikto! Klaatu, Barada, Nikto! All right, it’s done. Where’s the fireworks, or the mystical glow, or the sound of a gong followed by dram - Shit!”

You wouldn’t believe what I’m witnessing now, readers. Both B. and C. appear to be in a state of blurred flux, and are presently grappling with a pair of equally spectral doppelgangers. There’s also a rather unpleasant, hissing squeal. They’re merging. They look like something I threw up a few days ago. I see two fast-approaching streaks moving this way through the cemetery from the west. It’s the other two manifestations. The first two have now merged with the non-psychotic - well, LESS psychotic specters of Bradak and Heslop - and the second pair is now engaged in a spastic Ringen dance with their counterparts even now. The process is happening all over again. It’s incredible and acutely revolting all at the same time! It’s…it’s over, readers…they are one…or two as opposed to six…again. Their wounds have vanished. Heslop is extending his trembling hand to his trusted comrade. Bradak extends his…and then withdraws it at the last moment and proffers his middle finger to Brandon. What a card!

“It worked, guys! This is great. So, when do you get back from He-”

They’ve gone! They were sucked down into the earth! Wh-what’s gone wrong?

“G-guys! Guys! Come back!”

* * *

“At last, we have arrived at the Black Tree of the Sword Sage,” said C.

“I think the angel called it something else.”

“Fuck I care! Point is, we’re here. You see any severed head?”

“No, but I do know that it a rare tree indeed that bristles with masses of long, barbed, blood-dripping thorns.”

“What’s that noise!”

“The tangled braches are parting.”

“Yeah, and the black ivy clinging to the bole of the tree is wriggling.”

“Boy, describing things via dialogue alone sure does get tedious, doesn’t it?”

“Yup. Excellent choice, loser. The ivy has parted like a curtain to reveal a headless body with raised arms.”

“Yes. In one hand, it holds a loft an open book, its pages adorned with martial techniques and running with blood.”

“I see it. And in the other, it grips fast a longsword, blade flowing and spraying with crimson.”

“The sword is an instrument of death.”

“Who said that, B?”

“The severed head cradled in that big branch that even now groans and stretches from the uppermost bough down towards us, C.”

“Oh, okay.”

“Behold my legacy, scholars: this tree, and the corpses upon the battlefield, are the rancid fruits of my earthly labors. For all the false romance and the high ideals attached to it, the Art of the Sword is nothing more than the Art of Slaughter.”

“Shut up, you liberal pantywaist! The sword defended Christendom - and thus Western Civilization - from barbarian hordes and an aggressive, expanding Islam!” said C.

“Seconded,” said B.

“But it’s true,” said the head. “And the Mongol and the Mohammedan writhe in torment here as well; as do all others who raise hand to shed blood and visit carnage and suffering upon Man.”

“Who are you?” asked C.

“The Sword Sage,” it said.

“But who are you really?” demanded C.

The head sighed, and then sorrowfully uttered: “The Grandmaster.”

“Fiore!” shouted B., excited.

“No,” replied the head. “He still hasn’t found his way out of the garage. I am the suffering soul of Johannes Liechtenauer.”

“Oh,” said B. “Not interested, then.”

“Shut up!” said C.

“But I can answer all the questions you might ha-”

“Yeah, if you’re not Fiore, I don’t really care.”

“But-”

“Thanks anyway.”

“B.! Shut up! Oh, great Grandmaster, I seek your guidance. Tell me, is the Squinter just a joke? Y‘know, to throw mouth breathers off?”

“Oh, fuck the pair of you!” said the Head of L. “You’re just some upstart metrosexual, and he looks and sounds like he’s constipated when he does a parat! Just ask me what you came here to.”

“Very well,” said B. “How do we get out of Hell?”

“First I must ascertain thy worthiness, you baldheaded, snotty little twerp.”

“How?” asked C.

“What is the Great Secret of the Art?” said the Head.

“The Art isn’t European at all,” said B. “Fiore imported it to Europe after having acquired skill and knowledge in it while at the Grand Court of Zemoputhac, High King of all the Ethiopes. Prior to Fiore, all fighting in Europe consisted of lobbing plague rats at the opponent and then flailing about while beating them with crude wooden clubs.”

“Correct,” said the Grandmaster.

“WHAT?!?!” shrieked C.

“The Seer Stones told me,” said B. “I…I didn’t have the heart to tell you. Zemoputhac was Presbyter Johannes. The real Johannes Liechtenauer. Liechtenau being Zemoputhac’s capitol and royal seat. That’s why Liechtenauer is dressed in eastern European clothes in the Danzig manuscript.”

“You mean that guy who sings ‘Mother,’ and ‘How the Gods Kill’?”

“No, Peter OF Danzig. Anyway, Zemoputhac invented the Art whole cloth while suffering through a particularly nasty and protracted bout of the runs. It just…just sort of came to him as he squatted…Anyway, it doesn’t matter. Dobringer was a liar.”

“And now I, Zemoputhac Prester John of Liechtenau will tell you the way out of Hell,” said the head of the Grandmaster. “Thou hast had the means all along. But slide thine hand into the inner pocket of thy jacket of leather - +1 Armor, by the way - and thou shalt discover the flask containing the mystical waters of the Font of the Weird Ones who Eat Much Jell-O. Do but pour the remaining water upon thy feet, and wish to return to Earth and breath, and ye shall be transported there presently. And it looks like your timing is good, for it seems that your mind/body patterns have been restored to wholeness, and are even now about to descend upon you.”

“Wh-wha-what?!?!” cried C.

“Just do it, man,” said B. “Let’s get the hell out of Hell and take our revenge!”

* * *

Readers, I am - I must confess - at an utter loss. Heslop and Bradak have gone. I’m not sure what to do, I…Hold up. Readers, a strange blue glow is at this very moment filtering up from beneath…through the…the um, the earth on the spot where I cut the grass up. It swells and then fades, only to come back again. It’s growing in intensity! It’s -

“Back in black!” shouted C.

“It’s Will!” I said.

“He dead?” asked C.

I walked over, and stooped over Will’s prone form, feeling for a pulse. “No, just out cold. But it does rather look as if he’s been knocked back by some powerful force.”

“Our reentry into the Land of the Living?” postulated C.

“Probably. Looks like his cell phone’s recording.”

“Turn it off. And let’s get him to the car.”

“Ah, I see you’ve got the memories of our earthly impressions, as well.”

“Sudden recall. Like a flood.”

“Good, then we don’t have to worry about murderous spectral versions of ourselves.”

“What should we do now?”

“Well, we could go home. See our wives and kids. It has been a year, and they do think we’re still dead.”

“Nah. Death was a lucky escape from all that, as far as I’m concerned.”

“What should we do then?”

“Well, we do have swords.”

“True. Do we simply hitchhike to Inclementus, and take our revenge straightaway?”

“I was actually thinking about doing a little training first. You know, the old program.”

“Oh, you mean…”

“That LARPer group Baleodarth still meets near my house, last I checked. Simple matter to go to Wal-Mart, pick up some pool noodles, slip them over our sword blades…”

“Ten points!” I exclaimed, at which we both had a hearty laugh.

“Yes, but then the pool noodle soaks up all that blood, and if you cut too much it falls off….”

“And then there’s all that business ducking behind bushes to replace it with a fresh one…“

“Not to mention having to duck all those magic[k] missiles.”

“Yeah, yeah. I suppose we can just head down to Inclementus. But there’s no sense hitchhiking. We’ll just take Will’s car.”

“But what about money? And I really think we should get him to a hospital.”

“He’s got a wallet, doesn’t he? And he’s a swordsman! He’ll laugh this off…as soon as he wakes up.”

“All right, help me carry him.”

* * *

“Hey, B….”

“What?”

“Will’s got an issue of the Deseret News in his car.”

“And?”

“And read the headline for this article,” said C, handing me the paper.

“ ‘UNICEF representative J. Inclementus in Salt Lake City to Give Lecture Course on Renaissance Martial Arts & Period Appropriate Unitards / Tights.’ Oh, you’ve got to be kidding me!”

“Yeah, it completely doesn’t read at all like some hack trying to wrap up a story fast!”

“What should we…How should…”

“We go to a pay phone, and then we exhaust the supply of quarters and dimes in Will’s spare change tray calling every hotel in town until we find which one the midget’s staying in.”

“And then we pay him a surprise visit.”

“It should be a real surprise, indeed - considering that he thinks we’re both dead.”

“Something we really can’t fault him for, considering that we were.”

“Not anymore,” said C., with a wicked grin.

* * *

“The sword is a tool,” said Inclementus, as he admired himself in the mirror ran the flat of his longsword over the oiled nipples of his naked chest. “A simple tool, merely. And the foot is a key, as you can see.” He looked for all the world like a deranged dancer doing the Twist.

“You’re a simple tool,” said C., stepping forth from the shadows of the hotel room, his sword held high, poised to strike.

“You!” cried the dwarf. “But you’re dead!”

“We were dead,” said I, parting the curtains and moving into the center of the room, the point of my sword leveled at our foe. “But we’re back now, and we’ve got a message for you from an angel named Pria-”

“-Doesn’t matter what the angel’s name is, B. Point is, we’re back, and we’ve come for vengeance.”

“Sweet, sweet vengeance.”

“Yes,” said C, bounding forward with a proffer.

Inclementus made to defend himself, but at that precise moment, the room was washed with an eerie green light. A bright beam penetrated the ceiling, and carried the diminutive fencer off into the night.

“Well, that was anticlimactic,” I said.

“Problems?” inquired a familiar voice.

“Priapus!” shouted C.

“Yes,” said he.

“He got away,” I said.

“Indeed,” said the angel. “The aliens took him.”

“But you could have stopped them!” said C.

“Of course,” said the heavenly being.

“Then why didn’t you?!” I asked.

“Because they work for me. I told them you’d be here, and they acted accordingly.”

“I don’t understand,” said C.

“No. You don’t. And don’t call me Priapus,” said the angel, and promptly ripped his face off to reveal his true visage. “Do you really think an angel - of ANY denomination or creed - would help the likes of you? But you’re right, though: Inclementus is a tool. My tool. A simple tool in a complicated plan that goes back millennia. As a being composed of nothing more than spirit, I am unable to sire an earthly heir. The aliens helped me with that. I allowed you two come back because it would amuse me less not having you here, to witness the rise of the Antichrist!”

“Jeffrey was right!” said C.

“Yes, he was. And now, I bid you adieu.”

“B., look out the window!”

“Police lights,” I said.

“Remember, Brandon” said the Devil, “one leg at a time, and the zipper goes in front.”

With that he was gone. Vanished in a puff of fiery smoke and brimstone.

“We lose again! And I didn’t even get to kill anybody!” shouted C.

Then came the banging at the door, and we made for the balcony, then the tree, and thence for the car. The wail of sirens faded behind us as we sped away (Utah police are very bad at what they do. This is actually the least ridiculous part of a very silly story).

* * *

Downtown Salt Lake City,
6:30 PM, October 31, 2011:

“And this is the Zwerchhau; or as the English called it, the Cross cut,” said C., thwacking my gnarled stick aside with his own. “One can follow it with any number of useful techniques,” he continued, thrusting me in the gut. “And now, if you’ve enjoyed our little demonstration, please place a few coins in the hat.

“That sucked! You didn’t even spin, and there were no flips. You deserve to starve to death.”

“Yeah, you suck!”

“Thank you, thank you, you’re too kind,” said I, eyes cast to the ground.

As the small crowd dispersed - and spat - C. slumped against the alley wall, then cast his gaze in my direction. “I still don’t believe it. First, we get prosecuted for faking our deaths, and exhaust every single penny we already didn’t have on bloodsucking lawyers to defend us from other bloodsucking lawyers. Only escaping prison due to overflow, of course. Now we’re homeless, our wives have taken out restraining orders, and we’re performing street monkeys!”

“You’re forgetting about the article in the fucking Commie Tribune,” I said. “ ‘Sword Freaks’ “Dark Player” Racially Motivated?’ ” I reminded him.

“Fuck you! You would bring that up.”

“Shhh! There’s something on TV over at that electronics shop,” I said, and headed over to the store window.

“…since the formal establishment of the New World Order global government has officially wrapped up as of three minutes ago. In a whirlwind campaign, J. Inclementus has been elected President of the World by a landslide. And as of mere seconds ago, our new leader has already set in motion his sweeping reforms. The first: a radical new pronunciation for certain German words. Also, we’ve just received word that a death warrant has been issued for the widely discredited and universally despised frauds Benjamin G. Bradak and Brandon P. Heslop. Now there are two losers who will not be missed. This is Amanda Whorror, for Marxist Subversion Network and Broadcasting Clique. Bye, now.”

“NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

“HaHaAhhhh. So funny! You like? Yeah, me no like either. Hey, you want a good food? Then come to me, No-Chin. I dig something up for you. Bwwahahahaha!!!”

Once again, it's Flashback Time!

2011-10-23T14:15:00.000-07:00

http://lessonsontheenglishlongsword.blogspot.com/2009/12/three-cuts.html

http://lessonsontheenglishlongsword.blogspot.com/2009/12/true-fencer-buffel-versus-gaukler.html

Oh, yes.

-B.

Crap!

2011-10-23T13:09:00.001-07:00

I just realized...

...Shit.

-B.

Man Yt Wol Series Recap...

2011-10-21T04:40:00.000-07:00

1: The Laying Down of Your Sword (Ledall)
2: The Facing w/ the Spring (Ledall)
3: The 11th and 12th Chases (Ledall)
4: The First Point of the Counter (Ledall)
5: The 1st Flourish (Ledall)
6: The13th Point, Called the Downright Stroke Standing Still (Ledall)
7: The Dragon's Tail w/ a Pendant (Ledall)
8: The 2nd Counter, Called the Full Spring (Ledall)
9: The 6th & 7th Lessons from the First Set of Lessons (Harleian)
10: The 1st Lesson from the First Set of Lessons (Harleian)
11: The 9th Point, Called the Double Round w/ 2 Foins (Ledall)
12: The 2nd Lesson from the Second Set of Lessons (Harleian)
13:
14:
15:

As you can see, we're nearly finished. If you have a request, please get in touch with us within the next seven days or so. The next round of videos will be the last. We have received a request for a redo of the First Flourish, and we will oblige, but any further requests must be made in a timely fashion. There will be a major announcement at the end of this video series.

-B & C.

The Man yt Woll Series: The Second Lesson, from the second set of lessons in the Harleian

2011-10-20T17:03:00.001-07:00

The Man Yt Woll Series: The Ninth Point, Called the Rounds with Two Foins (Ledall)

2011-10-17T18:09:00.000-07:00

I make some funny faces and noises in this one. The entertainment value alone makes it worthwhile!

-B.

The Man yt Wol Series: The First Lesson (Harleian)

2011-10-17T02:20:00.000-07:00

The Idiot's Gude to the Key

2011-10-16T19:54:00.000-07:00

The Man yt Wol Series: the Sixth and Seventh Lessons (Harleian)

2011-10-16T01:24:00.000-07:00

Yes, we know the lighting leaves something to be desired. Idiot boy here forgot to bring along what he needed to completely cover the window. Next time it will be sorted once and for all.

-B.

Man yt Wol Series: Redo! 13th Point Called the Downright Stroke Standing Still

2011-10-14T01:44:00.000-07:00

Man yt Wol Series: Otherelse Flourish & Requested (faster) Encore

2011-10-10T01:51:00.000-07:00

- C & B.

Man yt Wol Series: the Second Counter Called the Full Spring

2011-10-09T03:59:00.000-07:00

Man yt Wol Series: Dragon's Tail with a Pendant (Ledall)

2011-10-09T01:58:00.000-07:00

-C & B.

Dokkodo ● Der Einsame Weg ● The Lonesome Way

2011-10-03T22:54:00.000-07:00

A Contextual Martial Trilingual Presentation

Readers: I did this for serious amusement. I actually did my English translation fromthe German translation by YT, and then put that into (my questionable) modernJapanese rendering. Thus I didsomething of a reverse translation, because I did not have access to theoriginal MM scrolls as evidently YT did. That said, what these translations offer is a presentation of Dokkodoby Master Musashi that is contextual (i.e. culturally accurate), martial(i.e. for the warrior and not for the corporate bastard) and trilingual (i.e.something unique amid the InterWeb). Please enjoy! ~

独行道

宮本武蔵

1。私は伝統的な道徳に反する行動しない。

2。私はいかなる党派/偏見がないという意味でね。

3。私は快適さのために努力していない。

4。私は自分自身を過大評価する、まだ私は十分に価値の人間性はありません。

5。私は長い間欲私の人生から無料にてご利用いただけます。

6。私は私が何をしたか後悔することはありません。

7。私は彼らの幸運のためにも自分の不幸のためでもない、他人をうらやむことはない。

8。私はそれに応じて誰からか何かから分離さになるために不当な扱いではない。

9。私は自分自身も他人でもないを激しく非難する。

10。私は女性と恋に落ちるのではない夢を見る。

11。私は好きも嫌いも行なわれていません。

12。私は宿泊のno形式を拒否しません。

13。私は自分自身のためにはおいしい食べ物を必要としません。

14。私はアンティークや珍しいオブジェクトを収集しません。

15。私は悪から私を守るために、何クレンジングの儀式を実行していない、と禁欲住んでいない。

16。私は剣と他の兵器類を除くすべての道具にも喜びを見つける。

17。私は私の生活の中で正義の道には依存しませんとなる。

18。私は高齢者の自己のない柔らかな保養所のために望む。

19。私は神と仏を尊重し、まだ私はかれら自身が依存にしないでください。

20。私は早くからませる私の名前よりも私の人生を与えるだろう。

21。私の心と私の魂は剣の道から、も瞬時たりと、流用できないようになる。

Der Einsame Weg

Musashi Miyamoto

1. Ich handle nicht gegen die traditionelle Moral.

2. Ich bin in keinerlei Hinsicht voreingenommen.

3. Ich strebe nicht nach Behaglichkeit.

4. Ich überschätze mich nicht, schätze jedoch das Volk sehr.

5. Ich bleibe mein ganzes Leben lang frei von Habgier.

6. Ich bedaure niemals, was ich getan habe.

7. Ich beneide niemals andere, weder wegen ihres Glückes noch aufgrund meines eigenen Unglücks.

8. Ich bin nicht darüber betrübt, von jemandem oder von etwas getrennt zu werden.

9. Ich tadele weder mich noch andere.

10. Ich träume nicht davon, mich in eine Frau zu verlieben.

11. Ich habe keine Vorlieben oder Abneigungen.

12. Ich lehne keinerlei Unterkunft ab.

13. Ich beanspruche kein wohlschmeckendes Essen für mich selbst.

14. Ich sammle keine antiken und seltenen Gegenstände.

15. Ich vollziehe keine Reinigungszeremonien und lebe nicht abstinent, um mich vor Bösem zu schützen.

16. Ich finde keinen Gefallen an irgendwelchen Utensilien, ausser an Schwertern und anderen Waffen.

17. Ich werde auf dem Weg der Gerechtigkeit nicht an meinem Leben hängen.

18. Ich wünsche mir keinen bequemen Altersruhesitz.

19. Ich achte Götter und Buddha, doch ich mache mich nicht von ihnen abhängig.

20. Ich werde eher mein Leben aufgeben als meinen Namen beschmutzen.

21. Mein Herz und meine Seele werden nicht einen Augenblick lang vom Weg des Schwertes abweichen.

The Lonesome Way

Musashi Miyamoto

1. I do not act counter to traditional morality.

2. I am in no sense whatsoever partisan or prejudiced.

3. I do not strive for comfort.

4. I do not overvalue myself, yet I well-value Humanity.

5. I stay free from greed my whole life long.

6. I never regret what I have done.

7. I never begrudge others, neither for their fortune nor for my own misfortune.

8. I am accordingly not aggrieved to become separated from someone or from something.

9. I berate neither myself nor others.

10. I dream not of falling in love with a woman.

11. I have neither likes nor dislikes.

12. I reject no form of lodging.

13. I require no delicious food for myself.

14. I collect no antique and rare objects.

15. I perform no cleansing ceremonies, and do not live abstinent, in order to protect me from Evil.

16. I find no pleasure in any utensils except for swords and other weaponry.

17. I become not dependent upon the Way of Justice in my life.

18. I wish for my elderly self no cushy rest-home.

19. I respect Kami and Buddha, yet I do not make myself dependent upon them.

20. I would sooner give up my life than befoul my name.

21. My heart and my soul become not diverted, for even a moment, from the Way of the Sword.

Modern Japanese Rendering (ofquestionable correctness):

Jeffrey Hull; Oregon; 2011

German Translation:

Das Buch der Fünf Ringe –Klassische Strategien aus dem alten Japan; Musashi Miyamoto (auth) &Yamada Taro (transl); Piper; München; 2003

English Translation:

Jeffrey Hull; Oregon; 2011

How the Gods Kill, Part One:

2011-10-01T01:59:00.000-07:00

PART ONE:

The willowy, ashen gray being tilted its bulbous head from side to side, as its jet black, insectoid eyes peered blankly at the holographic projection emitted from the spherical projector suspended from the sleek panel above. Its svelte frame remained otherwise fixed to the spot for several seconds; then, in a single sinuous motion, it made its way to a nearby screen crawling with flashing red symbols. Its spindly arm reached out, spidery fingers brushing lightly against the screen. Suddenly, the normally placid face contorted into a mask of utter horror, its slit of a mouth twisting open into a wide, hideous maw fringed with translucent, needle-like teeth; as it jabbed frantically at a blinking octagonal green button, upon which a slot in the glistening wall into which the screen was affixed spat out a long stream of data feed.

“^><^OOO>^
(“BUGGER ME SIDEWAYS!!!”)

The being vaulted from here it stood, bringing itself in one swoop before the golden throne, and its magnificently arrayed occupant, situated upon a floating dais in the center of the saucer.

“)(^^VX../-<”

(“Speak,”) said the being slumped comfortably upon the throne, as it examined its ruffled cuticles somewhat disdainfully; then picking at the puff-ridged creases with its teeth until the tips of its fingers became bloody.

“X((^. - - O V><<> III X^^^ O YX***”

(“Report regarding the City of Gomorrah, O Supreme Being.”)

“UXVII* PLLLLL O <><> O /// … TREEBAT KLATH ORANGUTAN XSXSU ZAPPA /// ())(()”

(“And what does it say, Reginald?”) said the enthroned being, rubbing hot pink blood over the glistening surface of its ebon, lidless eye.

“TESTES (C(X < OVIXU ^^^”

(“The animals in the city…”)

“IUX <><><> WINGU ORFTO ///\\\ VOCHT-POW-POW<>”

(“They’re not animals! I altered their evolutionary pattern, dingus!”)

“TX III ###<>
(“The almost – b-b-barely more than animals – the disgusting things…they’re…they’re out of control, Lord.”)

“NEUTERED V<>
(“What are you jabbering about?”)

“YXI SUCKYSUCKY VLLLLORSCXCH ()()(O- POTTYMOUTH .O.”

“They’re doing…horrible things…bonking everything in sight! Just rutting away like dogs in the street and swimming in social diseases!”

A third being pranced forward, craning its gigantic headi in to interject: “())(() IXIIVO ****’. .I> TALLYWACKER ^^O^^ BIIING”

(“Roughly three quarters of the inhabitants of Gomorrah experience an agonizing burning sensation with abnormal discharge while urinating, O High and Great One. The discharge is lime green and appears to have a viscous consistency. It also reeks to Andromeda. I’ve got some of it here on my hand. See? It’s got a slightly crunchy texture when chewed and tastes like fermented snot. The burst of flavor the microbes give it redeems it a little, however. Try it. And oh, it also appears to have spread to Sodom. I told this guy Lot he’d better get the hell out of –”)

“YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYOOOUSO ZOAPDTHU 0)U(0”

(“Spaceman’s codpiece! Annihilate them! They’ll contaminate the rest of the livestock!”) shouted the King of Heaven.

And thus the Wrath of God surged out across space and time, and smote those perverted bastards wallowing their offal right good, leaving nothing but smoldering rubble in its sparkly neon blue, streaky wake. Also, it sounded like: BBBBZZZZZzzZZ
ZZZzzZZZPPPffffFFFFFAAAaaaAAAAaaAATchpppUUURRRRFTttttTTTTtTTT!!!!

Well, close enough.

“KLEENEX CDROM <<<<>>>>> IXVIIXXX OOOO)(OOOO - - ZOATHUA BURLEEBIT NEENERNEENER ‘’’HAUSNT O)(O”

(“Yeah, he had these hot daughters. Tried to get me drunk. They’re into some really kinky stuff –”)

“OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII0(0(”

(“Shut up, Xenu!") cried the King of Heaven, (“My God!”)

“IX% HUMPROBOT XKZAKU ###JAITHPOOT (O)”

(“I thought YOU were God, O Infallible One…”)

“%$#$$$ KKKKKLLLLLAUUUCCCHHHHUUMATHO XIIIVI HULKHOGAN <<<<^^^^>>>>>”

(“Even gods have a God, dumbass! I’m talking about the Cosmic Consciousness, not some material being! Besides, it’s an expression. Now, then Reginald…Remind me what you were saying about installing an agent on Earth disguised as the leader of a sword-centric cult. We’ll need a real egomaniacal asshole, and a good color scheme. Personally, I like the colors red and black. They seem to go well together…”)

* * *

Meanwhile, thousands of years later and somewhere in Hell:

“I curse the day I met you,” said Casper, teetering slightly and trying not to slip. “Oh, God, the stench is terrible. Can’t there at least be some light down here? No, wait, forget about that. I don’t need to see it as well as smell it.”

Casper sighed, and strained to keep his mouth above the brimming, steaming pool of warm feces. “Oh, no! Not the dry heaves again. I’m dead; it’s not as if I’ve got anything to throw up…Urgh! My hair! It’s getting in my beautiful hair! Stop moving down there! You’re slouching. If you don’t stand up straight it’ll get in my eyes. Be still, my ugly, pot-bellied Atlas. Don’t make me stand on your head instead of your shoulders…I think a big one just floated by. OhhhhEeeeewwwwww-hoo-hoo-hooo!!! It brushed against my nose! Wait, what’s that?”

* * *

“Central Station, do you need assistance?”

Kkkkkkkrrrrrrrrrrcccccuuuuukkkkkk…

“This is dispatch, do you need assistance?”

“…el..to......….yes…”

“What?”

“An….…k…..ye……”

“You’ll have to speak up, I can’t hear you.”

“MY E…!!! TO..…..….ES!!!”

“Sir, you’ll have to call back, I’m afraid. The connection –”

“…....ake…urs!”

“Please call back, goodbye.”

“What was that?”

“Somebody’s playing around with the emergency line down at the big new mausoleum again.”

“Better send out the guard. That’s a city account now. One of the VIPs, ever since they found out the Sexton was eating all those bodies. Could be vandalizing the place.”

“All right. But he’s not gonna like it.”

“Never does.”

* * *

“I expected more of you,” said the angel.

“Yeah, well…the last time we ran across an angel, it killed us. So, don’t think we’re happy to see you,” said Casper, wiping excrement from his otherwise pristine locks.

“That was a Mormon angel,” said the luminous being, as it extended its broad, multicolored wings, “they’re all insane. And you should be glad to see me, for I offer you two wretches a chance at redemption.”

“Go fuck yourself,” said Brandon, then promptly began spitting again.

“What was that?” inquired the angel. “I’m sorry, I couldn’t hear you clearly. You seem to have shit in your mouth.”

“Shut up, B.!”

The angel took a step closer, “Your friend is truly the most obstinate being in the Universe. And trust me, I would know.”

“Oh, yeah?! And what sort of angel are you, then?” asked B.

“The best kind! I’m Catholic, of course…”

“…And this redemption you’re offering,” said C. “What might it entail?”

“I’m offering you the opportunity to wipe away…”

“Please!” said C., retching.

“…to cleanse your many, many vile sins forever. To begin again with a clean slate, back on Earth. To be reborn…”

“Oh, no…” said B., “no way! I’ve been to your little Sunday gatherings. The pastor comes out, talks about how the Earth’s only 4,000 years old. And then out with his stupid guitar –”

“I said I was Catholic, you horse’s ass!”

“B., if you don’t shut up, I’ll throw you back in the dung pit!” said C.; “remember, you got me into this mess.”

“No,” said B., “you got ME into this mess! What with your sendings and whatnot. If you had just handled it yourself –”

“Shut up, the pair of you! If we didn’t need you, you two would be shit out of –”

“Please!” implored C. “Please, not the ‘S’ word. Not now.”

“What do you need us for?” asked B.

“There is an alien being that walks upon the Earth. It’s vile, blaspheming master likes to masquerade as God Almighty Itself. It has infiltrated your global government under the guise of cultural preservation. In truth, it’s nothing more than a bid for world domination.”

“And why do you need us, exactly?” inquired C.

“And what ‘global government’? We don’t have –”

“Oh, don’t be so naive!” snapped the angel. “Wake up, man! What do you think the UN is? Don’t you know about the chem-trails? Are you monumentally stupid?!”

“Yes, he is,” said C., “but you were saying…”

“We need you because you’ve had firsthand experience with this alien being.”

“And just who is this alien?” asked B.

“Inclementus,” said the angel, matter-of-factly.

“Pass,” said C., “I don’t want to get sued.”

“Inclementus is an alien? Yeah, right,” said B.

“Oh, listen to him. Mr. Internet Tough Guy with his blog! Now, you listen to me, you petulant, sacrilegious little twerp! Do you even know what your next scheduled punishment is here in Hell?”

“No,” said B.

“I don’t care,” said C; “I’m not squaring off against Inclementus again. Not on your life.”

“You’re going into the Searing Whirlwind.”

“Awesome!” said B.

“A wind that scathes like a trillion scorpions and strips the flesh away from your bones,” cautioned the angel.

“Meh,” said B.

“And it’s inhabited mostly by Democrats,” said the angel.

“Then I shall cut them all down, whirlwind or no!” said B.

“And do you know who the President of Hell is?” inquired the angel.

“Satan,” said B. “I know. He taught me how to put on pants.”

“Satan is the King of the Pit, yes. I’m talking about the President of –”

“I like Satan,” said B., with a smile.

“You would,” said the angel.

“All right then, I’ll bite,” said C.; “who is the President of Hell?”

“Jimmy Carter’s brother. And it has been unanimously agreed by all the Lords of the Underworld that his term shall never end.”

“We’ll do what ever it is you ask,” said B.

“I thought so,” said the angel.

“Wait a minute,” said C; “I don’t care if –”

“What is your name, angel?” asked B.

The angel was silent for a moment, then sighed. “I am the angel called Priapus. And if you say anything, a fate worse than Hell awaits you! Now, you’ll need to retrieve the Sword Sage’s severed head from the thorny, twisted branches of the Black Tree of the Damned. It’s on a small island near the center of the Frozen Lake of Iniquity. The head will tell you the way out of Hell.”

“Why can’t you just get us out?” asked B.

“Because, for all the vile sins you’ve committed, you deserve much, much, much more punishment. Therefore, you shall have to make your own way out. And you’ll still be getting off easy.”

“How do we get there?” asked B.

“That way,” said the angel, pointing to a long, snaking path through a dense woodland on the horizon; and then promptly vanished in a feathery puff of smoke.

“But I don’t care if Jimmy Carter’s brother is the President of Hell!” shouted C., kicking B.’s legs out from under him.

“Look,” said B., struggling back to his feet, “at least we’re getting out of this awful place.”

“You said you liked it!”

“Everything except the dung well, yes. But now I want vengeance!”

“Now that I can understand,” said C., and they set off together towards the trees.

“I heard everything you said down in the well, by the way,” said B.

“I know,” said C.

* * *

"*##^^>
(“O Mighty Lord of the Universe, if I may –”)

“POOMPTDU-POOMPTDU ~``` %%% ())()()((O ZVVVVVXIIVII ~ IPOD”

(“What is it?”)

“()(())() ^<^> HOPPITYHOPHOPHOPHOPPITY COSSACK DINGU-THWATTD-KOLOB”

(“It appears as if our agent on Earth has been devoured by a giant amorphous blob named Hugh, O Omnipotent One. Happened at a porno theater, apparently. A strange creature, to be sure. Even now it’s passing over the Utah border into Nevada…or maybe it’s still in Utah…I’m not sure.”)

“@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@”

(“WHAT?!?!”)

“69REVERSECOWGIRLMISSIONARYDOGGYDOUBLEFISTEDWATERSPORTSCUNNILINGUSFELATIOHANDJOB”

(“He’s right, Lord. It’s moving into Nevada and in the general direction of California.”)

“&U&VIXII >>>/\<<< =”

(“Are you sure? I can’t find the dividing line.”)

“UUUUUUVVVVVVVVOT – PLOP - VEY-DI VAH-DI”

(“It’s right there. See that line? On the one side it says ‘Utah,’ on the other it says ‘Nevada.’”)

“~O)(/\)(O~”

(“So what?”)

“~(())SUPERCALAFRAGELISTICEXPIALADOCIUS(())~HESLOPIANTIRADEFATHEADCASPARTICUSCOLOSSUSHAIRDO#^OOO”

(“I don’t care where it is!”) cried God, (“destroy it and get our creature out! It was created with the utmost love and care from the cloned tissues of my own third anus. The head was fashioned from a canker I discovered in the shower. It’s precious to me, damn it! Do whatever is necessary, but extract my pet at all costs!!!” By the way – and speaking of Nevada – have you finished anal probing that pedantic little historian from Reno? If so, strap him down again. It amuses me.)

* * *

Wednesday, October the 25th, 8:35 pm, 2011:

I’m standing in the small, broken down structure in which the authors of Lessons on the English Longsword met their tragic end. It’s not all that far from the airport and my hotel, really. FYI, I’m speaking these words into my cell phone’s voice recorder and will transcribe it later. Many have called me a fool for abandoning all my projects back in California, but I’ve set my course and there’s no looking back now. I can’t abide a mystery. I must see this through. I’ll include some photographs of the crime scene at the bottom of this post, together with screen captures of newspaper articles I found online. I should warn the reader, however: the content of the articles is more than a little disheartening. They certainly weren’t heroes, but I don’t think that our estranged brothers in arms deserved some of the shabby things that were said about them. I’ll let you be the judge.

As I said earlier, I’m standing on the very spot. It’s quite dark now, and there’s an eerie, chill wind from off of the Great Salt Lake, (as well as a horrible smell. Must be all the salt in the lake). I must admit, despite being a Godless liberal, I’m a little spooked. There’s a lot of graffiti in here, as well as all manner of trash. I perhaps should have waited until morning, but once I arrived in Salt Lake City, I just had to set about the work at once. Besides, this place is cordoned off now. From what I’ve gathered in my researches, a lot more people have been found dead in the general proximity of this building. Mostly hobos, graffiti artists, gang members, and other assorted members of society’s disadvantaged and downtrodden. The forgotten ones without hope, in other words. Whatever – oh, Sweet Science, listen to me – whoever killed our belligerent compatriots is clearly still active in this area (not to worry, I’ve got my trusty longsword with me, just in case). And if the police are the fascist knuckleheads here that they are in Cali, I have little confidence that they’ll bag the culprit. I am determined to find him and begin the long process of rehabilitation…

…Hang on. My flashlight seems to be flickering. I’ll just set my phone down on this cement block, here. Odd. I just put new batteries in this thing. What the fuc – Marx’s bones! I...I saw…I’m not sure what I saw. It was walking…it passed…the entranceway behind me…in front of me, I mean…The entranceway that was behind me. It looked…like its back had been broken…Its torso was contorted, and…hanging, kind of…Face was almost upside down…familiar.

H-hello!?!? Is anybody there? I’m armed, I should warn you.

I hear…I heard something. There’s nothing behind me, but…

AaaarrrUUUuuuuUUuuAAAaAaaAaAAaARRRRrrrrRRRRRrrRRRRrGGGGGgGhhhhhh!!!

Got me. It…it…I’m bleeding. It’s not bad. Clawed my shoulder good. Came right at me! I turned and it was right at me! Walking backwards! His face…upside down. I threw the flashlight at it. I’m running. I’ve got the phone and I’m running. Took a swipe at it with my longsword, too. I’m not lying, now…right through it! My sword went right through it! I-I’m at my Prius. I’m inside. No sign of Bradak. Did I just say that? It sure looked like him. MY CAR WON’T START! Come on…Come on…Oh, why did I have to get this neutered piece of…Damned eco guilt!!! Oh, thank Darwin! It’s okay…it’s okay…I’m on the road, heading back towards the hotel. The – what the – what is this? There’s somebody…somebody in the road. There’s somebody in the road…and he’s got no eyes. His eyes are ripped out, and he’s bleeding, and he’s got a sword…and it’s Heslop. It’s Heslop, and he’s got no eyes, and he’s bleeding, and he’s got a sword, and he’s in the middle of the road, and he’s grinning like an idiot like he always did, and he’s running and screaming at me and I’m running the fuck over him! Screw this shit! I’m running him…Okay, just drove through him…

…Oh…you…Oh, you’re…you’ve got to be…YOU HAVE GOT TO BE FUCKING KIDDING ME! I just got buzzed by a UFO…Weather balloon, weather balloon, weather balloon. Just a weather balloon, that’s all it is…A weather balloon that just incinerated a highway patrol car with a sparkly, streaky blue ray that came out of its underside. Hmmm, interesting. Interesting, completely preposterous and utterly impossible!!! You know, I think I hate Utah…

…Weeeeeelllllllllllll, I need to go back to the hotel and get drunk. Oh, yes. Yeeeessssssss…So very, very drunk. This is William Cain III, signing off…for now.

* * *

BbbbbRrrrrIiiiNnnnGggg…
…BbbbbRrrrrIiiiNnnnGggg…
…BbbbbRrrrrIiiiNnnnGggg…

Click.

“Dispatch, do y –”

“…..ou…ve……yes?”

“For the last time, stop screwing around with the phone! It’s for emergencies only! That’s why it says ‘EMERGENCY PHONE.’”

“I……..nt….y……es. D….ou ha…..….s?”

“Goodbye.”

“Kids again?”

“Yeah. Dumbasses.”

“We heard back from the guard yet?”

“No. You want me to call out?”

“Might be a good idea.”

“All right. Unit 3, 10-36.”

“Wake up, asshole…Call out again.”

“Unit 3, 10-36.”

KkkkKKKkkKkRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrfffffffffffff…

“Unit 3, 10-9.”

KKkkkKKkkKkkRRrrrrrrrffffffffff… “D...ou….h..e...my eyes? Angel to………….Someone mus………….eyes….”

“Get back up units out there, right now! I’m calling the cops.”

* * *

“These woods suck,” said C.

“Yeah, I know. I wasn’t fond of that horned woodsman who chopped us into pieces and then stomped on us.”

“Me either. How does one acquire a sword in this place to guard oneself from such depredations?”

“It’s Hell, man. I very much doubt we’ll find one, let alone two.”

“You think I don’t know that? I was speaking rhetorically, halfwit.”

“Well, maybe the Sword Sage can tell us how we might arm ourselves.”

“Maybe,” said C; then: “Hey, have you noticed how the narration in this story is different from the last two?”

“What do you mean?”

“Isn’t it obvious? In the Charlatan’s Revenge, you were the narrator.”

“Right. So what?”

“And last year, in Against a Dwarf, you were also the narrator. They were both written in the first person.”

“Well, the thought did occur that you might be the narrator this year. But then you’d be going on and on about all the hair product you use. What gives you the best volume, bounce and shine, blah, blah, blah. Boring! But yes, you’re right. And?”

“Well in this, the third and final Halloween tale, the narration is in the third person, or omnipresent. So, what gives?”

“Well, it’s a different kind of story, of course. There are bits in it where we’re not present. The focus is on different things, too; though obviously it’s in the same genre. You know, you have to think about how you’re going to present things. This is a pseudo-horror story, just like the others. It deals with the same things, just in a different way. It’s kind of like pedagogy in that sense –“

“Hey! Leave kids out of this. And yes, I’m keenly aware that you’re using a silly horror story – in which we’re both dead and currently stuck in Hell – to take yet another swipe at the anti-pan-European crowd. You’re so predictable. Even in Hell you can’t stop offending people.”

“Perhaps, but I’m through dumbing things down. If you’re too stupid, or just too disingenuous to engage in a real debate, then I’m going to eviscerate you. You know wh – ”

“Shhh! Listen...”

“Oh, you’re hearing the thing that’s been following us for a while now, right?”

“You knew?”

“Yeah. I’ve caught a glimpse or two of it. Pretty nasty, by the looks of it. Lots of fangs.”

“Why didn’t you say?”

“I’m perverse, I suppose.”

“Right. Shall we run, then?”

“Yes, let’s.”

* * *

“Central, um –“

“This is Central, go ahead Unit 5.”

“Central, about Unit 3…he’s here…well, sort of.”

“Don’t be cute, 5. Is he there or not?”

“There’s a lot of blood, Central. I think I’m going to se sick, actually.”

“Are the police on site?”

“No, as usual they couldn’t give a shit. They won’t be here for a long time yet, most likely. Central, you’ll have to excuse me for a second. I’m going to throw up. Just stepped on 3’s arm. I think it’s been torn off.”

“I’m calling the cops again, 5. Get back to your car and lock the doors! Repeat, get back to your car and lock the doors until PD arrives…”

“Any response from 5?”

“No. Get on the phone with PD. Tell them to get their good for nothing asses down there! Unit 5, do you copy? Unit 5, please respond.”

KkkkKKKkkKkRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrfffffffffffff… “Th…..….eyes…..…o good. Send some……...se.……...nks.”

“I really need to quit this shit-eating job.”

“My sentiments exactly, Sasha. In fact, you’re on your own. I’m outta here.”

“Nigel! Where are you going? Nigel…I can’t…Nigel, please!”

“I would say ‘good luck,’ but frankly, I don’t care enough to utter pleasantries right now. You should perhaps know that I’ve always despised you and your stupid face and the ‘dear-in-the-headlights’ expression it always seems to wear. Furthermore, neither I nor anybody else ever cared for all those stories about the time you worked in the casino in Washington State, and how everyone was mean to you; or about your boyfriend, or how controlling your mother is, or how much you hate Utah, or how evil the Republicans supposedly are. We all hate you! And yes, I know Sarah Palin is a babbling idiot; I don’t need you to point that out to me every five seconds, thanks. And – just so you know – doing so doesn’t make you any less of a constant irritant that I’ve had to constantly fight the urge to throw the phone at these past ten months. And don’t talk to me about being ‘anti-science;’ because as far as I’m concerned, sniveling little professional malcontents like you are proof positive that evolution can’t possibly be true. How could nature select anything even remotely like you? I should take your Che Guevara T-shirt and shove it where the sun don’t shine. I hope whatever it is that’s on the radio gets you, Sasha. I think you’re a self righteous, cringing twat. Just thought you should know that before I walk out of here once and for all. ”

“N-Nigel…”

“Bye.”

* * *

“You couldn’t have mentioned the giant wolf man stalking us?! What’s the matter with you?!” asked C.

“What’s the point? You wouldn’t have listened to me, anyway.”

“I’m tired of this shit, B.! And I don’t care if we’re in Hell, because you’re walking, talking proof that there’s no God, and hence no afterlife! What kind of hideously deranged deity would have any hand in creating something as awful as you?! Complain, complain, complain, snipe, snipe, snipe!!! That’s all you do, you wretched malcontent! For all I know, this all some coma dream. Yes, I’m in a coma, and the chemicals in my atrophying brain are bubbling and jostling about frantically and creating all this in my head –”

“Oh, listen to the materialist babbling! And I suppose every time we make a judgment, the Universe branches out and creates a whole new alternate reality, wherein the exact opposite of our aforesaid judgment is true; complete with alternate versions of ourselves, our world, and everything in it?”

“Why not?”

“That’s an awful lot of magical thinking to solve the measurement problem, my friend. Not to mention making us de facto gods every time we see the lights at the intersection change. I alone must be responsible for thousands upon thousands of alternate Universes by now. Ones where the light was green instead of red, or red instead of green, or where I ran through the red light and crashed instead of stopping and waiting for it to turn green…You get the idea. Face it: consciousness drives reality, and this is our reality. It is the direct consequence of the actions we took in life, those actions themselves directly related to our seared, warped and very nonphysical minds!”

“You just had to take a shot at the atheists! Just shut up.”

“Just keep running. You want to get devoured and then shat out by some hairy wolfen Neanderthal?”

“What, you gonna eat me? I see a gate up ahead. If I get to it first, I may wait for you…or I might just shut it. Better keep up, tubby.”

* * *

“Another?” asked the bar tender.

“Yes,” I tell him.

“Why are you talking into your phone?”

“Because I’m doing a story,” I say to him.

“It’s putting my other patrons off, man. Especially when you narrate after things other people say. I ask you if you want another, and you say ‘asked the bar tender.’ It’s a little freaky. Your shoulder’s bleeding, by the way.”

“Well, I have to have a point of reference, don’t I? And yeshh, I know. I was claurrred by one of the Restless Dead. Just before the aliens nearly crashed into my car.”

“Well, would you mind terribly not getting blood on the counter? And did you say ‘yesh?’”

“I believe I may be slurrvinkg. Sorry. But if I may, it puzzles me that you’re not more surprised at my comment about the Restless Dead…not to mention the aliens.”

“This is Utah. We get a lot of that kind of thing here. Particularly the past couple of years. All started when those two sword weirdos were found all dead and mutilated and probably raped according to the coroner – you know, after they were dead; some sickos are into that – out by the Great Salt Lake. Another?”

“Please.”

“Not driving, are you?”

“No. Not until tomorrow.”

“Good. Let me know when you wanna pay.”

“Put it on my bill. I’ll pay when I check out.”

“Okay. Looks like someone’s here to see you,” said the bartender, pointing directly behind me.

“Stop doing that; it creeps me out! And tell your friend with his eyes ripped out to sit the fuck down. I hate it when people don’t sit down. Makes me nervous.”

“…………….”

“Are you going to kill me, Brandon?”

“……………………………………”

“It…it, uh…wasn’t you?”

“……………………………………………………………………………..”

“Stop babbling, please. I can’t stand it when the living do it, so imagine how I feel when a dead person does it. Either it was you or it wasn’t!”

“……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………”

“Impressions?”

“……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………..”

“So, you’re saying that when you die all horribly and squeally, it, um…it leaves a series if impressions on the fabric of Space/Time. And all you are right now is one of those impressions, albeit one endowed with a limited intelligence?”

“….”

“Okay. How many of these impressions are there…for you…I mean.”

“………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….”

“There’s three? This manifestation that I’m talking to right now, the one near where you died, and one at the Salt Lake City Cemetery?

“….”

“So…what should I do?”

“……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………”

“And how am I supposed to amalgamate your three separate manifestations, exactly?”

“……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..”

“Your corpse was eaten by a cemetery Sexton? I didn’t think we had those anymore.”

“……………...”

“Just in Utah, huh? Interesting.”

“…………………………………………………………………………………”

“I have to what?”

“…………………………………………………………………………………”

“I have to locate the remains of your remains? And how am I supposed to do that?”

“……………………………………………………..”

“You threw up by the little mausoleum near the Sexton’s residence? What has that got to do with –”

“!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

“I have to cut the grass up in the exact spot you upchucked? And there’s an incantation? I don’t know, man. This stuff doesn’t fly with me. Besides, the Sexton couldn’t have devoured all of you two…”

“……………………………………………………………………”

“A big blob? Absorbed bones and all, huh?”

“……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………”

“So, you’re both in Hell, as well as being the Restless Dead, huh? How’s that work?”

“…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………”

“I wouldn’t have thought underwear preference would have that much to do with it, but hey, I’m an atheist.”

“!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

“There’s no need to get abusive! I don’t rag on you for being a theist, after all.”

“………”

“S’okay. So, the underwear…is it just the frilly stuff that damns you, or…”

“!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

“All right, all right. I’m listening.”

“…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….”

“You’re in Hell, but you’re on your way back? How does one get out of Hell?”

“……………….”

“Well, I should think it matters very much, actually. But, go on.”

“……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..”

“I have to re-amalgamate your various earthly impressions before you get back, or else your memories won’t be intact?”

“………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..”

“What the hell is a ‘mind/body pattern?’ And why’s it so important, other than your memories?”

“………………………………………………………………………………………”

“So, your mind/body pattern is essential to your overall identity; and if it’s disrupted violently when you die – and then you come back – your earthly manifestations or impressions will still be roaming about and massacring all kinds of people?”

“…..”

“And I assume you’re the manifestation or impression that holds the memories, correct?”

“…..”

“Okay, then…I guess we’re gonna go look for some pukey grass, then. I’m going up to my room to shower and sober up. I’d ask you to come with, but…you’re kinda creepy. Something tells me you like that before you died, though. Anyway, wait here.”

* * *

“Bar the gate!” shouted C.

“What the hell do you think I’m doing?” said B., slamming the heavy iron bar into place just as the massive wolf-thing smashed into the face of the spike surmounted door. And B., thrown back from the force of the impact, fell on his ass.

“You’re doing that a lot lately,” commented C.

“You don’t get it, do you?”

“I don’t get what?”

“The woodsman, and now the Big Bad Wolf. It’s after you, Goldilocks! Not me.”

“Ahem – if that were true, which it isn’t, idiot – and if I were Goldilocks, wouldn’t it be a gigantic bear, as opposed to a big wolf thing? And of course it’s after you and not me. Everyone and everything in its right mind hates you.”

“Oh, yeah. Well, bang goes that theory, then.”

“So then, my dualist friend and expert on the paranormal, what do we do now? It’s going to get through that gate eventually.”

“I just want to show you my cat stance!” shouted the wolf man.

“What?!” said B., incredulous and squinting with disdain.

“Why would a large wolf/human hybrid want to show us a cat stance?” inquired C.

“It makes me faster! See?” said the creature, demonstrating its alleged prowess, its hulking frame teetering on tiptoe as it moved in what it obviously thought were very nimble strides and nearly falling over in the process.

“I don’t see how that makes you any faster,” said B. “In fact, it’s probably the very reason you didn’t catch us.”

“It does so!” said the werewolf, defiantly. “Look, it also makes it easier for me to circle you.”
“Um, no,” said B. “It just makes you look asinine. Well, more so.”

“So says the man who wore a stupid do-rag in most of the pictures in his book,” said C., chuckling. “And I’m sorry, Mr. Wolf Man, but the only thing that does is make you look stupid and put you off balance. You’ve almost fallen over twice…And now you actually have fallen over.”

“Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!”

“I cut my scalp shaving, damn it! Did you want a big bloody gash on the top of my skull in the photos?!”

“Would have been an improvement,” said C.

“Shut up!!!” said the werewolf, again.

“Um…okay,” said C. “We have to go, anyway. Are you ever going to get up, B.?”

“My name’s Cameron,” said the werewolf, getting up on all fours, tail wagging.

“We don’t care,” said B, getting up.

“You guys want to see how I can break your sternums with my lower knuckles?” asked Cameron the Werewolf, contorting its massive fist into a strange shape and extending it for display.

“No,” said C. “That’s not really possible. Even for a big thing like you.”

“It is so possible! My master showed me. Look, it’s really cool…”

“That’s all right. Maybe next time,” said B.

“That will only fuck up your hand,” said C.

“Wait, I have more important stuff to tell you guys! You’re doing Zornhau all wrong. You only do it from the bind. This, of course, means that you have to essentially walk up to the opponent and hope he’ll agree to touch swords with you.”

“Kinky,” said B.

“Good luck with that,” said C.

“I’m telling you! You’re doing it all wrong. Vom Tag is held with the blade resting on the shoulder! And you have to pull it all the way back every time you cut just like in those YouTube videos! The point is to fight in as stiff, mechanized and nonorganic way as possible and look like a robot doing it! Auf means up! They always spoke literally back then! So I guess that means you should actually impale your shoulder with the sword up through your armpit. In the Ledall, two rounds done upon the head literally means do two rounds upon the head! Your pommel must always maintain contact with your scalp.”

“Goodbye,” said B.

“Fiore and Liechtenauer are very, very different systems! Pedagogy is more important than objective truth, a massive amount of obvious similarities and a lot of quotes!”

“We’re leaving now,” said C.

“I’m gonna break this gate down with my knuckles! You wait and see. I’ll show you! Guys…guys…”

* * *

Coming October 1st...

2011-09-30T18:49:00.000-07:00

Part One of the Third and Final Chaper...

Are you ready to go to Hell?

-B.

Man yt Wol Series: Thirteenth Point Called the Downright Stroke Standing Still

2011-09-28T22:33:00.000-07:00

So, Casper's ill. It's just me this time. I have no doubt it would be a better video if C. had been involved. I'm not bad at physical interpretation, but it's Casper's strong suit. Sadly, there'll be no new videos next week to allow my cohort to recuperate. This one will have to tide you over until we can get things in motion the following week (with better lighting).

Note: the void quarter is a feint. Casper does it a little differently than I. I put the brakes on and then break into the next move (hopefully as fluidly as possible). C. puts more fluidity and follow through into it. He's probably right to. Nonetheless, this should serve our purposes. The camera inexplicably cut off the last two moves (quarters) from the play. I'm lazy, so I didn't do it again.

-B.

Kronic Confusion & Do Overs

2011-09-28T09:56:00.000-07:00

by,

So, I got an email from a novice. Apparently there's some discussion going the rounds out there in cyberspace regarding Kron / Corona / the Cross or the Ribbed Banana or whatever you want to call it. I don't care. Anyway, I decided to make a video about it. I didn't have access to anyone with training, but my bro-in-law (and dashing good buddy) Madison happliy obliged. I'm sure everyone knows the difficulties inherent in attempting to demonstrate techniques with the untrained, so please bear with us. Personally, I think he did quite well for a first-timer. See video below.

-B.

Man yt Wol Serie: Sundries, New Derived Guard Names & Reinterpretations prt 4

2011-09-26T23:09:00.000-07:00

Poor lighting, sound, and camera work. Nonetheless, it does redeem itself in a few places and it certainly gets the point across. Enjoy.

P.S., we promise that the next round of vids WILL have better lighting.

-B.

Man yt Wol Series: Sundries, New Derived Guard Names & Reinterpretations prt 3

2011-09-26T16:07:00.000-07:00

Wherein we condescend to you and pontificate some more!

Poor lighting, sound, and camera work. Nonetheless, it does redeem itself in a few places and it certainly gets the point across. Enjoy.

Man yt Wol Series: Sundries, New Derived Guard Names and Reinterpretations Part Two

2011-09-25T22:10:00.000-07:00

Poor lighting, sound, and camera work. Nonetheless, it does redeem itself in a few places and it certainly gets the point across. Parts Three and Four still coming. Enjoy!

Man yt Wol Series: Sundries, New Derived Guard Names, and Reinterpretations Part 1

2011-09-25T19:27:00.000-07:00

Poor lighting, sound, and camera work. Nonetheless, it does redeem itself in a few places and it certainly gets the point across. Enjoy!

-B.

Man Yt Wol Series: First Flourish (Ledall)

2011-09-25T00:30:00.000-07:00

Another bit on Bikini Swordfight...

2011-09-22T18:30:00.000-07:00

by,

William Farlin Cain III

Hey, thanks for referencing Audacity! I don't put nearly enough effort into getting Audacity articles posted, and I should, and you're right to call me out on my half-hearted approach, the subject deserved a more rigorous treatment.

All I'm calling for is a sense of humor about ourselves. If we can laugh at ourselves and the inherent humor of the situation (we're grown men playing with swords, it's going to seem funny), then we become immune to some of the allure of hubris, and anchor our art to our sense of humanity. If we react as puritans, we're going to drive people away, just as surely as if we all got out in bikinis and objectified every female/male/other practitioner of the art as sexual objects. Someone is going to be driven away on the one hand or the other, and I personally would rather have the group with a sense of humor about things.

-W.

Mercenaries and Techniques

2011-09-22T18:26:00.000-07:00

Mercenaries and Techniques

by Richard Marsden

Premise

Northern Italy saw the mixing and interaction of martial arts and became a place where techniques were shared, or otherwise learned. In particular, the use of the longsword was codified by Fiore and most likely influenced by a variety of nationalities (including his own)-thanks (in part) to mercenaries. Mercenaries themselves, however, did not write down their techniques, nor were they the intended audience of any written martial material.

Background

During the 14th century in Italy, particularly in the walled city of Florence a Renaissance was occurring. However, while thoughts on science, architecture, sculpture and painting were being revitalized in an atmosphere of high culture and more importantly wealth, there was another more martial Renaissance taking place.

Unable, or unwilling, to fight, the city-states of Northern Italy fell into the practice of hiring soldiers to conduct the dirty business of war. These soldiers had come pouring over the Alps after the Pope, who was in a state of self-imposed exile in Avignon, literally paid marauding bandits to 'go away'.

Pope Innocent VI's, albeit reluctant, decision in 1361 to pay armed men to leave him alone only encouraged more freebooters. A momentary pause in the Hundred Years War between England and France did not help either, with soldiers on both sides suddenly finding themselves without employment. Armed men, eager for work and glory marched into Northern Italy to find a countryside ripe for plunder, divided by internal squabbles, and more importantly, drenched in wealth. This wasn't the first time Italy had drawn in soldiers looking for work, with former-Crusaders, roving Spaniards and nearby Germans having done so before in the preceding centuries, however this time the sheer volume of armed foreigners outpaced what had been seen in times past.

Genoa, Florence, Milan, the Kingdom of Modena, Pisa and other states in Northern Italy all took up the practice of hiring outsiders. These mercenaries took on the name, condottiere which is based on the word 'contract'. The word mercenary itself comes from the Latin word mercenarius or the more general term mercedes, both of which imply someone who does something for pay. The word 'merchant' and 'mercenary' come from the same root and in the context of the times, both the seller of silk and the seller of war were seen as a necessary evil.

These initial mercenaries were by and large, not Italian, though locals quickly enough got involved in 'the game'. The city-states for the most part lacked the able-bodied, or interested population to conduct warfare on their own, or as in the case of the famous crossbowmen of Genoa, they went elsewhere to fight! This lack of Italian soldiery was much to the annoyance of Machiavelli who in the 1500' saw mercenaries as a blight and hoped for a more citizen-based

army to replace them. His arguments against mercenaries included such valid points as their price, their reluctance to engage in pitched (and potentially costly) battle and a growing and accurate sense that the more organized neighbors of the Italian city-states were becoming increasingly dangerous. France and the Holy Roman Empire in particular were meddling heavily.

In his own words, "The mercenary captains are either capable men or they are not; if they are, you cannot trust them, because they always aspire to their own greatness, either by oppressing you, who are their master, or others contrary to your intentions; but if the captain is not skillful, you are ruined in the usual way."

Alas, Machiavelli's complaints about mercenaries was correct, but he was fighting against a practice that, by his lifetime, was well-established in Italy. There were even born and bred Italian condottiere by the time Machiavelli was writing The Prince, merrily fighting their own countrymen for whoever would pay the most.

Who were these vile men, needed by Italy, yet written about with scorn by one her greatest political thinkers?

Nationality

The men who marched into Italy in 1361 were not a homogeneous collection. The White Company, for example was captained by a German, Albert Sterz, and populated with a wide variety of Europeans including a great sum of Englishmen. When John Hawkwood took command of the same company, it consisted of Englishmen, Hungarians, Germans and eventually, Bretons and Frenchmen. Men, who in France had been at one another's throats, found themselves working together in Italy.

Working is the correct term. Mercenary companies had a Great Captain, but he in turn sub-contracted for men. Rule was partially democratic with a Great Captain having to keep his contractors happy, well-paid, and busy. Idle mercenaries tended to sack the nearest town.This great collection of men in Italy increased as anyone with skill in swordsmanship, archery or the use of the lance could find themselves in great demand in the relatively pleasant climate of Italy.

Meanwhile, political events continued to attract mercenaries to the peninsula. The pause in the Hundred Years War freed up hordes of soldiers on both sides of the conflict, Milan and the Visconti's desire to increase their influence was a continual source of strife, and thus work for mercenaries. Papal and Holy Roman politics didn't help either, with the occasional Holy Roman Emperor crossing the Alps, or papal division stirring up trouble, such as when three separate men were proclaimed the pontiff of Rome at the same time.

The petty and continual wars in Italy was a source of income for many a foreigner and in some cases even more. John Hawkwood became so powerful that he was able to marry Donnina Visconti, illegitimate daughter of Bernardo, master of Milan. Later, having switched sides and contracting with Florence (his wife didn't mind), Hawkwood was given lavish pay and died comfortably in a little villa outside the city. Wisely, Florentines were reluctant to let foreigners inside their walls, unless they were dead. Hawkwood was buried within the city and had a monument in his name constructed. His corpse was later sent back home to England by special request of the king. Not bad for an outsider!

Locals could do even better. Francisco Sforza, whose father had been an Italian-born condottiere was able to work for Milan, married the Visconti's duke daughter, then switched sides and worked for Florence. Milan had apparently not learned from their dealing with Hawkwood that marriages were no guarantee of loyalty. When the Duke of Milan died without an heir, Francisco Sforza stepped in and took the reins of power- by force. He was one of the first, but not last, Mercenary Kings.

The lure of riches and political power drew soldiers to Italy continually until larger, powerful neighbors, namely France and the Holy Roman Empire, intervened - just as Machiavelli feared.

Martial Practices

Identifying the techniques used by the mercenaries of Northern Italy is not easy. Despite their long stay in Italy, details on the individual lives of the soldiers was never a concern to those who were writing at the time. Machiavelli, for example, was more interested in the long-term consequences of mercenary employment, rather than how they used their weapons.

There are glimmers however, and some loose connections that can be made.

Records indicate that the English who crossed the Alps in 1361 fought in units of three known as a lance. The lance consisted of an armored soldier, a page, and a longbowman. All three were mounted, but fought on foot with the armored soldier using a foot-lance.

Archery, was probably a skill that could not be easily shared or taught. Mastery of the longbow took years of practice, which is why France, for example, had to rely on crossbowmen during the Hundred Years War.

The use of the lance, mounted and on foot, was something easier to teach and there is no reason to think that German, Breton, or Italian soldiers didn't pick up on English practices and vice-versa.

In the case of the longsword there is more compelling, but still passing evidence of shared techniques and a blending of styles.

The founder of the German school of thought on the use of the longsword was Johannes Leichtenauer. He did not invent the longsword's use, but he did travel about and get information on its use. A poem of his techniques is attributed to the year 1389.

In England, a series of verse holds within its cryptic writing longsword techniques. The author of MS Harely 3542 is unknown and currently the manuscript is believed to date to the 14th century.

In Northern Italy, a complete fighting manual, with verse and pictures, was created by Fiore de Liberi and printed in 1410 for Nicolo D'Este, master of Modena, who incidentally had replaced a retiring John Hawkwood as leader of the Papal forces opposing Visconti expansion.

All three documents were probably written by masters who were in their fifties or older. These men, as Fiore admits to in his own introduction, traveled around to learn their art and wrote down what they saw as 'best' practices. Neither Fiore, nor Liechtenauer are seen as originators of the art, they are instead well-known teachers of it, and like all good teachers, had their own

way of presenting information and their own preferences.

Where men like Liechtenauer or Fiore traveled to is difficult to say. When it is said Liechtenauer traveled to many countries, this very well might mean he visited the various kingdoms of the Holy Roman Empire and learned from only German speaking masters. Whoever wrote MS Harely 3542 may very well have never left England. Making a case that national styles blended using these two sources is shaky at best.

Fiore, however, provides ample clues of a more mixed learning of style. Fiore traveled to many lands and met many masters, and even if he meant he traveled to the various city-states and never crossed the Alps, it is almost a certainty he had access to many masters of a variety of nationalities- namely mercenaries.

It is logical to assume that the great swarm of mercenaries flooding Italy would be, at the very least, mildly interested in how to use their own weapons! While Machiavelli claimed they hardly fought a battle, this is not true. Pitched battles, while rare, did occur such as at Castagnaro, and skirmishing and raiding for plunder was a continual tactic used by the Great Companies, a technique which had come from the English chevauchees (raids) of the Hundred Years War.

Fiore's formative years were during the years when mercenaries, such as John Hawkood and Albert Sterz, were making names for themselves in Northern Italy. These Great Captains were not foolish men, and if they sub-contracted, there is no reason to think they would not want men of skill. Masters of various weapon systems would have been in high demand. More importantly, masters would have come from all over Europe.

Fiore could very easily have encountered men who had been taught, or at least influenced by Leichtenauer and the author of MS Harely or their contemporaries. Englishmen, Germans, Bretons and more all brought to Italy soldiery, there is no reason to think they did not bring their techniques with them as well.

Were these techniques vastly different? Did an Englishman use his longsword in a way that a German might find alien? Probably not, given a longsword can be used only so many ways and the human body too has only so many movements it can accomplish. However, the texts we have from England and Germany indicate there was no unified way of teaching the use of the longsword (they aren't identical) and that different masters preferred different techniques.

Fiore, for instance, is clear in that his fighting manual covers the safest and best techniques, not all of them. Fiore's idea of safe and best is not necessarily what Liechtenauer would say was best, or the author of MS Harely were they ever to meet.

All the elements of a blending of national 'styles' is evident in Italy during the mid to late 1300's. Soldiers, who clearly knew their craft, flooded Northern Italy and hailed from a variety of places. There was already a documented system of the use of the longsword in both England and Germany and those nationalities were heavily involved in Northern Italy throughout the mid 14th century. Fiore, an Italian master of the era, stated in his own introduction he traveled around and met (and dueled) many masters. Given how many warriors in Italy were non-native at the time, it's hard to believe Fiore would exclude non-Italians in his quest for knowledge.

Were the Manuals on Combat By Mercenaries for Mercenaries?

There is no documentation that mercenaries read about any formalized techniques. Hawkwood, for example, was illiterate, or nearly so with his wife conducting much of his affairs when it came to letters and documents. The audience of the manuals on swordplay are also difficult to ascertain.

Fiore's 'Flower of Battle' was written for a well-read and well-learned noble. D'Este at the time he received the book was not in a position to engage in the practice of dueling (he was too important)- yet Fiore states his own victories in five deadly duels and recounts the more 'friendly' bouts of his students in the barriers, and Fiore shows certain techniques, such as caustic powder in a pole-axe, that seem more directed to dueling, (sneaky or otherwise) than warfare. On the other hand, the techniques in Fiore's manual work in and out of armor and he shows a complete system, ranging from the use of the dagger, spear, sword in one hand, two, the lance, mounted combat, pole-axe and more! Self-defense? Battlefield? Dueling? Perhaps the line between all three is not concrete?

In the case of Liechtenauer and his tradition, the later manuals seem more directed toward judicial dueling than battlefield use as seen in Jeffrey Hull's, 'Knightly Dueling'. However, what techniques work in a German judicial duel would be of value in one of the many skirmishes, that plagued Italy where small forces engaged one another more often than mass formations.

MS Harely's audience can only be guessed at, though it can be read to be a system that could tackle multiple opponents in what might be a skirmish setting, as portrayed by Benjamin Bradak and Brandon Helsop's 'Lessons on the English Longsword', or it could be simply a series of drills that encourage changing direction. There are few clues!

What is certain, is that the manuals were not for mercenaries nor by mercenaries. Mercenary masters may have influenced them though, especially in the case of Fiore given the atmosphere he lived in.

Conclusion

Mercenaries from many nationalities, in particular England and German speaking kingdoms were active in the mid to late 1300's in Italy. These mercenaries were in many cases veterans of the Hundred Years War.

Mercenaries, by their very nature, needed to know how to use their weapons and there is no reason to think that masters of arms would not be drawn to Italy to train mercenaries.

Some weapon systems were too difficult to teach. The use of the longbow, for example, required too many years and almost a 'lifestyle' to use properly. Other weapon systems, namely the use of the longsword, was easier to pass on.

The use of the longsword well-predates the mid-1300's, however three manuals on the use of the longsword, from three different masters, from three different nationalities appear roughly in the same time-period.

Fiore, one of those masters, lived in Northern Italy during the time when mercenaries were prevalent and traveled around to learn his craft. Given how many soldiers from various nationalities were active, there is no need for him to have left Northern Italy to learn the art of combat.

Mercenaries, by and large didn't read. John Hawkwood, one of the most famous mercenaries, was barely literate and he was the man in charge!

Mercenaries were not the intended audience of the written manuscripts by Liechtenauer, Fiore and whoever wrote MS Harely 3542. The intended audience was literate, probably noble in origin (as was the case of D'Este), and looking at Fiore and later German works, probably interested in judicial duels and self-defense- though battlefield use, especially in skirmish scenarios, cannot be entirely ruled out.

Mercenaries probably influenced Fiore's writing, the alternative would involve Fiore turning a blind eye to the sea of experience around him. All the professional warriors of his day were mercenaries, and at the time the majority were not Italian. While the mercenary masters did not write their techniques down, it would have been pointless, Fiore did and compiled them into a 'best practices' manuscript that he adapted to his audience.

This leads to the conclusion that the use of the longsword was less national in style in the case of Fiore, but rather a collection of techniques from many nationalities brought over by the great mercenary influx of 1361. These techniques stemmed specifically from German speaking soldiers and English, both of which were common in Northern Italy and would have been hard to ignore. Italian masters of arms assuredly existed before, and assuredly after this influx, but Fiore would have to willfully exclude experienced foreigners if he were to create a specifically Italian style.

Records on mercenaries, despite their long use in Northern Italy is spotty. Even the most illustrious of mercenary captains were considered outsiders. John Hawkwood was considered by the Florentines as a savior from Milanese domination. However, they ensured he stayed outside their city-walls whenever possible. The common mercenary soldiers are poorly documented. This may be because the line between mercenary and bandit, especially in 14th century Italy, was very thin- and who wants to write about how bandits swing their swords?

www.WorksofRichardMarsden.com

The Chivalric Song of Roland and the Modern Warrior

2011-09-20T18:07:00.000-07:00

by,

It has been a while since I’ve written anything substantial for this blog. In fact, I’ve been writing, but mostly on modern martial topics that don’t quite fit here. This bit, however, is close enough to share here, as it applies to martial artists in general; ideals, conduct and ethics, specifically. If it fails to be epic, it was meant as notes to be read to my students.

The Song of Roland is an epic poem written at the turn of the 12th century AD romanticizing the deeds of Charlemagne and his knights in the 8th century. Roland was a great and loyal warrior, and the song describes his betrayal at the hand of Ganelon.
Within the song, there is one of the earliest recorded codes of Chivalry which remained as a foundation for such until the warrior class was eventually displaced by the ignoble gun.

Chivalry, like Bushido, is impossible to truly follow within our modern society, where a relatively independent warrior class can no longer exist within it. However, many aspects of such codes are alive and well to martial artists; those who still have a warrior calling. As with warriors in any age, we model ourselves upon the ideal warriors of ages past, and all ideal warriors have had a code they strove to live by.

One can always take the principle meanings behind ancient warrior texts and apply them, in principle, to any job, business, life, etc. Sun Tzu’s Art of War, for example, is probably used by more businessmen than generals. A good enough idea, but I can’t help but find it degrading and contemptible to try, personally, coming from a warrior angle myself. So, use these as you will, but I am not going to try to warp this warrior code into some banal remains of glory. Again, I am applying this to our contemporary martial artists, though we cannot obtain former glories. Expounding upon the Code of Charlemagne, I will primarily keep to the secular virtues, as the non-secular ideals are fairly straight forward and no longer universal. However, I will include them to keep the code complete.

As a special aside for my students, and students of the American Kenpo Karate system in general, note that most of these chivalric principles have an equivalent in the various pledges of the system, and I encourage you to make the comparisons.

The Code:

1. To fear God and maintain His Church.
Religion has always been a particular incentive to warriors so inclined due to the deadly nature of their studies. It is imperative to those with such a faith to maintain a clear conscience, because combat can occur at any time, and to paraphrase another chivalric treatise, it takes only one swift stroke to send you to hell forever. Going into battle expecting to be able to clear one’s conscience at the time of action is the same as a martial artist hoping to have a chance to stretch and limber up before he is ambushed on the street.

2. To serve the liege lord in valor and faith.
Warriorhood has, in most cases, been a calling of service; those who direct the warrior are generally incapable of committing to personal violence themselves. It is no coincidence that knight and samurai both have essentially the same meaning at their root; servant. Exceptions to servitude being those such as the knight errant, and ronin. Most martial artists will not have a liege lord, so to speak, but not all. Soldiers, for example, are sworn to obey their chain of command. But in any case, to serve in valor and faith is to serve both in physical deed and in principle loyalty. To do otherwise is falsehood.

3. To protect the weak and defenseless.
This particular virtue is small in word and great in deed. So great, in fact, that very few uphold it, for it places one in harm’s way. But when it comes down to it, the warrior lifestyle is not a selfish one, but a selfless one. Only a coward thinks of their personal defense alone, and what kind of coward would spend years in physical training solely for his personal defense? Helping the helpless in dangerous circumstances is something martial artists should aspire to.
For example, in the American Kenpo system, the blue belt pledge includes …and will defend, with all the skill I possess, the weak, the helpless, and the oppressed. These should not be hollow words for any warrior.

4. To give succor to widows and orphans.
This one may seem less relevant now than it did a thousand years ago, but in principle it is not. This is an ideal that literally held, and holds, society together; caring for those less fortunate, and for those that cannot care for themselves, particularly if robbed of their provider by war or violence, and particularly the un-pensioned family of a warrior.

5. To refrain from the wanton giving of offence.
One who trains for violence shows his discipline with humility and graciousness, and does not needlessly pick fights, nor does he insult those weaker than himself. Any serious discipline should spawn good manners. Grave arts breed grave knowledge and consequence, and such knowledge leads one to value life and, by extension, not jeopardize it.

6. To live by honor and for glory.
Honor, being the approval of one’s peers, is the greatest of aspirations, at least if one’s peers value virtue. Glory is the path to honor for the warrior.

7. To despise pecuniary reward.
A greatest element of warrior virtue and source of honor is to undertake hardship without monetary compensation. A familiar example in film would be the efforts of the peculiarly chivalrous Seven Samurai. Virtue is its own reward, and honor even greater. Pursuit of pecuniary reward makes one a mercenary, not a warrior.

8. To fight for the welfare of all.
This is part of the selfless life of the warrior. A self-serving warrior lacks honor, and his glory is hollow. Selfless deeds withstand time, selfish ones die with those who commit them.

9. To obey those placed in authority.
Just as the succoring of widows and orphans holds together society, obeying those in authority holds together the school or the military, be they an instructor, assistant, or even a new team leader. It is essential that warriors act in a cohesive manner and not invite discord amongst themselves, whatever the setting.

10. To guard the honor of fellow knights.
You should always protect the good name and honor of your peers and fellow students if they are unable to do so themselves, be they fellow martial students, soldiers, etc. Even in spite of personal differences, professional accord is essential. If a warrior will not protect the honor of his peers, no one will, and I for one would hope the same would be done for me.

11. To eschew unfairness, meanness and deceit.
This is self-explanatory and can reference other principles of the Code, such as number five. It is not becoming of a warrior to be unfair, mean or deceitful. However, it must be stressed, that unfairness and deceit are principles of combat that should be exploited, and that this principle is not referring to combat, but to warrior behavior. Meanness, or cruelty, for its own sake, however, has no place, not even in combat. This is a creed that sets civilized warriors apart.

12. To keep faith.
To remain loyal. Honor your vows. Be loyal to your school, association, comrades, fellow students and instructor. The bond between student and instructor is a sacred one, and it should be honored.

13. At all times to speak the truth.
Most think this impossibly hard, but it is not. It is better to remain quiet or well lettered if one cannot be truthful. To quote a silly movie, “We are men of action. Lies do not become us.” A warrior’s honor hinges on forthrightness and the strength of his word.

14. To persevere to the end in any enterprise begun.
This is an essential warrior trait in any case, but it would not have to be mentioned if warrior enterprises were easy. They are often the most difficult. The fortitude to complete the mission, get the black belt, or any other task you have committed yourself to is of the essence. If the warrior cannot persevere, he is not really a warrior. We see drop-outs all the time. Where do they go? What do they do? They leave warriorhood. No songs are written for them.

15. To respect the honor of women.
As a generalization (which certainly does not apply to all), women lack many of the safeguards that men take for granted, particularly warriors. Many criminals victimize women for just this reason; they would not do the same to men, particularly warriors, out of fear. In the same vein, though perhaps not with means of a criminal nature, women are taken advantage of. Thusly the warrior must keep women’s honor in mind in much the same way as he would respect the helpless or less fortunate already mentioned, or the good name of his peers.

16. Never to refuse a challenge from an equal.
This mainly refers to martial challenges, not ping pong or cricket, and by equal, it refers to our peers. Equal has varying definition, depending on what you do and where you are, but you should know the difference. Modern society complicates this. It was an easier consideration in the time of the warrior classes when an equal could be easily identified in any instance (caste systems made it easy). The other side of this coin, and at least as important, is that challenges should not be made lightly.

17. Never to turn the back upon a foe.
This has dual meaning, much of it more applicable to the knight of centuries ago than the warrior of today. Of course in combat, we would not turn our back when engaged with an opponent, which applies to all warriors all of the time, but it also has the implication of the eschewing of cowardly retreat (not to be confused with a tactical retreat; where you draw the line will depend upon your definition, and what is at stake). A third implication is that we should not pass up on a chance to engage an enemy; an honorable ideal, but best tempered by discretion (warriors who lack discretion may be valorous, but they tend not to last).

-C

Copyright Sept. 20th, 2011, Benjamin "Casper" Bradak

Introducing the Man yt Wol Series...

2011-09-19T13:01:00.001-07:00

After several hurdles, technical issues, and injuries (Casper's ever-broken rib, and my wrist injury - which was purely related to swordplay, I assure you), we have reluctantly decided to opt out of the DVD. In its stead, we give you:

Still to come: The Dragon's Tail with a Pendant, The First Flourish, the Cottonian longsword segment, and more.

- B & C.

Man yt Wol Series, 4: the First Point of the Counter (Ledall)

2011-09-19T08:02:00.000-07:00

Man yt Wol Series, 3: The Eleventh and Twelfth Chases (Ledall)

2011-09-19T07:14:00.000-07:00

Man yt Wol Series, 2: The 23rd Counter, Called the Facing with the Spring

2011-09-19T04:47:00.001-07:00

Man yt Wol Series, 1: the Laying Down of Your Sword

2011-09-19T01:17:00.000-07:00

Raising the Dead, Raising the Bar:

2011-09-09T08:32:00.003-07:00

by,

Based upon some of the preliminary feedback in response to the Project Partisan proposal, I think it’s appropriate to clarify some things. First of all, I’m serious. Here and now, I’m laying all snarky joking aside, and emphatically stating that this is not some stupid, self-satisfied, twee attempt to simply create a new arena for drama. I may throw a lot of things out the window, sensitivity included (there are people with congenital behavior disorders who are more socially adept than me); but one thing I do hold in absolute reverence is the Art. I’ll genuflect to that, and the historical masters, every time.

Here’s why I think Project Partisan, or something like it, is desperately needed. Where are we going? There have been dedicated individuals pouring over the historical sources for a little over two decades now. In regards to the “medieval” sources, we’re talking about a limited, though fairly substantial body of material; and it is very clear (when taken as a whole) in regards to its underlying foundational principles, technique, methodology, philosophy, and pedagogy.* And it is thus more than capable of delineating its precepts, of generating a clear picture of itself, and being self-sustaining. And yet, we can’t even agree on the fundamentals.

While there are, doubtless, codices yet to be uncovered, I very much doubt anything monumental or earth-shattering is going to be dredged up that’s going to fundamentally alter the whole picture. It’s possible, I suppose. And yes, there are gaps, but there are gaps in the fossil record, too; and unless you’re interested in being a Bible literalist (and who knows, you might be), there’s no decent reason to deny the picture forming of what’s happened. There’s no good reason too when it comes to our subject, either.

So, again, where are we going? Russ Mitchell has called the modern practice of the Chivalric Martial Arts “necromancy,” (because there’s no living lineage). Well, that may be the case. But, we’ve laid out all the vital pieces of the corpse on the lab table, stitched them together, and Doctor Frankenstein has run a few thousand volts through our monstrosity and brought it to a semblance of life. And yet, it’s nothing more than a shambling abomination, pawing at a foil, its addled mind a scrap heap of jumbled, incoherent concepts and half understood principles it can’t even articulate. It’s the materialist’s worst nightmare: there is a soul after all; and it is in fact vital for cognition, for shunting the world into its proper alignment, for making sense of our surroundings, and the meaning of things. Our soulless thing is stuck in a meaningless existence and is running on instinct and brain stem alone. What’s lacking? The Monster is greater than the sum of its parts. Can we forge a new soul for our reanimate pseudo-art, or are we destined to carry on stumbling around in the dark? I know two things: the status quo will not yield results in this matter; and the Art is the soul of our subject.

I’ve said that after the ARMA Exodus, I wanted a revolution. It was time for a radical paradigm shift: with all the intensity and martiality that had guided us before left intact,** but with hopefully a greater degree of control (it is possible, and even desirable, to engage in a bout of intense sparring and still maintain a high degree of technical and tactile control. One can still press the opponent to great exertion – was sehrt, das lehrt – without mercilessly thwacking the spit out of him. It may sound like a novel concept, but it gets easier with time). The great thing was that the core was already formed. No need to start from scratch. But it didn’t pan out, at least not as far as I’m concerned. Instead, it was more like a messy divorce. A mixture of boredom and squeamishness.

There are issues at play that have been festering under the skin of the scattershot CMA/HEMA collective (at last, I’ve found an alternate to “community”) that need to be addressed. This would involve a lot of friction, of course. But it’s a rumble that’s been waiting to happen. There’s no sense in ignoring it. And apart from sniping away on these electronic pages, that’s all I’ve been doing; but ignoring it won’t make the issues go away. I suppose that I can take heart in the fact that, if I had gone the other route and joined up with one of the zombie umbrella orgs, it wouldn’t have mattered, either. That’s produced little to nothing, too.

So, let’s fight it out. Let’s raise the bar, and elevate this to the next level. It can’t come without pain. We might as well get it over with. Again, I’m open to suggestions and alternate structures or formulas.

It’s up to you.

-B.

*Though this last, quite naturally, does vary from one degree or another from master to master. This is to be expected, of course. Of all the masters, Fiore is the most explicit and straightforward about the reasons for this variance in presentiment. He includes only those techniques that he believed would best serve his potential students (the readers of his treatises), and formulated a system of presentation and pedagogy around those, (and NOT the other way around). However, the well that he himself drew upon was much, much deeper than that mere pedagogy, or presentiment; a fact which he is equally open about. His teachers were Germans, Italians, and possibly (or even probably) others. He also said that there can be no master without books on the subject, and that he owned several of these himself; and therefore clearly recommended that his students seek out other treatises to study in addition to his own. Now purists, do you really think all those treatises that Fiore mentioned were Italian (of any region within that ever-shifting, chaotic landscape)? I’ll put my left testicle on the line that many of them were German or from even further afield.

Therefore, there was no dividing lines in ens, but only illusory, imagined, or artificial dividing lines, drawn in the sand only to be washed away by the inexorable tide of the Art as a whole. The Art is the sea, the works of the masters are mere banks of rivers it courses its way inland through, often bleeding out of it’s ephemeral confines into patches of murky swampland, with no markers, boundaries, or islets of vaunted pedagogy to cling to. In some areas, it alters the landscape altogether. So, you’d better be able to swim in it, or you’ll drown. Dobringer, of course, goes even further: Liechtenauer did not conceive of the Art, the Art, centuries older than he, conceived of him.

**And no, John Clements didn’t “invent” that. You can’t patent martial intensity. Furthermore, there were plenty of others doing it, and the historical texts are pretty clear on that regard. Hell, my favorite line from Man yt Wol spells it out for the reader in no uncertain terms: This is the letter, for standing in his sight; either to play, teach, or else for to fight. Note the word “play,” by the way. As in “swordplay.” And this did not originally mean actual fighting, but controlled bouts between two or more fencers. Direct evidence, right there, of sparring in the historical source texts. The Germans called it schimpf (sp?), which also, roughly, means “play.” Le Jeu de la Hache means “axe play,” and from the context of the text, it’s clear that the author is not talking about life-or-death fighting; although he does very clearly state that the techniques taught within the text are applicable to that arena. So, there’s another historical example of “play” in reference to sparring. Somebody had better page Hugh Knight. Sigh. There I go again. Told you I was incorrigible.

2011-09-05T19:56:00.000-07:00

Hair and the Ages

By Richard Marsden

Throughout European history hair has been important enough to shed blood over. One would not want long, luxurious hair in the presence of a bowl-cut Parliamentarian of the 1600's, and certainly an ancient Roman would turn his nose at an outrageous beard and a short-hair peasant of Revolutionary France might get quite enraged at the sight of a powdered wig. Hair is important and its styles throughout time have been for practical purposes, but also for outrageous reasons as well. Here is a brief look at hair for men throughout the ages.

Romans - Romans built things to last. Their bridges still work, their roads still function and we have them to thank for concrete, the arch, American government, arenas and 'professional wrestling', which was known as 'gladiator games' in those days. The Roman empire at its height enabled a man to travel from Iberia to Jerusalem on Roman roads, speaking Latin, using coins with a Caesars face stamped upon them. Of all their enduring works, hair-style was one of them.

Popular now as much as it was back then, the Caesar-cut is a typical Roman style of hair that was popular with the soldier types. Cut short, there is nothing for an enemy to grab onto, neither lock nor beard. After all, only barbarians would wear endless facial hair. The Caesar-cut is also comfortable in warmer climates such as can be found in many Roman provinces in and around the Mediterranean.

Unlike the Caesar salad, which is named after Caesar Cardini, an Italian-American cook, the Caesar-cut is in fact named after Julius Caesar and modeled after his bust. His haircut, however, is little different from all Roman military men of the era.

Greeks, Goths and Vikings- Ancient Greeks valued their hair. Long, curly hair and full beards were seen as a sign of strength and vigor. When one thinks of a statue of Zeus, does not a long white beard come to mind as readily as a lightning bolt? Greek statues often depict men with full beards, while women and boys are shown as without hair. Beards indicated age, while a full head of hair showed vitality. In battle, the grabbing of an opponent's beard was considered a legitimate tactic. Greeks eventually saw the wearing of long hair as prideful, but the wearing of beards remained a staple. The Romans, who so often copied the Greeks, could never understand why they would embrace being so hairy.

The Germanic barbarians who sacked Rome and the Vikings who pillaged throughout the Dark Ages on the other hand fully concurred with full-bearded Greeks when it came how to wear one's hair. The typical 'Goth' wore his hair long, and though it was not as curly as that of the Greeks, it was impressive. No man would willingly lack some facial hair, if not a full beard then at least a long moustache! Such was a sign of youth and manhood. Only women and effete Romans were clean-shaven!

Did these Germanic and Viking barbarians inherit their sense of style from the Greeks? Possibly. Both old-German and Norse Gods bear many similarities to that of the Greeks and may be Germanized versions or adaptations. The Old Norse runic language may also have some Greek or ancient Latin influences as well.

Climate-wise, long hair and a beard is fitting for those dealing with cold weather. Perfect for your typical rampaging Goth or longboat-steering Viking. The beard and long hair help trap heat, and while somewhat difficultto manage when eating (much to the annoyance of Roman chroniclers) its practical value in icy conditions can't be ignored.

Normans- The King of France was so tired of Viking raiders that he invited one of them to simply settle down and become his noble rather than sail away back to frigid Norway. Thus, Rollo the Walker (he was too big for a horse) became Robert, First Duke of Normandy. Rollo, according to his statue, looked like your typical Viking with a long beard and long hair. However, the French had taken on many Romanesque customs and hairstyle was one of them. Rollo had a son, William Longsword, who had a son, Richard the Fearless, and eventually down the line there came another William. To his fans, William the Conqueror and to his foes, William the Bastard. William was a far-cry different in appearance from Rollo.

When William invaded Anglo-Saxon England he and his Norman knights had adopted more than just French names, they also took on a particular Frankish haircut as well. The Norman haircut was one where the back of the head and neck was shaved, while the front was kept short in a style similar to the Caesar-cut. Reasons for this haircut vary. For military purposes it is short and difficult to grab. The face is usually clean-shaven, or sporting only a moustache- also difficult grab compared to a large beard. Why the back of the head was shaved is debatable and reasons vary from it being a Christian-religious rite similar to how monks shave portions of their head, to being something practical and easy to manage. The style did not remain popular for long, and many of the Anglo-Saxon traditions of wearing long hair and beard were adopted by William's kingly descendants.

The Middle Ages- During the Middle Ages, the French, or Franks as they were more commonly known, dominated accepted culture in Western Europe. The Franks brought their sense of fashion abroad, including to such places such as Jerusalem during the Crusades. The Knights Templar were made up of a majority of Franks and the order had strict rules on behavior, including how to wear one's hair. Rule 22 for example, stated that a Templar should not wear pointed shoes (a sign of wealth because poor folk didn't wear such unpractical things) nor wear his hair too long as was custom among the nobility. Beards on the other hand were accepted since it was seen as a sign of wisdom, age and masculinity, but again rules were in place to prevent unruly facial-hair.

Knights and nobles customarily wore their hair and beards long, though more shaped and groomed than that of the prior era. Richard I, for example, is depicted in art and sculpture of having red hair, including a shaped and pointed beard as well as long hair that is worn in curls, or swept back.

In Western Martial Arts manuscripts, the wearing of a beard can be seen in Fiore's 'Flower of Battle' as potentially a sign of age and wisdom. In the manual the 'master' is often shown with a beard, while the 'student' is not in the section on the sword in two hands.

Not everyone agreed with the fashion of long hair and beards, however. Priests and monks shaved not only their faces but also portions of their heads. During the Hundred Years War the English Knight John Hawkwood wore his hair in the Roman-fashion and continued to do so during his lengthy and profitable stay in Northern Italy as a mercenary. Hawkwood was a practical, no-nonsense military-man, and his hairstyle was no exception. In the earliest Western Martial Art work, I-33, priests with clean-shaven faces and tonsured haircuts are shown performing the techniques.

The Renaissance - The Renaissance saw a rediscovery and re-appreciation of all things Roman. Long hair, while still fashionable well into the seventeen hundreds (with or without the help of a wig), was opposed by the good-old fashion Caesar-cut seen in many of the Renaissance paintings. Going clean-shaven became fashionable, and when beards were worn they tended to be short and well-shaped such as the fashionable Van Dyke or ducktail beard. Long, unruly hair, especially facial hair, was seen as a barbaric throwback, or something that Germans did. Peter the Great on his visit to France in the late 1600's, for example, returned to Russia and informed all of his Russian boyars that they could no longer wear ridiculous beards, going so far as to hand out measuring tape and scissors to the city-guards.He also banned spitting at the dinner table, walking on the dinner table, wearing giant cloaks and insisted men spend time actually talking to their wives.

Western Martial Arts manuscripts give a clue as to what was acceptable in the 1400-1500's. In Talhoffer's works the combatants have long hair, but clean-shaven jaws. Also of note is their preference of wearing pointed shoes.

Later works of the Germans in the 1500 and 1600's showed a return of the beard as something manly and martial. In Paulus Hector Mair's enormous encyclopedia on the use of weapons, nearly every combatant is shown sporting a beard, some as so long as to reach the waist! Vikings would be proud.

This fashion trend did not catch on in Italy though, where the rapier masters such as Capo Ferro, Giganti and Fabris depicted short hair and trimmed beards in their works.

In England the fencing masters of the 1600's sported trimmed beards, such as the ducktail and Ban Dyke, which can be seen in George Silver's work.

Baroque- The baroque era of the late 1600 and 1700's brought on numerous fashion-trends, with hair being particularly spectacular. In a martial sense, it didn't matter if one kept their hair long like an English cavalier, or short like a Parliamentarian roundhead. However, hair meant money. Men of wealth who did not have to work, wore their hair long and when their hair failed them opted on wigs. While men's wigs of the era didn't get as large or elaborate as noble women, privileged men did go so far as to powder their wigs white. Beards and moustaches, if they existed at all, were trimmed and neat. During France's revolution wigs, elaborate hair, and anything else connected to the Old Regime was detested. A young Napoleon, for example, wore his hair long and stringy while his face was clean-shaven. When he crowned himself Emperor in 1804 he had adopted a Caesar-cut, as well as the robes of a Roman Emperor. For a man who fought over sixty-battles, the traditional Caesar-cut was advantageous while on campaign.

Martial manuals are fairly uniform in depicting duelists with clean-shaven faces, and short wigs. Military manuals of the 1700's and early 1800's are similar, though light-cavalry men are shown sporting mustaches. This may be in relation to the light cavalry hussars adopting all things Hungarian, from style of clothing, to their saber system. The wearing of a long mustache was a popular style among the men of Eastern Europe.

1800's- While much of the Renaissance and Baroque period focused on a rebirth of Roman hairstyles, the 1800's was a time where beards and insane hair reigned! Mutton-chops were considered perfectly martial, giving one the appearance of a lion which can be a key psychological factor when facing down countless Zulus.

Marshal Murat wore his curly hair wild and free with long sideburns while he led Napoleon's armies. A beard was once again seen as a sign of age and masculinity, something of a major importance to Western Europeans and Americans at the time. Beards were rarely unruly though (country-folk did wear long and wild beards), and men of wealth fashioned their mustaches and beards like one might trim a hedge. In the United States, the South trended toward beards that were epic and monumental. In an era of gunpowder, where someone getting close enough to grab you in battle was rare, it seems titanic beards and mustaches were more than acceptable- they might even slow down a bullet.

WWI- WWI brought on the death of manly-facial hair for years to come. Gasmasks and handle-bar moustaches simply don't mix, and small moustaches, say one just under the nose, became only briefly popular in Germany and have since been only seen on people with enough 'street-cred' to get away with it- such as Michael Jordan. With lice and other critters being a problem in the trenches, shaved heads became mandatory in most martial conflicts- a trend that continues to this day.

Eastern Europe - In places like Poland, Hungary and the Ukraine, hairstyles were influenced by Western Europe, but also by the numerous invaders those places had to contend with including, but not limited to, Huns, Mongols, Turks, Russians, Teutonic Knights and one another. In the Ukraine a particular style of hair was to shave all but the top of the head, leaving behind a strand of hair known as an oseledet or crest. To have one's oseledet cut off was a great shame. Additionally, only warrior-men were entitled to wear their hair in such a fashion. Moustaches, meanwhile, were worn in a distinctly long and Asian style brought over from the various invaders from the East.

In Poland, a style of hair arose which was entirely derogatory known as the Polish plait. In this hairstyle, the hair was allowed to grow and purposefully left un-groomed until it became a single mass of hair, welded together by blood, pus, tangled hair and lice. Various superstitions of the 1600's encouraged the growing of the Polish plait and the King of Denmark, Christian the IV wore one. The style became fashionable in his court.

In Russia, the wearing of long hair and beards persisted throughout the ages, only coming to an end with the aforementioned decrees of Peter the Great. Given the Russian climate, their tendency to long-hair is understandable, but Peter felt that Russia was backwards and only with good grooming habits, and firearms, could the nation advance.

Your Hair and Your WMA- People in the Western Martial Arts community will go to blows about wearing the appropriate style of pants. Why not increase authenticity and wear the appropriate style of hair? Whether you're interested in Roman gladiators, Medieval knights, saber-wielding Cossacks, dueling nobles or Victorian saber-men, there is a style of hair for you. When all else fails get a Caeasar-cut and call it 'classical and timeless'. But if you want to excel at Western Martial Arts there is only one haircut that will improve your abilities. I shall leave that particular secret embedded mysteriously somewhere within this document.

Making "HEMA" Warm and Fuzzy

2011-08-20T12:30:00.000-07:00

http://hemaalliance.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1265&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

"Peace, man."

Or, on second thought...

-B.

Entropis Morbidus Martialis

2011-04-25T10:47:00.000-07:00

Henri de Sainct Didier did every aspiring practitioner of the Chivalric Martial Arts today a serious favor when he said - and I’m paraphrasing, here - “There are only two cuts: one left, and one right.” He was, of course, absolutely correct; and everyone should allow this proffered observation to truly sink in…

…A tad incredulous? You certainly may be, particularly if you’re an acolyte of the Liechtenauer lineage (aren’t we all, in one way or another? L. dealt with universal principles. Let’s not pretend). But Didier’s still right, even in regards to the Society’s material. No matter which way you slice it, there are only two cuts - when it comes to diagonal and horizontal strikes, anyway. Oh, there are variations. We wouldn’t have our quarters if it were otherwise. Yet these are merely subdivisions: high left, low left; high right, low right. Be sure to mix them up a bit and alternate, of course. Nothing worse than a predictable swordsman.

And, of course, Monsieur Didier omits his downright strokes - straight, vertical descending cuts - as well as his rising verticals; (though there’s never really much call for rising vertical cuts, anyway. So perhaps we can forgive our friendly Frog on this point, and focus instead on the practical meaning behind his statement.)

Or did he?

In the end, most downright strokes land upon their intended target (particularly human targets, who often demonstrate an infuriating tendency to move about frantically in an effort to avoid coming to harm) a little more to either the left or the right. Didier points this out, in fact.

So, you see, there really are only two cuts after all.

To posit the existence of more than two cuts (which, while technically supported by the minutia of the available evidence), is purely academic. And while I really must apologize for the awful language…Truly…Nevertheless, needs must as the devil spends, and sometimes only a really filthy word will fit the bill. And academic (sorry,) by definition, means something utterly useless, or impractical; silly, or perverse. In point of fact, in some contexts and circles, it refers to a sadomasochistic act involving a certain bodily cavity and an oblong type of fruit, (use your imagination.) Which, needless to say, puts a rather new spin on the old phrase “to enter the hallowed halls of academia.”

Great.

Now, what’s the point of all this prattle? Most modern practitioners of the CMA have no comprehension, let alone appreciation, for the tremendous wisdom Didier offers up for us here. It’s such a simple statement, that its magnitude simply goes unrecognized. Personally, one gets the distinct impression that Didier and Silver, despite the former’s rather unfortunate Frenchness, (now, now, remember that we must keep in mind the long-standing Anglo-French rivalry; frothing-at-the-mouth Franco/Anglophobia included,) would have gotten on splendidly together. But, again, I digress. It’s a bad habit, I know. For those of you struggling against the erratic, inexorable tide of my stream of thought, allow me to throw you a life-preserver...The crux of my argument can be summed up neatly in one personage:

Thibault.

Or any of his breed, really.

And this:

And this:

What a Godforsaken mess...

...Just like this post.

The problem with Thibault, and all the rest of the latter day pigeon-spitters, is that they operated under a conceit. A conceit that was, in fact, central to their entire martial philosophy. And a conceit that, as Silver aptly points out, had a nasty tendency to get men killed needlessly.** It was an addictive little lie of a drug, and the more it was indulged in, the more deeply it sank its claws in to the flesh. The more it smothered the True Art. Thibault and his lot were not alone in this conceit; nor did it originate with them. A few of the medieval - depending upon one’s accepted criteria for the application of the term “medieval” - masters dabbled in this conceit, as well. But they did not make their crime their entire culture. The crime that Thibault and his ilk committed, was the act of seizing upon the aforementioned conceit as none before them had.

And the crime itself?

The claim that effective fighting with the sword was a science, in a context not unlike the modern sense of the word, (as opposed to merely indicating a specialized knowledge; as in the old sense of the word.) A science whose effects - if properly understood and applied - could be replicated exactly, precisely and without fail. Again and again. But fencing is an art, not a chemistry experiment. The results are variable. Others had made this claim before, but the later rapier masters took it to a whole new level. In short, they believed they could extrapolate mathematically the formula for inevitable victory, (a preposterous claim not even my beloved braggart Vadi would have touched.)

One can only imagine their mounting frustration, when this elusive alchemy of motion never quite paned out. So, they threw diagrams upon diagrams, and equation after equation at the problem. Hoping to crack the riddle, or at very least, dazzle the reader with bullshit. And, forgetting that which had kept even their most boastful predecessors more-or-less honest (the only safe insurance policy: the practice and promotion of an adversarial pragmatism; a ruthless, kill-or-be-killed, practical outlook upon fighting in any form, in teaching and in doing,) they hunkered down for one long stint of reduction. They reduced this, reduced that, they reduced the other. They even reduced your mother. Although that wasn’t so bad. She's never looked better. By the way…could I have her number?

And what do I mean by "reduced?" I mean that they whittled away at the Art. It was no longer comprised of a set of unifying principles with adjunct techniques. It had become instead a mere morass of sliced up knowledge: this angle against this angle; that against that. Now, please do tell me, whatever do you think of my magnificent hat? The tassels are from Rome, you know.

They did so much reducing, in fact, that their end product, when they (attempted) to convey it via diagram, looked rather more like something from the Lesser Key of Soloman, intended to invoke the Darkest Powers of the Infernal Pit*; as opposed to a visual aide for swordplay. It was the beginning of the end for the true Art. The Art became an ad hoc collection of techniques, the false promose of each like something out of a Highlander movie: "This technique, if executed properly, is unstoppable." A collection of techniques with nothing, or very little, to unify them into a real Art. And, sadly, I see the specter of this foul conceit rearing it’s head again today in “HEMA” circles. That'll happen with reverse engineering. I can only hope that certain folks grow out of it.

Now, don’t get me wrong: equations are great. I do love me a good equation. Especially one that comes in leather, wielding a cat-o-nine-tails and applied liberally. Under duress. And I’m more than happy to reap the benefits of the foul witchcraft practiced by diviners of numbers and forces, etc…The problem is…I’m a misanthrope. And like all misanthropes, I know that people fuck things up. And should probably be forcefully sterilized.

Equations are fine, if you want to calibrate trajectories that don’t have a mind behind them; or non-sentient forces pressing and pulling upon one another while careening through the galaxy. Or in my Darth Vader shorts. Or, whatever. But humans aren’t automatons. Quite the contrary. Automations would be a considerable improvement. And people are too insufferably stupid to be mindless forces. Why else would you keep ending up on the losing side of battles of wits involving inanimate objects like freestanding posts, doors, chairs, and KY jelly? You will notice that I said YOU. That’s right. Don’t you dare try and include me in your wretched number. You're the Goddamned Pox of the Universe!

Anyway, the point in question is: human beings defy equations, they eat diagrams for breakfast, and even enjoy torturing points of probability by pulling their limbs off one-by-one. Fun fact: your average point of probability has well over twelve thousand different appendages of various shapes, sizes and colors. It’s true. Thus, I cannot fault humanity for its sick enjoyment of tearing off the extraneous parts of points of probability. It’s like bubble wrap. You just can’t help yourself, and neither can I, really.

But returning to the matter of this piece (don’t say it. You finish that phrase, and I’ll show you what I keep under the stairs in the basement): all (well, most) of the aforementioned was what Didier was wisely attempting to stave off by saying that there’s really only two cuts. And what does that have to do with Thibault, foin fencer extraordinaire? Well, just as there’s only two cuts, there’s really only two thrusts, as well: one from above, and the other from below. And the “three cuts” that Swetnam elucidates? Wrist (rake,) half and (full) quarter? A matter of follow-through. Used as needed and according to the situation. It’s a sliding scale, what’s more. There’s always a good amount of gray area…because there’s no absolute formula for “How much power / reach / whatever do you need?” The answer is always “As much as is required to beat Michael Chidester.”

Always.

Bottom line: entropy is a motherless bitch. Inevitably, as soon as something reaches its apex, overspecialization kicks in. That’s when an art gets cut up into little slices, reduced, specialized, divided, subdivided and sub-subdivided until it’s atomized and over categorized into oblivion. And that’s when it - by degrees - ceases to be a true Art (and still not a science), and becomes so much black magic.

-B.

*And trust me, it’s never a good idea to mess around with those. You think I was born this way?

**There are lots of modern fencers, John Clements included, who have accused Silver of "whining." I'm absolutely in the Silverian camp. He was right on every single point.

Defining "System" in the Martial Arts

2011-02-17T12:31:00.000-08:00

Before I begin the article proper, a brief fore note: I recently realized that it bears mentioning to the Chivalric Arts practitioners at large that many of my articles, this one included, though original, do not consist of altogether “made up” material, nor are they somehow the charting of entirely new ground, but the elaboration upon well and long-established principles, which in the Chivalric Arts are all too often rediscovered, at best, rather than recognized. But, such is the importance of a formal and professional martial education.
As a consequence, I have not heard most of it applied to the Chivalric Arts.

As always, we should begin by defining the terms of the subject in question. Nomenclature and terminology is always a difficult area in the martial arts, particularly within the Chivalric Arts, where differing backgrounds merge, and more often than not, a lack of background comes into play and muddles things up all the worse.

Looking at martial arts as actual systems can clarify one’s point of view and give a new perspective on the subject, bringing more order to it.

Firstly, in the martial arts, a System is defined as “The unification of related concepts, truths, and basic elements of a particular school of the martial arts.”1 The term “Style” is often a misnomer erroneously used in its place, and is actually defined quite differently. A Style is the way in which an individual practitioner performs his art. “System is the method, whereas Style is the application, or execution, of the method.”1 If “Systems” were actually “Styles,” it would certainly imply a rather haphazard and random approach, rather than a unified training methodology toward a given objective.

Therefore, in regards to the Chivalric Arts, though we can get a firm grasp on most of the systems of the time, our feel for the styles of the masters who left us any given treatise will always be tentative and arguable.

Secondly, to illustrate just how the term applies, here are a few different wordings of the common usage of System. It is worth contemplating their bearing on the martial arts:

-A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.
-An assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole.
-A set of detailed methods, procedures, and routines established or formulated to carry out a specific activity, perform a duty, or solve a problem.
-A whole compounded of several parts or members. A set of interacting or interdependent components forming an integrated whole.

Thusly, we can see how any given martial art can be termed a system. They are all organized in a certain way, they all contain certain elements, and those elements all work together toward certain goals. Both inclusive and exclusive arts, combat arts and sport arts are all systems. Some (mostly modern) systems were engineered. Some were mainly formed organically over centuries (such as the Chivalric Arts). But they are systems none the less, and were further made into unique systems in any given school or by any given master.
As I have said before, inclusive arts do not exclude motion or elements that have use. The Chivalric Art of Defense proper is such an Art. In its day, motion that could have proven useful would have been added to the whole of the system, rather than excluded. An exclusive Art is usually so due to concerns of sport. They exclude elements that work against the rules or that do not produce positive results within the rules. Examples of such Arts are Western boxing under the Queensbury rules, and Brazilian Jiujutsu under the rules of MMA sports. Such Arts may be narrow by comparison, but they are still very much systems. I.e. whether a system is a full-fledged martial art, or a simple fighting methodology, and whether a person studies it in whole or in part, it is still a system, regardless of any other terminology it may be classified by (see my other article; Martial Arts?).

So, my main point here is that a complete system is not made so by any particular elements of which it is composed. A system can be made up exclusively of the use of a particular weapon or group of weapons, or exclusively on some type of unarmed fighting skills, and still be termed a system, even a complete system of x, though not necessarily a Martial Art. However, with certain systems, one could make the judgment that some are or are not well rounded. In the Chivalric Arts, for example, there are many elements to the system. So many, in fact, that one could scarcely study them all. So, one could choose a certain array of weapons to study in order to call their personal study of the system “well-rounded.”

The Chivalric Arts, however, as an inclusive martial art of a vast culture that spanned centuries with little change, is a much larger system than most modern or sport systems with very narrow concerns and foci. I have pointed out conclusively that the perfect study of the Art, its pillar, root and foundation, as with most, is the study of unarmed skills. This part of the whole of the larger system of the Chivalric Arts is a system in itself, as are all the other elements. They are not independent systems, however. To make an analogy, the circulatory system is a subsystem of the human body. It is its own system, but inseperable from the greater system. Just so is the longsword to the Chivalric Arts; unarmed core skills in particular. This brings us to another facet of the systems concept of martial arts.

Subsystems2
Definition: A subsystem is a set of elements, which is a system itself, and a component of a larger system.

Since we know that unarmed skills and concepts form the base of any given system, as we have for eons, and are in fact often systems in and of themselves, armed elements to these systems are, though based upon unarmed combat, dissimilar enough that they have many independent elements and nuances, and thusly their own systems form around them. But as they are inseparable from the whole and base of the system, this makes them subsystems. To reference my last article (Is Swordsmanship a Martial Art?), this is another perspective on why swordsmanship, for example, is not a martial art per se, but a peripheral to a martial art. The Art of the Longsword, for example, is a subsystem of the Chivalric Arts. Thusly, an example of someone’s well-rounded practice of the Chivalric Arts might include, aside from the unarmed core training, the study of the Longsword, Spear, Poll-axe, Messer and Dagger.

Sub-subsystems2
It follows that there exists the concept of sub-subsystems. This applies to subsystems as subsystems apply to systems. This concept, when we apply it to the martial arts, applies particularly to the Chivalric Arts. The Chivalric Arts are so vast, and include the use of so many weapons, that the sub-subsystem concept has particular use.

When one achieves a certain mastery over unarmed skills and a variety of other weapons, one reaches a point where one can pick up any implement of artifice, and in short order, assess its strengths and weaknesses and nuances, use it, and devise a system that applies to it. Such things can be viewed as sub-subsystems, and though this concept was not used explicitly in the Arts heyday, the principle most assuredly was.

As any student of the CMA knows, certain weapons that were commonly used were generally not taught by the masters of the time, in the schools, nor in the technical references. This is due to their simplistic and derivative nature as sub-subsystems, and include the short mace, war-hammer, battle-axe, godendag, variants of more foundational weapons, etc. These weapons were not uncommon, but so simplistic and specialized in nature that their use was quickly based off the use of more sophisticated, Master Key weapons/unarmed skills that were taught. Therefore they qualify as sub-subsystems of greater systems and subsystems.

Thusly, in the Chivalric Arts, we have three levels to the system that could be well-charted as a pyramid. In orders of importance and numbers, unarmed skills rank at the apex (despite their foundational nature). The primary and most sophisticated weapons of the system form the middle, and the numerous simple weapons and variants form the base of the diagram. A regular food pyramid of death.

What subsystem a sub-subsystem weapon is derived from is not a cut and dried tree, however. Due to the interrelated nature of principles and motion, any subsystem and sub-subsystem will share myriad elements with any other (all being founded on the primary system to begin with), often having their only basis as whatever the practitioner is previously skilled in. So stylistically (refer back to the definition of Style) one practitioner may use a sub-subsystem weapon in a very different manner than another, having based their use off of differing skill-sets. However, charting a tree of what weapon is based off of what other weapon is arguably very unimportant. Most practitioners consider anything below a subsystem to be a waste of time to actually train with, as opposed to training with primary systems and subsystems, and them applying them ad hoc to sub-subsystems, using what they already know, when the need arises.

To make a final example of something else with which I am familiar, an example of the system/subsystem/sub-subsystem concept applied to the Art of American Kenpo Karate could include the knife, club, and staff as subsystems because they are common peripherals to the core of that particular system. Were a practitioner of this system to pick up a pencil in self-defense, it could be considered a sub-subsystem of the knife (if not of unarmed skills). It is far less versatile and deadly than the knife, but it is a short piercing weapon and more closely follows the use of the knife than any other weapon. System= American Kenpo (unarmed core system). Subsystem= Knife. Sub-subsystem= Pencil.

To make a similar example of the Chivalric Arts, say you want to use a short mace. Like the pencil, aside from the mace being a weapon by definition, its use is not explicitly instructed in the system. However, you’re versed in the Art of the Messer (a subsystem). The mace is far simpler and less versatile than the messer, though it can be used in virtually the same way. Therefore you make it a subsystem of the messer (sub-subsystem of the Chivalric Arts).
System= Chivalric Arts of Defense (unarmed core, ringen or whatever you want to call it). Subsystem= Messer. Sub-subsystem= Mace.

I hope these perspectives and definitions can aid you in your pursuit of excellence.

Notes:
1. The Encyclopedia of Kenpo, Ed Parker.
2. To my knowledge, I am the only person who has thus far applied the subsystem/sub-subsystem concept to the martial arts.

-C

Copyright 17 Feb. 2011

The Case Against Tournaments, Part Two...

2011-02-14T14:03:00.000-08:00

Practice your Art by necessity, honestly, and never in foolish vanity. - Döbringer.

G: Tournaments provide the best form of pressure-testing available…

Again, with respect, I must disagree. Here’s what Döbringer has to say:

…Auch merke das / und wisse das man nicht gar eygentlich und bedewtlich von dem fechten mag sagen und schreiben ader aus legen / als man is wol mag / czeigen und weisen mit der hant / Dorumbe tu of dyne synnen und betrachte is deste vas / und ube dich dorynne deste mer yn schimpfe / zo gedenkstu ir deste vas in ernste…

Note also that it is [more difficult] to [teach] the Art…with words, [than it is] with the hand. Therefore…ponder well…the more you train yourself in play (shimpfe), the more you will [begin to] think of it in earnest, (Lindholm).

Now, aside from utterly destroying Hugh Knight’s* inane argument (or something vaguely approximating an argument), that historical swordsmen didn’t engage in sparring**, it would nonetheless seem to support Mr. Galas’ argument. But where, under what conditions, and how was such play (note, play - not “free play \ freeplay” - which was the actual historical term used in the French (as evidenced by Le Jeu), German, Italian, and English traditions. Probably all the others, as well) conducted? Talhoffer answers this for us when he admonishes his readers to never allow their students to practice their Art in the open. Training, swordplay included, was therefore conducted in relative secrecy, under the careful supervision of a Master of the Art. Tournaments and other, even less martial public displays were already becoming pure spectacle not only in Talhoffer’s day (mid-to-late 1400’s), but in Hanko Döbringer's (late 1300’s). Döbringer warns us of the “dance masters,” who “…say that they have invented a new art, and improve upon it day by day…” Such men would be a common sight indeed at the kind of tournaments that already are being held.

G: The primary goal of the WMA/HEMA community is to revive the traditional fighting arts of Europe, based on surviving manuals of fence. As we have seen over time, this results in a host of competing interpretations of historical fencing technique. Ultimately, the touchstone for any interpretation must be the following: Can you carry it out under pressure against an unfamiliar, uncooperative opponent?

I agree.

I’ve said as much on many occasions. In fact, this was my primary argument against a certain rotund Californian “fechtmeister.” But are the kinds of events - which are being called tournaments - that are currently being held the best platform for that? On the surface, the idea seems pretty good, and the platform indeed solid. But then all those points that I brought up in the earlier (in Part One) spring up, and…well, you know the rest…

Much easier, simpler, and ultimately cheaper (saves everyone flying / driving to some central location for one massive gathering) is a much less formalized approach. 1, always be aware of the level of intensity brought to bear by your fellow group member / opponent, and the level of intensity you yourself are bringing to bear on them. Avoid simply “going along” with their technique. Know that if you don’t give your best, if you don’t resist and actually try to counter then you’re cheating your practice partner / opponent, and vice versa. 2, find the nearest group to you and ask if you can come on over for some serious play. This will help ensure that you mix things up a little and engage in play with individuals who probably train a little differently than you do on a semi-regular basis. And you can do this without the judges and the panels and the rules and the little flags.

Because, let’s face it, if you need to defer to a judge or some flag-toting referee to know who really won a bout, then you’re a fucking sport fencer; or at least engaging in that Godawful practice. And such activity will ultimately warp (or, at the very least, dull over time) one’s sense of the realpolitik of bladed combat, where the only rules are the Laws of Physics, and the only flags are your blood and guts gushing out.

It all brings to mind that wonderfully truthful scene in Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, wherein the two recruits engage in a bout of light, non-serious play with bamboo simulators. One of them strikes Kyuzo (who waited in the Dragon’s Tail and deftly displaced / struck his opponent simultaneously). The nameless opponent insists he hit first, and therefore won. Kyuzo knows better, and calls bullshit. Nameless guy gets pissed, and insists they do it with real swords. They do. Kyuzo displaces and kills unnamed dude. “What a shame,” says the sage old samurai. “It [was] so obvious.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOunibdB0YY

G: The fact is, free play is simply not the same as fighting in a public competition.

I agree. It’s not. It’s better. For all the reasons I’ve already given, and more.

G: The level of adrenaline, effort, and concentration goes way up in a tournament. One reason is the presence of a large audience; another is the fact that the fighter's performance is being measured by unfamiliar judges according to pre-set criteria…

And that selfsame “pre-set criteria” is one of the many reasons that tournaments are absolutely no good at all for determining real fighting ability, let alone honing it. Now, there are lots of guys who do take part in these tournaments who are excellent swordsmen. I think anyone who’s ever seen one of Axel’s videos would have to agree with me. He’s very good in his tournament videos. But he’s even better in the videos where he’s engaged in simple play. The reason is NOT because of the nerves that come from being in front of a large audience, or unfamiliar judges (unfamiliar? Really? Amongst the small amount of people who take part in this, is anyone really unfamiliar?). I think it’s because HE’S BEING HAMPERED by the goat-raping, stupid rules.

G: …yet another is the fact that the opponents are generally strangers, typically chosen at random…

Again, are they really “strangers?” Moreover, I submit that it wouldn’t matter even if they were. And the same experience (and better) can be had in a non-tournament environment.

G: Finally, social pressures (potential loss of face or reputation) also play a role in increasing the stress of tournament fighting…

This seems silly to me. High school nonsense, to be blunt. I’ve been beaten before. Many times. Do I feel a loss of status?

No.

And assuming that one would be stressed out about such a prospect, the same effect (I would venture to a greatly heightened degree) can be produced by engaging in a recorded challenge, which will afterwards be plastered on the Internet.

G…Tournament fighting is an excellent reality check…
I rather think it invites one to check reality at the door.

Now, I was going to make this a three or four part article, but I’ve pretty much realized that I’ve already addressed all the salient points. I basically addressed all the points in Historic Rule-Sets in the first segment, and all the really cogent points (AFIAC) from the other article I’ve covered here. So I’ll simply wrap up by saying:

Are tournaments going to go away?

No way. They are, alas, here to stay. Like the Fiore Mix-and-Match Game (the article up next, btw) at Wiktenauer, that canker has reared its head and will be throbbing away for a good long time. The only remedy is to create a device to differentiate. Between HEMA (which is so vast and vague, it includes Irish stick fighting - hey, why not Savate, too - and I.33. It therefore has no real identity, and is therefore also a huge part of the problem) and CMA proper (which also includes I.33, but not Irish stick, or Jogo do Pau, or whatever). Tournaments must be a part of that. If you engage in them, then you do HEMA. If not, and you stick to the pan-European system originating in the late High Middle Ages, then you do CMA, (since everyone is enamored of acronyms).

Are tournaments legitimate?

Depends upon whom one wishes to truly emulate.

Meyer, or even later masters?

Sure. They’re legit. And no disrespect meant to the Meyer aficionados.

Fiore / Vadi / Talhoffer / Kal / Ledall / Ringeck, et al?

Not so much.

-B.

*The man has an entire fucking blog supposedly dedicated to “German” martial arts, constantly quotes source literature, and yet strangely enough seems to have NEVER ACTUALLY READ (or at least not truly absorbed, unlike that IHOP that was once just down street from his basement apartment. There’s just a massive crater in the middle of parking lot there, now. Apparently he couldn’t be bothered to wait for them to cook the entire menu for him, and simply unhinged his massive jaws and devoured the entire structure, patrons and all) ANY OF THE MATERIAL HE QUOTES.

**Yes, I often use the word sparring in regards to swordplay. Because sparring is sparring. It is not specific to boxing. That’s a specious argument, anyway. 1, the word spar can be traced back to Middle English, and 2, language evolves over time. Get over it, dumbass.

Is Swordsmanship a Martial Art?

2011-02-06T09:33:00.000-08:00

This article, entirely coincidentally, just so happens to indirectly support the martial purist’s view against the tournament as currently being put forth in Brandon’s excellent articles on the subject. Here, we continue to challenge the dogmas of the CMA revival.

But on to the point; Is swordsmahsip a Martial Art?

No. And I’ll tell you why.
Being a “swordsman” does not necessarily a martial artist make. Technicalities and semantics can be argued, but I would no more call someone who solely studies the use of the club, or the knife, or the tonfa, or what-have-you, a martial artist, and a fencer of any nation or style is no different. They practice a martial art aspect, but being a martial artist requires more. Swordsmanship is not “a” martial art, per se. It is not a martial art in and of itself. It truly requires too many other peripheral martial skills that culminate in good swordsmanship, not vice versa; These skills better go toward creating a skilled swordsman than swordsmanship alone goes toward creating one skilled in all those other aspects, particularly as it is not the foundation of this many-pointed pyramid. Now I know that there are entire organizations founded upon the reverse of this concept that would seem to be a given, and I can tell you exactly why that is, but I will not do more than touch upon them in this article.

In brief explanation, the sword was never used as a single means for combat alone prior to its sportification. I.e. the blade alone was never the sole means of contact with an opponent, and even so, would require other skills for the blade alone, numerous other techniques, and backup skills should the sword break or be lost or rendered otherwise impractical; first it requires a foundation in unarmed skills and theory, then to be supplemented by techniques with many other weapons, natural and otherwise, at many different ranges. It requires knowledge of grappling, striking with natural weapons, using parts of the sword other than the blade, feeling (which is not best learned by fencing), etc. As an extension of one’s body, would it not be best to first master the body? The sword was never, and could never, reasonably be used alone. One without a foundational skill in the universal common denominator of combat (one’s self) to build upon with a weapon art is, to my mind, one who only plays at the martial arts without bothering to put in the work to be truly skilled, rounded and knowledgeable. This is endemic in the HEMA --which is now becoming distinguished from the Chivalric Arts proper by such problems-- where there are many who now nominally claim to be martial artists and study the martial arts (plural) but in fact are simply “swordsmen” (for lack of a better term), who, at best, only nominally study more than the sword alone.

Can one learn all of the necessary elements of swordsmanship by studying swordsmanship alone? Not to any high degree. Learning those elements by studying the sword alone invariably amounts to little more than gleaning. Those who would say otherwise are invariably those who have only studied the sword and are therefore ignorant of the depth of its individual defining elements. Most historical fencing organizations, however, are just that, and take this backward approach to skilled swordsmanship, defending it by countering the old masters, both to defend their sole skill-set and to justify the entire structure of their organizations, rank structures and curricula.

However, the requisite peripheral core skills are not only implicit in the medieval and renaissance technical references, by principle and sheer volume if nothing else, but explicitly admonished. Masters Silver, Fiore and Ringeck are all very particular on this point. But as I’ve said in other articles, many take issue when it comes to taking these (or any) masters at their word, and as I’ve lately seen, even making it commonplace to say the master was mistaken or incompetent in some regard should the depicted artwork not mesh with their preconceived notions or understanding of a technique, or their understanding of the text. However, as tedious as it may be to many a practitioner, let us see just what these masters have to say on the matter. Here are a few examples of my point being explicit in the source literature, from three corners of Europe and three time periods. In nearly all others prior to the Art approaching obsolescence, it is, at the very least, strongly implicit in principle.

Master Sir Sigmund Ringek
Alles fechten kompf vom ringen.
This I leave in the original language, because as with many phrases, it does not translate particularly well, but I will endeavor to convey the meaning. Most literally, it means that all fencing comes from unarmed fighting skills. “Ringen” is often translated as “wrestling,” but in the English language, it does not amount to a single word, as in the technical references, it encompasses virtually all unarmed fighting skills. But moving beyond the trivia, a truer meaning behind this apt phrase is that all fighting skills, principles and theory come from a foundation and root of unarmed fighting skills, principles and knowledge. Again, unarmed skills, and more importantly, principles, are the core, the universal common denominator, of any combatant’s repertoire.

Master Fiore de Liberi
(I am primarily referencing from M.S. Getty Ludwig XV 13)
Master Fiore is not nearly as succinct as Master Ringek, but his views are the same. In his treatise, he is very particular about reinforcing what I have explained about Ringek’s phrase by the very layout of his work. As Fiore, unlike most other masters, decidedly attempted to lay out the base of his entire system in one book, he lays out his work in order of importance; in the order in which he deemed it should be learned and taught; he begins with unarmed skills, and proceeds from there, thus setting the format for the rest of his treatise. He spends some time elaborating on basic principle and theory in this regard before moving on to the techniques, something he, tellingly, does not do with any other aspect of his Art. This is because that is all that the other elements of his Art are; aspects that revolve around the common core. His terminology proves this as well; most of his principles used with weapons use the same terms as the unarmed skills they are founded upon.

Master George Silver
Master Silver gives us an explicit short-list of the main elements that go into good combative swordsmanship. Again, none of these elements are well learned as peripherals to the sword, but to be truly effective, must be learned in their own right, and then integrated with the use of the sword. Silver says that swordsmanship with all of these elements integrated is incomparable. As he says, aside from the uses of the blade itself:
…their closures and grips (closing distance and range, and disarms), striking with the hilts, daggers, bucklers (use of off-hand weapons, two-weapons systems), wrestlings (grappling skills), striking with the foot or knee in the cods (kicks and proper targeting), and all these are safely defended in learning perfectly of the grips (one can only fight well against them if one has perfect skill with them)…and without this teaching, there shall never scholar be made able, do his uttermost, nor fight safe (without learning all these elements, a practitioner will never be truly skilled, will never achieve his potential skill level, nor be safe from those who have learned these elements properly).
Emphasis mine.
His purpose in this paragraph is obvious.

Swordsmanship alone is imperfect, and will remain so without the inclusion of myriad other elements, which cannot be learned perfectly by treating them as simple add-ons to the sword. The sword is an add-on to the system’s foundational element, and all other weapon-aspects of the Martial Arts combine to form good swordsmanship. NOT the other way around. The sword alone remains imperfect. It is not a true Martial Art if it stands alone.

-C

Copyright Feb. 6, 2010, Benjamin “Casper” Bradak

The Case Against Tournaments, Part One.

2011-02-05T20:13:00.000-08:00

I know that most men—not only those considered clever, but even those who are very clever, and capable of understanding most difficult scientific, mathematical, or philosophic problems—can very seldom discern even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as to oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed, perhaps with much difficulty—conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught to others, and on which they have built their lives. - Sir Francis Bacon.

This article has been a long time in coming. In truth, it’s well overdue. As anybody actively following the goings-on of the modern revival of the Chivalric Martial Arts (hereafter referred to simply as CMA) knows, there has been a protracted, and still-continuing debate over the legitimacy of tournaments, as well as their overall effectiveness as a tool for instruction in the Art. And as any regular reader here no doubt also knows, I am on the record as being adamantly and implacably against the practice of such. I believe, in the strongest possible fashion, that tournaments are detrimental to the revival and continued survival of the Art.

I know from experience had in other martial traditions that tournaments don’t lead to good fighting skills; but rather to an adeptness at “playing to the system,” and “gaming it” to victory. The pattern is inexorable, it cannot be shunted or evaded by clever rule sets. In fact, the more rules and regulations that are heaped upon it, the tighter the death grip of the aforementioned becomes. And slowly, millimeter-by-millimeter, the Art is strangled. It is only a matter of time before the rules, and their inherent loopholes, together with judicial prejudices (playing favorites, the judge disliking - despite a proven effectiveness - a particular technique, or even the strong likelihood that the judge is not actually qualified, or knowledgeable enough to make a realistic ruling, etc. And what happens when judges disagree? Into what seedy politicking do we descend?) combine into a toxic miasma and the all of the above becomes endemic. Forget the Art. Play the game. Game the rules. You’ll be a legend. It never starts this way, of course. That’s just how it ends.

Go ahead, accuse me of resorting to "scare tactics." Such is the usual response leveled against the cautious. But moving on...

What of the pro-tournament arguments? These shall unfold as we go on, and herein I shall endeavor to dismantle all the best arguments that have been put forth in favor of modern tournaments in the Chivalric Arts. It just so happens that, of all the champions of the cause, only one has produced anything even remotely resembling a cogent pro-tournament argument: Matt Galas. In two short articles (On the Value of Tournaments, and Historical Rule-Sets), Galas stakes out his position, and gallantly and eloquently defends it against cynics like me. To his credit, he does at least make passing reference to all the arguments arrayed against the modern practice of tournaments. And he’s very nearly convincing, too.

Very nearly.

The bulk of this article will be point-counterpoint, with statements made by Mr. Galas, taken from both of his aforementioned articles, and followed by my rejoinders. I state this now, because in presentation it can appear to be rather snarky. Well, despite my well known fondness for such, it’s not what’s intended here.

Now, on to the matter at hand:

Galas: Tournaments are an integral part of the European martial tradition…from the very beginning onward: Wrestling, boxing, and pancration at the Olympic games in Greece; the Roman gladiatorial games…

Yes, but only in the sportive context. Whether it was folk wrestling, public bouts of boxing (pre-Queensbury and after), Pankration matches for the laurels at the games (hint, they weren’t called the games for nothing), or Roman gladiators performing (performing) for the public, all of these were a matter of entertainment, to one degree or another. They were not, at least not explicitly, matters of mortal combat, nor did they expressly pertain to such. This point really cannot be skirted, shook off, or understated. It must be faced, or we’re guilty of intellectual dishonesty. There are only two examples mentioned by Mr. Galas that were not sporting events on some level…

G: …knightly tournaments; [and] the pas d'armes of France and Burgundy…

First, the knightly tourney: it should be mentioned that these were not initially for public consumption. They were not, by any stretch of the imagination, sporting events; but were more like private, miniature wars conducted by separate teams of knights, and they were not confined to the lists in their beginnings. They ranged over broad sprawls of land, often involving towns, and occasionally even resulted in the deaths of locals who got caught in the middle of the action. Not to mention the mortalities suffered by the dozens amongst the knights themselves, (as many as sixty deaths have been recorded, and more). When the tradition of tourneys began, it was not a spectacle, it was deadly serious training; and often involved sharp swords, as well as an array of other nasty weapons. Which is why they were in the rather unfortunate habit of getting banned. The locals were seldom amused, you see. It was only as traditional knighthood was well on it’s way in its sad march into decline - when knighthood itself became little more than spectacle - that the tourneys took on anything even remotely approximating the kind of thing that Mr. Galas, and his fellows in the pro-tournament crowd are trying (albeit in good faith), to push on us.

Thus, any comparison between the knightly tourney and the kinds of events currently being staged is specious at best, fatuous at worst.

As for the pas d'armes, these were bouts between individual knights, which were often - though not always - conducted more-or-less in private. While all were announced, they didn’t always draw crowds. Though Mr. Galas is closer to the mark here, the pas d'armes was still a very different beast. And, of course, knights participating in such were often maimed or killed, (which wasn’t supposed to occur, but all too often did, all the same). There was a degree of deadly, bloody seriousness involved that just doesn’t approach the anemic tournaments currently being engaged in by some, and continuously being proposed to the hold-outs.

The first stupid mouth-breather who invokes the reductio ad absurdum fallacy by saying “So, what...you…like, want us to maim and kill each other? Gaaa-Aau-Uuughhhh…”, or something similar will have his nine orifices violated by a jagged shard of glass, followed by what I call the Edward II Treatment. You know who you are! The iron poker is four feet long, in the brazier, and already starting to glow. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

G: …the knightly Kolbenturnier and bourgeois Fechtschule competitions of Germany; the longsword and rapier tournaments of the Belgian fencing guilds; prize-playing all across Europe…

And by which time the Art was largely obsolete, and in decline. All that was left were these shallow reverberations that had degraded into mostly-sportive combats, alas. And as for prize-playings: these were solemn affairs, concerned more with attaining rank and recognition of knowledge and skill within a particular guild / company. They were conducted seriously under the supervision of masters. The participants were not concerned with getting to stand on the highest chair, etc. Again, these were serious, truly martial affairs, which sadly degraded over time into the versions we can read about today.

G: …English singlestick matches; Breton and Cornish wrestling contests...

See above.

G: The list goes on and on.

Sadly, it does. Indeed, it does.

G: The ubiquitous nature of tournaments and similar competitions in the Western martial tradition amounts, in part, to an implicit acknowledgement of their martial value by the warrior classes of Europe.

No, it doesn’t. For all the reasons I mentioned, plus a few more co-opted from Dobringer, et al.

G: Competitive fighting was used by the very fighters whose historical example we are attempting to emulate.

On the contrary, Dobringer and others very specifically come out to denounce and ridicule such practices, (and no, I’m not taking a leaf from the absurd book of Hugh Knight, who thinks that the fighting men of the age didn’t spar. Of course they did. But I’ve dealt with that subject before, and I’m not going into it again here).

G: Tournaments have always had their share of detractors, but they have also been a part of every European martial tradition.

Again, only in a sportive context.

G: Thus, their legitimacy as an element of the practice of WMA/HEMA cannot be called into question.

And here is where the argument goes completely off the rails. It absolutely can be questioned. With all due respect, this really is the sorriest example of deductive reasoning I’ve run across in a very long time. For all the reasons listed above, and more. I simply cannot see HOW this leap is made: tournaments have always had their detractors (amongst them, masters of the Art, no less), BUT they’re all wrong, and I modern amateur, am right because of all these examples relating to what amounts to pseudo-martial sporting events.

No.

A thousand times, NO.

Mr. Galas is incorrect.

-B.

Check back soon for Part Two.

Medieval Fight Book

2011-01-16T19:33:00.000-08:00

by Jeffrey Hull

Just so everyone – both friend and foe alike – is perfectly clear regarding this:

The good folks who produced the forthcoming programme Medieval Fight Book for National Geographic Television; set to air on Tuesday evening (18 January 2011); shall be using my very own translations of passages from the Fechtbuch (1459-Thott) by Master Hans Talhoffer.

I want to thank Sion of Wild Dreams Films and Richard of NatGeoTV for providing me this venue for my work. They have proven to be decent & honest fellows, and I wish them good luck.

I hope that Medieval Fight Book shall be an enjoyable experience for all you good readers/viewers.