Hi folks,

I'm new here - I've enjoyed reading some of the threads and just thought I should comment on the difference between Western Martial Arts and Historical European Martial Arts.

WMA is usually used as an umbrella term for martial arts and combat sports of European descent. This list is much longer than many people realise - as well as savate, boxing, wrestling and fencing, there are dozens of folk-wrestling and stick-fighting arts that are still being practiced in places like the Canary Islands, Portugal, Italy, etc. Some of these are only just coming to light in the English-speaking world - not so much because they have been "kept secret", as because people outside these countries are only recently getting interested in them. Plus, language and other communication barriers can now be overcome due to the Internet.

HEMA is a more specialised sub-group of WMA, and usually refers to European martial arts that have died out or evolved into completely different forms over the decades or centuries, but are now being "revived". The revival process is sometimes controversial in EMA circles because people are so accustomed to thinking in terms of lineal descent - my master was trained by so-and-so, who was trained by so-and-so, etc. However, it is a basic premise of HEMA that the revival process is a worthwhile endeavor, to re-discover the martial arts as they were practiced within a particular culture and historical period. Luckily, many of the historical European Masters of Defense wrote and illustrated highly detailed combat manuals, and these are the basis for modern reconstruction.

Most of the activity in HEMA at the moment involves the martial arts of the 1500s - 1700s, including a wide range of fighting styles such as the two-handed sword, rapier, armoured dagger combat, etc. Other HEMA enthusiasts focus on more recent styles and periods such as Irish stick-fighting, bare-knuckle pugilism, Bowie-knife combat, etc.

The aim in HEMA is not so much to train for real self-defense, although some of these arts - especially knife and unarmed combat styles - can be applied that way; rather, just like people who play "old-time" baseball with the original equipment and rules, it is to rediscover a valuable part of our heritage that has been lost over time. Most people involved in HEMA also have quite extensive training in other styles, and the whole field is becoming more and more popular, with many websites, books, tournaments, conferences, etc.

I will be happy to help answer any questions about HEMA and WMA and look forward to conversations here.

Regards,

Gilbey

Hi folks,


Hi Gilbey.

I'm over at the Martinez Academy, where are you studying?

Chris

Hi Gilbey.

I'm over at the Martinez Academy, where are you studying?

Chris
Hi Chris,

I'm based in Hawaii, but I travel a lot.

Mr Umbs...
Can you speak to the Spainish Fencing Styles? I am looking for information on the La Verdadera Destreza style.

Thanks,
Jeremy Bays

Sorry...been on vacation


Yes.. look at http://www.martinez-destreza.com/ where there are articles on the subject
http://www.martinez-destreza.com/articles/spanish1.htm
http://www.martinez-destreza.com/articles/spanish2.htm
http://www.martinez-destreza.com/articles/spanish3.htm

And info on a video at
http://www.martinez-destreza.com/destrezavideo.htm


Chris

A little info on Irish stick fighting please? And welcome to the forums.

I have a couple of general questions. How much of HEMA is re-creation, that is, created from books, manuscripts, letters, etc. as opposed to having some kind of unbroken lineage (which in my opinion is not always important)? I say this because it has been a long time since some of those weapons have been wielded on the field of battle with the purpose of killing your opponent with them. Have many kinds of combat survived by becoming sport? Thanks.

By definition, all HEMA styles are re-created from detailed historical sources, whereas WMA in general are those styles which have been passed down, usually at the folk-sport or folk-art level.

Gilbey

It depends on the art and the school. Certainly dueling sword (epee du combat) and dueling sabre as well as smallsword and rapier all have living traditions. One downside to having so many printed treatises available to us though is the tendency of some groups to try to learn simply from the books even when there are living traditions. Other arts may be 'dead', but I still think one would be better served by studying a LT of Grand Baton before trying to work their way through a longsword treatise.


Chris

I am new to the forum as well and also to the self defense world ingeneral. When speaking of the differing art forms and their origins, where does Krav Maga fir in when discussing Western and European Martial Art forms?

Krav Maga was developed in Europe and Israel from a variety of arts, with a strong boxing influence. I consider it Western, personally, but there is also a significant Oriental influence on it.

It depends on the art and the school. Certainly dueling sword (epee du combat) and dueling sabre as well as smallsword and rapier all have living traditions. One downside to having so many printed treatises available to us though is the tendency of some groups to try to learn simply from the books even when there are living traditions. Other arts may be 'dead', but I still think one would be better served by studying a LT of Grand Baton before trying to work their way through a longsword treatise.


ChrisI think it's important to point out however, that for most fencers, these living traditions only go back to the early 20th or perhaps late 19th century and are handed down from a relatively modern fencing background, not the deadly and combat effective styles of earlier periods when a duel to the death was an all too frequent possibility. Certainly sport and classical fencers develop skills that can translate to the study of older styles with realistic replica weapons but they are not the same thing by any means. The only way to really learn these arts in their earlier forms is to study the manuscripts left behind by the early masters of defense. Here's a slightly different take on this concept:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/classical.htm

I think it's important to point out however, that for most fencers, these living traditions only go back to the early 20th or perhaps late 19th century and are handed down from a relatively modern fencing background, not the deadly and combat effective styles of earlier periods when a duel to the death was an all too frequent possibility.

Ah yes... the non-deadly 19th century...
http://www.duellingoaks.com/

I suspect that Llulla's opponents would be glad to know that what happened to them wasn't deadly. If people are dying, guess what? It's deadly.

A little info on Irish stick fighting please? What about them?

I don't understand the question. Do you want a history? Techniques? Known schools/styles? Typical weapons? etc....

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

What about them?

I don't understand the question. Do you want a history? Techniques? Known schools/styles? Typical weapons? etc....

Peace favor your sword,
KirkI'd like any info that you have. I've googled a bit but haven't turned up much (perhaps it's just my ineptitude).

Ah yes... the non-deadly 19th century...
http://www.duellingoaks.com/

I suspect that Llulla's opponents would be glad to know that what happened to them wasn't deadly. If people are dying, guess what? It's deadly.
It’s funny; the extreme bias that Victorian fencers held against medieval methods of swordplay is now almost mirrored by the dismissal of 19th century fencing by many of today’s practitioners of historical swordsmanship. That’s karma, I suppose.

Of course, to outright dismiss of any method of swordsmanship, especially if you yourself are not a practitioner, is pure arrogance. As far as my own study of historical fencing, time basically stops after 1600 (except, or course, for the Bowie knife). That, however, is simply my personal preference. I suppose it’s the nature of martial arts to attempt to compare one art against another to determine which one is the "best". Still, it is a bit irresponsible to think that a 19th century duelist such as Pepe Llulla who used his skills in actual combat, was practicing a less martial method than those of us who do this as a hobby, no matter how intense our training is.

Though, there are some obvious differences between medieval combat and later sword fights. Paul Kirchner’s excellent "Dueling with the Sword and Pistol" details a number of duels, mostly from the 18th and 19th centuries. It is a fascinating read, and of particular interest as far as this discussion goes is the amount of damage the duelist take before they are finally put down. Compare this with what Fiore says of the unarmed duel in the 15th century and the differences become evident:

"Because the man that plays at sharp swords, the one single cover that he fails, in that blow the blow gives him death".

IMO, like the Victorian, the outright dismissal of any fencing system (or any martial art, for that matter) comes from a lack of understanding. As the great James Hetfield said: arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand….

Ah yes... the non-deadly 19th century...
http://www.duellingoaks.com/

I suspect that Llulla's opponents would be glad to know that what happened to them wasn't deadly. If people are dying, guess what? It's deadly.Of course there were duels in the 19th century and some of them were lethal. The lethal ones were probably the exception to the rule however as by this time duelling usually followed a well defined code of conduct that was largely designed to minimize death and injury.

From the 26 comandments of the Irish duelling code of 1777:

"If swords are used, the parties engage until one is well blooded, disabled, or disarmed, or until, after receiving a wound and blood being drawn, the aggressor begs pardon."


So a good flowing cut was probably enough to satisfy in most cases. IMO, killing each other was not a paramount objective and as the 19th century progressed, this becomes even more the case as fencing evolved into more of a sporting activity between gentlemen than a deadly serious martial activity, eventually becoming the modern sport form that we have today. The legendary duelling stories from early 19th century New Orleans are well known and the following quotes from the article you linked to are notable:

"Of course, duels did not always terminate in a fatality; often injured dignity was appeased by the first blood drawn, and the duellists sometimes left the park arm in arm"

"Pepe broke all records for participation in duels. Stories of his killings are so numerous it is more than likely most of them are myths".

"Llulla's duels, for the most part, however, were usually terminated at his own suggestion, and before a fatality occurred"

And of course, I don't think anyone can reliably trace a "living tradition" back that far anyway. I believe you stated on another forum that yours, for example, only goes back to the 20th century. I suspect that most fencers studying duelling weapons of the 19th century under modern teachers are doing a recreation of this style, in some cases with unrealistic sport foils, epees and sabers, rather than practicing a true "living tradition" from the period when duelling was common.

Matt,

Either you don't know what you're talking about or you're just being a troll.

Matt,

Either you don't know what you're talking about ...Actually Matt made a very good case quoting the article that you linked.


...or you're just being a troll.Throwing the "trolling" label again so soon? In what manner is Matt trolling by disagreeing with you and making his case using the material you provided?

Please note, this is not SFI.:rolleyes:

Because these are old discussions, Ran. Mostly ones that have lead to locked threads elsewhere because we don't agree, are never going to agree and there's no point in trying. I'm also a tad suspicious about motives. Matt's been registed on MAP since Feb 2004 yet he didn't post until the other week when I started. Since then, every post he has made there has been an attack on me. I answered his first few questions since I thought he might be sincere. I no longer believe that to be the case.

Come on guys, this was actually a pretty good conversation. Let’s not turn it into this. While I don’t think that Matt knows what he’s talking about in regards to later-period swordplay, I honestly believe that he wasn’t trying to be a Troll. This is an open forum, and both sides should be allowed to express their views without perceiving it as an attack.

Keith,

In general, I don't know who's who in ARMA and I don't usually read threads dealing with older weapons since it's not my main interest. So it took me a few days to remember who Matt is. I went back and read the messages from ARMAs private mailing list that were hacked and made public a while back - that reminded me that he's been talking about this (hating the fact that M. Martinez is called a master, etc.) since 2002 and isn't really interested in having his mind changed.

Chris

Mod Note

Please return to the original thread Topic and feel free to use the Ignore button for members you wish not to read. If there's an issue you are having with a member or post, use the Report Bad post button.

Bringing other Forums' issues to MT is not acceptable.

Thank you,

~Tess
-MT S. Mod

Matt,

Either you don't know what you're talking about or you're just being a troll.Nope, just offereing a different opinion. When you say

"One downside to having so many printed treatises available to us though is the tendency of some groups to try to learn simply from the books even when there are living traditions. Other arts may be 'dead', but I still think one would be better served by studying a LT of Grand Baton before trying to work their way through a longsword treatise".

You are criticizing the approach virtually everyone in the historical fencing community is taking. From what I've seen, most of these "living traditons" are undocumentable past one or two generations, are watered down versions of their medieval and renaissance origins, and are therefore mostly modern interpretation anyway. I'm not posting here to try and change your mind, just pointing out to other readers of this forum, who may not know much about the subject, that yours is not the only viewpoint on this issue nor is yours the only valid approach to studying these arts.

Come on guys, this was actually a pretty good conversation. Let’s not turn it into this. While I don’t think that Matt knows what he’s talking about in regards to later-period swordplay, I honestly believe that he wasn’t trying to be a Troll. This is an open forum, and both sides should be allowed to express their views without perceiving it as an attack.

Well frankly, you're right, I'm not trolling, and later period stuff is certainly not my area of expertise. Also, I'm not really disputing the skill of late period fencers (although it may have sounded that way). What I really disagree with is the belief by many in the classical fencing community that unless you study with a recognized "master" in a living tradition of some kind, your historical fencing study is somehow less legitimate.

Keith,

In general, I don't know who's who in ARMA and I don't usually read threads dealing with older weapons since it's not my main interest. So it took me a few days to remember who Matt is. I went back and read the messages from ARMAs private mailing list that were hacked and made public a while back - that reminded me that he's been talking about this (hating the fact that M. Martinez is called a master, etc.) since 2002 and isn't really interested in having his mind changed.

Chris
Hi Chris,

I’m afraid that I don’t know anything about any of that. I’m just taking all of this at face value, and I really don’t think anyone is being a Troll here. I see people with different points of view, and while I agree that it is evident that Matt doesn’t study 19th century fencing, I also don’t think he has been rude about it. Believe me, I realize there is a lot of bad blood in the WMA community (you and I were both at the first WMAW in 1999, so we’ve seen it from the beginning) but I personally don’t try to take anything too personally.

Well frankly, you're right, I'm not trolling, and later period stuff is certainly not my area of expertise. Also, I'm not really disputing the skill of late period fencers (although it may have sounded that way). What I really disagree with is the belief by many in the classical fencing community that unless you study with a recognized "master" in a living tradition of some kind, your historical fencing study is somehow less legitimate.
Matt,

Yes, I most definitely don’t agree with that statement. But, like I said to Chris, there were no personal attacks, so there is no reason to take anything personally. Of course, I don’t take offense easily, and when you’re a member of the WMA community, IMO that is a good trait to have :rolleyes:

As for Chris’ opinion that you would be better prepared to study historical long sword by first studying a Living Tradition, all the evidence I’ve seen points to the contrary. Chris has admitted that the long sword really isn’t an area of interest for him, and his views reflect that. Still, if that truly is his opinion, he’s free to have it, and I would be interested in hearing his argument. Personally, I don’t see it.



Anyone who has ever spent a significant time with the medieval treatises would realize that a background in a grappling art (such as jujitsu, or shoot-wresting) would be a thousand times more beneficial than training in later period swordplay. My own focus is Fior di Battaglia, and Fiore bases his entire art on grappling, and that should be the students base before learning the use of weapons. This wrestling base affects the body mechanics for the entire system, and when I see classically trained fencers attempt to apply the body mechanics they’ve learned to early weapon systems, things go wrong.

However, I am a firm believer that it is necessary to have a solid martial art background, or availability to an instructor, in order to successfully research/train historical fencing. I have heard people give aspiring swordsmen with no previous marital art experience the advice to buy a waster, buy a book, and get to training. This is a set up for failure at best, and irresponsible at worse. Classical fencing, traditional Eastern martial arts, modern combatives, and Western wrestling all make excellent backgrounds to begin the study of historical fencing. Some are better than others, but all can be beneficial.

So, that is my opinion on this subject. I hope that no one takes any of this as a personal attack, and I look forward to hearing alternative points of view.

Matt,

Yes, I most definitely don’t agree with that statement. But, like I said to Chris, there were no personal attacks, so there is no reason to take anything personally. Of course, I don’t take offense easily, and when you’re a member of the WMA community, IMO that is a good trait to have :rolleyes:

As for Chris’ opinion that you would be better prepared to study historical long sword by first studying a Living Tradition, all the evidence I’ve seen points to the contrary. Chris has admitted that the long sword really isn’t an area of interest for him, and his views reflect that. Still, if that truly is his opinion, he’s free to have it, and I would be interested in hearing his argument. Personally, I don’t see it.



Anyone who has ever spent a significant time with the medieval treatises would realize that a background in a grappling art (such as jujitsu, or shoot-wresting) would be a thousand times more beneficial than training in later period swordplay. My own focus is Fior di Battaglia, and Fiore bases his entire art on grappling, and that should be the students base before learning the use of weapons. This wrestling base affects the body mechanics for the entire system, and when I see classically trained fencers attempt to apply the body mechanics they’ve learned to early weapon systems, things go wrong.

However, I am a firm believer that it is necessary to have a solid martial art background, or availability to an instructor, in order to successfully research/train historical fencing. I have heard people give aspiring swordsmen with no previous marital art experience the advice to buy a waster, buy a book, and get to training. This is a set up for failure at best, and irresponsible at worse. Classical fencing, traditional Eastern martial arts, modern combatives, and Western wrestling all make excellent backgrounds to begin the study of historical fencing. Some are better than others, but all can be beneficial.

So, that is my opinion on this subject. I hope that no one takes any of this as a personal attack, and I look forward to hearing alternative points of view.





Yep, I agree with everything you've said here. I don't have anything personal against Chris or anyone else and didn't take anything said here as a personal insult either. BTW, I bet Fiore would kick butt in UFC or Pride!

I bet Fiore would kick butt in UFC or Pride!Well, us ARMA DFW guys might just have to dump you on your Fiore butt at your Senior Free Scholar prize play next week.:jedi1:
Of course, we might all have to attack at the same time in order to accomplish the task.:2xBird2:

Looking forward to your class.:duel:

Well, us ARMA DFW guys might just have to dump you on your Fiore butt at your Senior Free Scholar prize play next week.:jedi1:
Of course, we might all have to attack at the same time in order to accomplish the task.:2xBird2:

Looking forward to your class.:duel:Ran, if you guys have any compassion at all, you'll take it easy on me, I'm really quite old and frail you know.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v336/androu/DSCF0008.jpg

So...is that the "old age" or the "frail" you are using in the picture to dump Shane.:whip:

By the way, I think I have you in this old age and frail stuff by 10 to 15 years, serval thousand gray hairs, and way too many pounds.:vu: :vu:

Matt & Chris.

Side-Bar...... The last time Maestro Martinez and I talked about 'Pepe' Llula we had same few sources that I did. Dueling in Old New Orleans & Gentlemen Swords & Pistols both 1950ish questionable sources. He made a trip to New Orleans and did some research there and tried to get a meeting with the family but no real positive results or anything new. Do any of you guys have any new information or sources on this unique individual.

Best
Dwight

I'd like any info that you have. I've googled a bit but haven't turned up much (perhaps it's just my ineptitude).
Sorry I took so long to get back to ya.

Start off with Ken Pfrenger's website.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/4933/shillelagh.html

I've also got a couple of video tapes including a video of Ken's shillelah class at the recent Cumann Bhata Western Martial Arts Seminar. PayPal $15 to lawson@dayton.net for to-your-door shipping within the contiguous U.S. Be sure to include your shipping address and a note for what video(s) you want. I also got video of the other classes too. Same deal. I think I posted additional details in the Marketplace forum.

All together that should answer all of your basic questions.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk