Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Fencing Politics: HEMA, the SCA, LARPers and sportsmen.
With the rising popularity of the historical European martial arts (HEMA) has come something of a social and organisational imbalance between modern swordfolk. Prior to the early 90s, only the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA), various small LARPing communities and sport fencing existed. Sport fencers always enjoyed a place at the top of the chain -- they were the ones who had the most proper, most recognised and most historical methods at their disposal. Some of their texts form a part of HEMA scholasticism today, but HEMA changed everything and got under the skin of quite a few organisations. Many understandably feel undermined by the scholastic and martial intensity that the better HEMA groups represent, and the way in which that has forced re-examination of sound technique and attitude.
Obviously, an in-depth study and training regime in deadly historical fencing isn't for everyone, but truer methods have come to light in the last twenty years and HEMA is getting big enough to butt heads with not only the SCA, but academic institutions and institutions dedicated to modern sport fencing. To say that it's coming to a head right now would be premature, but HEMA is chugging along at speed and shows no signs of slowing down. There's got to be a reason for this, and I think I have a reasonably good idea about why.
When someone decides to take up a sword, I think it's reasonable to presume they want to use the best methods they can find. Practical or not, the sword is backed by hundreds of years of romantic ideals, and I think everyone who picks one up wants something of the unique power in that collective narrative. For many, the SCA and LARPing provide a narrative outlet. While mastery of a weapon is unlikely under most circumstances, such groups allow one to immerse themselves in a fantasy world where the sword is a dominant force. Sport fencing is the opposite; while it can provide technical mastery, it can't provide tactical mastery and offers no narrative. Every weapon is a training tool, bearing small physical resemblance to the weapons they're based on.
Enter HEMA. Even though most HEMA groups don't wear costumes, there's a kind of inherent narrative in the research. We know of dozens of historical masters and their manuscript works. One can immerse themselves in that history and then play it out freeform with a blunt steel longsword and protective padding. Furthermore, HEMA contains the greatest potential for mastery out of any of these groups, allowing the full spectrum of technical and tactical skills required of a historical swordsman to survive. For many, including disillusioned sport fencers and LARPers, HEMA provides what they wanted in the first place.
On the other hand, many LARPers and sport fencers that remained in their established groups have come to dislike HEMA for its arrogance (or, at least, condescending attitude) towards any approach that isn't completely martial. Furthermore, HEMA continues to claim wider respect and attention for its diversity and accuracy. From a technical perspective, everything to do with swordplay within LARPing and sport fencing is found within HEMA, and then HEMA has many exclusive aspects as well -- grapples spring to mind as a good example, but also a variety of HEMA-only weapons techniques.
In short, a bunch of costumed crusaders and sportspeople have their knickers in a knot over a bunch of amateur historians with swords. Cooperation, at this stage, doesn't seem like much of a possibility. HEMA specifically sets itself apart from sport fencers (who are seen as enabling an inaccurate depiction of swordsmanship) and LARPers (who do the same, but many people mistake HEMA practitioners for LARPers which gets under our skin a lot) and very much desires to be its own thing -- while consistently reminding the other groups what they're doing incorrectly.
You can see how, while HEMA is technically the correct and informed group here, the others have understandably failed to take kindly to the whole thing. There's also the fact that each different group caters to something of a different audience, from the competitive swashbuckling of sport fencing to the immersion in fantasy of LARPing to the serious martial stocisim of HEMA.
And now, oh God, I see each organisation represented by an anime moeblob caricature.
In any case, I thought I might be able to collect some thoughts on this. Gacek, as far as I know, is the only other HEMA practitioner here, but I'm absolutely sure we've got at least a couple of (perhaps former) sport fencers, and maybe someone's done some LARPing, or done time with the SCA. After all, I can't remain unbiased -- as someone who shares the wider perspectives of HEMA, I have vested interest in seeing HEMA becoming the dominant public source on historical martial arts and related matters.
Comments
Which strikes me as a remarkably stupid reason to pick up a sword of any sort. The whole notion of getting some narrative fulfillment out of a combat weapon is kinda eye rollingly dumb to me.
As for HEMA in general my one gripe is the tendency for them to urge people to respect the sword. Which I think is dumb because 1)It is asking you to respect a a tool rather than how it is used and 2) It is awfully similar to that whole narrative fulfillment drek LARPers want to get. I'd rather they say people be cautious or mindful of a sword because of the danger it poses when wielded, but asking people to respect it is akin to asking people to respect a car.
Are there many other reasons to pick up a sword, let alone something like a longsword, messer or broadsword? I think most people do this because they like the ideas behind the skills, and these skills hold wide cultural value. There's certainly a lot of cultural force behind the sword in all of its forms across the world, which is pretty much a narrative trait. The sword is a powerful symbol because of the people and characters with whom it is associated; the likes of King Arthur, the Crusader knights, swashbucklers and all other manner of figures that are culturally popular within our collective, osmotic Western lore.
In a context where swords have been supplanted by firearms, there is no technical reason to seek out skills with a sword beyond some particular taste for narrative. Some may claim fitness, but even then the question has to be "why the sword"? You can work out for fitness, read books for history and (in some countries) purchase a gun for self defense or otherwise seek out martial arts with an emphasis on unarmed combat.
Given that fencing's uses can all be provided by other means, I think there's no question that people who seek out fencing of one kind or another are after some kind of narrative experience, even if it's a more subtle one than dressing up and using a funny name. To claim that narrative is a poor reason for taking up the sword is to deny the power of the sword as a symbol. That's entirely up to you, but you'll note that you can't really escape the sword, even in science fiction of all things, such as in Star Wars and Dune. It's on flags, in military dress uniforms, statues and dozens of other places.
The sword is "cool" or "a powerful symbol" or "historically engrossing" or whatever. Those claims, and the how and why of it all, are the narrative. In a world that's stopped using swords as a tool of war or self-defence, where they exist primarily in fairy tales and books, the narrative is all-important. It's why the sword still thrives, even if it doesn't thrive as a physical object or in practical use.
I think this is semantics, depending on what you read into "respect". What we want is the same respect given to any other weapon, for safety's sake if nothing else. A reasonable person would handle a gun with great care -- a sword should be handled even more carefully, because it's dangerous to beginners and the untrained. And I don't think the car comparison holds up, as a car is not specifically designed for killing, nor are they so widely misunderstood. Swords were used for thousands of years to maim and kill other human beings, and have since become heavily misunderstood as sport fencing became the only technical outlet for swordsmanship.
A car, on the other hand, is not designed to kill, despite the potential danger they pose, and many people drive every day. While a deep, technical understanding of cars is held by relatively few people in comparison to those who drive, they're not heavily misunderstood objects, nor shrouded in vague history, myths, legends or modern misrepresentations.
Also, while I'm aligned against LARPers in this particular context, I personally don't believe they deserve any particular derision for doing what they find fun. It's often done poorly, but that doesn't discredit the concept. While I have no experience with LARPing in particular, I hear American LARPing is the worst, being the spawning pool where tabletop and video game mechanics were added to the concept of dressing up funny and hitting each other with sticks -- which I think is an experience which should speak for itself, mathematics be damned.
And what's the point of that? To try to carve a little bit of the image of Crusader Knights or other sword brandishing figures into their own lives? That's almost as silly as shouting at windmills.
Yes, I should have said gun or bow to get the point across. But I think stressing respect, instead of caution and mindfulness just plays up the whole misrepresentation and myth angle more than it does to dispel it. Treat the sword like an object with inherent dangers due to design and stupid ideas people have about it and nothing more and you will cut down on all those things.
As for people throwing math into LARPing, presumably it would be so the less fit players wouldn't always get curbstomped by people who actually practice and exercise. Lame, but understandable.
Why is it silly? The sword acts as a medium between a modern person and the romantic idea they hold dear. I consider it a reinforcing tool. It's not the sword that makes King Arthur cool -- it's his wisdom, his triumph over evil and his personal sacrifice. So we reverse the coolness equation; figures like King Arthur have made the sword a cool thing throughout history. And given the limited practical value of a sword in the 21st century, it's capturing this kind of mythical value, I think, that makes fencing enticing to some.
After all, we do a lot of things that are "silly" -- spending hours playing video games, watching productions aimed at a younger demographic, debating over the internet -- but it doesn't change the fact that these things hold value for us. Something that holds value might well be silly, but it doesn't change the fact that there may well be a rational explanation behind it, even if that explanation might be based on a group's subjective interpretation of the stimulus. I'm sure most of us have observed a fictional character, thought we wanted to be more like that in same respect and slowly changed, in a small way, as a result. And many of us would use some kind of object as a medium for that change. It could be something on a necklace, a book, a chess set, a musical instrument or any number of other things.
Shouting at windmills is crazy because there's no context I know of that rationalises that behaviour (unless someone is communicating with an individual in that windmill), but taking up the sword as a tool of personal development seems much more rational to me. Many martial artists claim that immersing oneself in a combat style contributes significantly to personal character development, and that's certainly my own experience. Sportspeople might claim the same of sports, although I'm not sure, and I couldn't disagree if they do.
I think few people are the people they really want to be, and most of us would have an idealised image of ourselves in our head that we try to get closer to. And I think it's reasonable to claim that we use a wide variety of tools to become closer to that image. Pen and paper, musical instruments, a professional kitchen, a flat stretch of land and more are really all tools that people choose for the sake of self-expression. A sword is as valid a choice as any other. After all, anything that only exists in our head is a fantasy as much as King Arthur, perhaps with the caveat that with hard work and perseverance, we might become the idealised idea of self barring elements that are too overtly fantastic. If that internal image is of a chivalrous knight, a virtuous swashbuckler or a wise samurai, and the tool of expression and development is a sword, what of it?
It strikes me as being just about as silly as people who use a piano for their expression when their major source of inspiration is Beethoven.
Human beings don't necessarily make a lot of sense until you realise that fact, and begin to take things at a level of personal value. After all, plenty a psychologist makes a career based on the rationale behind subjectivity.
I understand that, but it seems silly because those less fit people would probably fix that weakness with time.
Well, if you're Don Quixote, the rationalization behind it is that shouting at windmills is your life's purpose, if only because you've never found anything as fullfilling in your life.
Such a rationalisation seems perfectly acceptable to me, unless one is disturbing others with their windmill-bothering. Then they must be relocated alongside a more remote windmill.
So you are okay with Don Quixote being completely deluded?
Is this where I point out that Don Quixote was probably clinically insane and thought that the windmills were giants holding his fair maiden?
cuz...well, it sure looks like it is exacly where we are
In this case, the windmill shouting isn't the problem in and of itself -- it's a symptom of something else. There is nothing technically wrong with shouting at windmills, but it's a behaviour that lacks an obvious rationalisation and Don Quixote is not the epitome of internal stability, so the issue becomes clear.
Symptom and cause and all that. A behaviour doesn't necessarily make its motivation immediately clear, and a non-harmful behaviour probably shouldn't be condemned unless a harmful motivation is found.
Because at the end of the day there really isn't a place in this world for swashbuckler, a samurai or a knight outside of fiction. It's just as dumb as wanting to be like a superhero or noir detective. Picking the traits of those archetypes you want is vastly more practical than trying to emulate some historic or fictional person.
And I think trying to justify those things beyond the fact that they can entertain or distract is being dishonest.
It doesn't strike me as very practical, because you are unlikely to emulate Beethoven's success or legacy. If you just want to play piano that makes a lot more sense to me.
Really? I've never actually encountered people using such an obvious totem or fetish as a means for personal change. The behavior and routine associated with the new thing, but just getting the thing, not so much.
That I can get behind and understand. Using it simply as a means to an end via the activity and the routine and discipline it carries. But on the otherhand...
Capturing some mythical value? What gibberish is this?
This is what I've been getting at from the beginning -- the sword is a medium and reinforcing factor of those traits, not a replacement. It's a way of having a physical experience that gets inside the head of such a figure. I don't think many modern fencers go pirating or seek out the Holy Grail, but the sword becomes a symbolic object which can also be used for the aforementioned martial arts training. Therefore it has developmental traits on two grounds.
Just because one has a particular inspiration doesn't mean they're under any illusions. Speaking as a musician, I'm happy as long as my playing and composition is what I want to write, but that doesn't mean I don't have technical and artistic standards to adhere to as a subjective measure of where I am.
Thing is, we generally don't do this consciously. Few very people would go "I have a totem that I keep around because blah blah blah".
To illustrate, I have this cheap-ass Hellsing thing on a chain that goes around my neck. Some time ago, one of my friends became homeless and began living in an abandoned brewery with another friend of his. Me and some other mutual friends would go around from time to time and help them out. We brought food, booze and other resources we could spare. On hard rubbish nights, we would often go out and stalk the streets for objects that would have some kind of technical use. After a while, we had made the "living part" of the brewery safe, installed lights, had a pulley system going, installed a door and enough sleeping places for about half a dozen people.
I only ever took one thing from there. A wide, circular ring that was once part of a machine. Much, much too big for a finger, but a good size to be worn on a chain. So I did just that, and put it on that chain. Now it's a reminder of my experience in assisting a homeless friend, and I wore it every day for ages after that experience, even when that friend moved into a proper living space. I didn't really think of it as such at the time, but it had become a totem or fetish for me. Something I just naturally clung to because of the meaning it held and the change it represented in me.
But you're right in that the object alone isn't enough. It's certainly the meaning of an object and the function (if only psychological) that it performs. That should be obvious, though.
Let me put it this way.
Let's say we have activity A and activity B. Let's also say activities have values represented by X, Y and Z.
A has the values X and Y. B has the values Y and Z. You can see that both activities contain the value Y. Ergo, someone seeking the value Y will be satisfied with either activity. But few people partake of an activity for one reason alone; there will be some other feature that pleases them. Someone seeking value X will choose activity A, and someone seeking value Z will choose activity B.
It's simple logic, where A and B can be any activity and where X, Y and Z can be any values or traits.
Whether or not X, Y or Z materialises in real life may not necessarily be important -- that it's there in that specific context may be enough. For instance, I suspect most gamers feel pleased with a well-placed headshot in a tense round of their favourite FPS, but not many would be particularly pleased with shooting someone or being shot at with real guns. That imitation of combat has done its job by providing an engaging experience.
Answers such as "it's entertaining" miss the point. Of course things that are slightly or overtly fantastic are entertaining, but that's not where the observation process ends. To understand a motivation for a behaviour, it's necessary to look at what particular motivations are beyond that. After all, the entertainment value of a piece of media or whatever is a symptom of its elements rather than an inherent trait. We have to ask what makes something entertaining and what allows it to speak to an audience, and perhaps how it speaks differently to different audiences.
In this case, "mythical value" can be X, Y or Z. And that's something plenty of people seek out if the success of speculative fiction alone is any indication, but that's far from the only way to attain that experience. Consider the success of Disney Land or even your average, mundane, schlocky romance novel. People seek fantasy on a variety of different levels, even if that fantasy is "mundane" or "technically possible".