The Story of Fencing from a Chair

 Greetings,

Some of my readers know me in person, quite a few do not. This means that you do not know where my information comes from, whether or not I have done any experimentation or research, or if I actually hold any sort of even pseudo-qualifications to be telling you about fencing. To shed a little light on at least one part of this, I present my story of fencing from a chair. This is intended to give a little history, to show where it all came from, and that I did not develop the techniques and ideas that I propose for using this technique overnight.

The two primary articles for fencing from a chair, if you are interested in the concept, are:
No Footwork Fencing Or Fencing From a Chair and Etiquette for Facing a Seated Opponent. I will refer to these articles throughout this article, and if you want an idea of what I am talking about, these are your go-to articles. I have written a couple of other articles on the subject, one which proposed the use of the techniques of Fabris from a chair, and others. This subject is really one of my specialties, and you will see why shortly. 

The Beginning

D.A. Girard Actors On Guard, 1996

The first time I had seen fencers with rapiers sitting down was this picture from Actors On Guard by D.A. Girard, about 1997, a theatrical fencing manual which I had used for research purposes, because it had some quite relevant information about the use of the rapier and dagger. This drill concerns ensures that the two fencers remain out of range but can practise their blade engagement and other blade skills. I did not pay it particularly much attention until something happened.

Life has its little twists and turns, as it would have it, I stepped in a hole and injured my ankle. The doctor's prognosis a badly twisted and sprained ankle. Treatment: strapping and as little pressure on the foot as possible, for six weeks. At the time I was in a small group as the primary trainer and this would mean six weeks of no training, because I could not stand... well, only if I had to stand. My thoughts went back to the image above. 

The next week at training, I turned up hobbled out to the middle of the field with a chair. I parked my butt, in much the same way as in the picture and invited my students to have a go. The learning curve was very sharp...

There was no quick retreat step to get you out of trouble; there was a lot more reliance on your hands and accuracy in your parries. On the other hand, your opponent could easily take a step back or even simply lean back; your timing and Distance with your attacks had to be on point. These were two simple things that I learnt from the first training session. My handwork improved over the period, as did my sense of Distance, at least in regard to my sword- and arm-length, with a little body lean. My parries were also a lot more accurate, but there had to be more. This adventure sparked more interest in the subject...

Research Begins

After I recovered from my injury, I noticed that my hand-work i.e. parries, thrusts and other elements focused on the use of the hand had improved, as had my stationary sense of Distance. I had a very rudimentary idea about how seated fencing could work. I figured there had to be more available about fencing from a chair.

I first turned to sport fencing to see if there were any clues there, any answers to be found. While standard sport fencing held no answers, the Paralympics did. Here I found wheelchair fencing, which is essentially fencing from wheelchairs. If you've never seen this, I recommend that you do; it's a real eye-opener. There are some impressive videos on YouTube.

I examined the rules for wheelchair fencing as possible future alternative for myself. Something that I could use later on should one of my chronic illnesses cause me to be confined to a wheelchair, or similar situation in the future. One of the big things that I noticed was that the wheelchairs were angled. In my initial foray into fencing from a chair my body was placed in the chair in its usual manner, much like the picture above. The angulation of the body on the chair at least would change things, and I would get the opportunity to try it out.

Rowany 2006 (AS XL)

Rowany Festival is the biggest get together for the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) in Australia. In 2006 it was held at the Cross-Roads Campsite which is near Yass, New South Wales. The event is held on the Easter weekend, and is a camping event. I went along to the event and camped, like most of the attendees.

Sleeping in a tent, in the cold (it got down to - 6 degrees Celsius overnight one night), resulted in my fibromyalgia playing up quite severely. The result being that my leg froze up; hip, knee and ankle. I had promised that I would play some Prizes (examinations) the same day, so I suggested I could do them from a chair. This allowed me to put some of my new-found research into practice.

Duncan Bailey and Myself

You will note, while the chair is still mostly facing square to the opponent, my body is somewhat angled to him. The chair is slightly angled but not significantly. There were quite a few revelations made during these Prizes. First, that rapier and dagger is the superior form when fighting from a chair as it gives you both offensive and defensive options at distance and close, while defensive forms are useful, but are hampered a little in close. Second, that fighting with an extended guard while intimidating leaves you exposed should the opponent clear the blade. Third, the Low Line is mostly insignificant and needs little effort to defend. The experience confirmed some previous ideas and gave me more.

The Four Foot Model

Much later on, I went to a seminar about Fiore dei Liberi with Bob Charron. How does this concern fighting from a chair? Just wait and you will find out. In this discussion he discussed "open" feet and "closed" feet, along with "lines of power" in a person's stance. In wrestling, a person was strong where they had two "closed" feet lined up, this made a "line of power"; they were weak where their two "open" feet lined up along the other "line of power". This described a person having four feet. A person was manipulated so the fencer would put their opponent over their "open" foot to destabilise them.

Some years later I was thinking about fencing from a chair and its use, when I realised the blindingly obvious... a chair has four feet. Therefore the chair has four "closed" feet. If the chair can be angled correctly to the opponent, and the fencer sits in the chair correctly, the fencer can also have four "closed" feet and will remain stable in their movement.

The angling of the chair came from the position of the chairs placed for wheelchair fencing. They are bolted in place so they do not move about. I had previously just been angling my body. If the chair was angled too, then there would be more stability, and the possibility of movement of the body. 

So, I sat down on the chair, lined my legs up with the chair legs, then turned my body until I was in profile, relatively to my opponent. More to the point I sat on the chair so I would sit in my guard position with my front toe pointed toward my opponent. If I stood up and the chair was taken away there would be no difference. This is where the true essence of my system of fencing from a chair evolved. 

Angle the chair to the opponent so the front leg lines up with your natural front leg of your stance. Make sure the chair that you are using doesn't have arms, so they won't get in the way. Make sure the chair is stable so you can bend at your middle, should you desire, and remain balanced. Get a chair suitable for your height, so your feet can be flat on the floor. All of these things came with this model.

Revelations

My most recent explorations into fencing from a chair which have appeared in articles on this blog have been the result of experiences, both good and bad of fencing from a chair. There will be time, in the future, where I will, no doubt, write another article about the subject of fencing from a chair explaining my method and how it works, by then I will hope to have some more revelations about fencing from a chair.

I looked at doing Fabris from a chair, because I cannot perform his method standing up. I even wrote a good long article about the subject which appears in my book Un-Blogged: A Fencer's Ramblings. This was more a theoretical exploration rather than a practical one. I have played with it a bit while fencing from a chair, and the on guard position looks intimidating as hell, but I really need to play with it a lot more to get it working properly.

One thing I must put in here, fighting case of rapier from a chair is a little crazy, because once your opponent gets past your points you have a lot of trouble. Fighting case of rapier against another person who is also in a chair with case of rapier, is a little insane, but a hell of a lot of fun. Rotella give you a lot of coverage, but once again, once the opponent gets close you are in trouble, they are also a nuisance to fight around.

The biggest revelations when it comes to fencing from a chair were: the angling of the body and the chair; the use of the body as "footwork" and for voiding; the use of various off-hands, rapier and dagger being the superior form; and finally, the Low Line is minimal, be careful not to hit yourself when you cover it.

What's Next?

Quite frankly, I don't like fencing from a chair. I only do it when I have to, or when I teach it, or when my opponent invites me, because they are fencing from a chair because they have to, or because I have been legged and I don't want to sit on the ground (I don't kneel, it hurts too much). This is a method that I devised so I could continue fencing when my legs decided to pack it in and not work.

The most important thing about fencing from a chair is that it is not a gimmick. It is a real option for those with mobility issues of a permanent or temporary kind. Indeed, when I originally wrote this, one of my students was fencing from a chair; he was a couple of weeks out of hip replacement surgery.

 

Fencing from a chair is also good for training. Concerned that the actions of your hands are not what they used to be? Want to check them out? Fence from a chair and find out. It is also a good way of utilising limited space to a premium. Think of how many fencers you could have fencing from chairs in the same space you have standing. Push that idea further, an indoor tournament, all the fencers fence from chairs in the middle of the hall while people sit around watching. That's a small list field.

I have fenced from a chair in some form or another for about 15 maybe 20 years now, and I have experienced some good and bad from fencing from a chair. I have also seen good and bad as a result of others fencing from chairs, and it is not always a person who is standing who is in the wrong. Everyone can have their effect om the situation for good or for ill.

I have seen standing fencers snipe at their maximum range while the seated fencer cannot reach them; and close to where the seated fencer has no chance of withdrawal. I have also seen seated fencers move from their chairs to gain a little extra Distance, close to launching themselves from their seated position. I have seen standing fencers turn a seated fencer around in their chair to gain advantage over them. I have seen shots land that were claimed to hit the chair, where it actually hit the seated fencer. Both standing and seated fencers can do ill for the game that is played, but they can also do a lot of good as well.

Always consider your opponent, and consider the fencers who will come after you. The trick that you pull today may look cool, but it might ruin things for people after you. Consider whether the act that you perform will earn you renown or notoriety in its performance.

I will keep researching and finding new ways to improve the techniques for fencing from a chair, and hopefully more people will begin to understand this method of fighting. It has taken quite a while to figure things out, and is still a work in progress. I will continue to share my findings as well.

Cheers,

Henry.

Those Who Can't, Teach?

Greetings,

There is this idea going around that if a person is an instructor or trainer or master of a particular school then they should also be some sort of high-level competitor, able to dish out the hard stuff to others in competitions.  On the other hand there is this idea that those who cannot dish it out in competitions allow others to do so, and thus teach instead, hence "those who can't, teach". Both of these notions are fallacious in their own ways. Both need to be addressed so that we do not get the wrong idea and wrong expectations of our teachers.

Trainers cannot, in general, maintain the position as high-level competitors for a simple reason. A competitor's focus is on themselves: making sure that their skills are honed, making sure that their timing is in focus; and making sure that they are fit enough to compete in competitions. A person who truly takes on the position of the trainer does not have this focus. Their focus is on the individuals that they are training; focusing to make sure that the skills that they are teaching are up to date with the latest research; making sure that the method of delivery is understood by the students; making sure that the students can excel; the trainer's focus is outward rather than inward. Usually on more than one student.

Trainers spend much more time on others than they do on themselves. This is the reason why their skills may not be as sharp as the high-level competitors, because they have someone to think about other than themselves. Their students are their focus, not the next tournament win, not making themselves better through improving their fighting skills, but making themselves better through their teaching skills. This is another place where this idea of "those who can't, teach" is a misnomer.

A person who competes demonstrates their skill by performing it against an opponent. They can even sometimes give you all the technical information about the skills that they were using. Often, they cannot teach those skills. The trainer can. Not only does the trainer need to know how to perform the actions that the competitor does, but the trainer also needs to know how to teach those skills to others.

There are some great competitors who have striven to the height of their particular chosen pursuit, but they cannot teach. Just because you know the skills does not mean that you automatically know how to teach the skills. This is an additional level of learning which is involved. It is a process which the trainer goes through to learn how to teach, often the students learn through this process.

To teach a skill. The teacher has to know how the skill works. The teacher also needs to know why the skill works. For fencing, the teacher also needs to know when and where to apply the skill to a situation for it to work. These must be real understandings of how the skill works not just surface/physical understanding, but intellectual understanding of how the skill works. It is only through this level of knowledge that the teacher can explain to the student how to perform the skill properly.

If you see a trainer or teacher, and you see them fencing, examine what they are doing. You will notice that their fencing is more technical than athletic, because they are focused on getting things right. They may not keep up with the high-level competitors but fencing them will always be worth your while. They have a different focus, a focus which is toward the education of others in swordsmanship rather than seeking the heights of fame. It is an extremely important role as if there were no person willing to teach, there would be a lot less people to compete with.

"Those who cant, teach" is a misnomer.

Those who are teaching are doing, all of the time.

They may not be representative on the tournament honour's list. They may not be present on the world rankings. They are present in the school every week teaching people from beginners all the way up, spending their time on others. Without their technical knowledge and technical skill swordplay would not be what it is today. It is these people who do most of the study to ensure that what is being taught and thus what is being learnt makes sense, and works. Thank your teachers and trainers, they are a great asset.

Cheers,

Henry.

To the "Sword Widows"

Greetings,

We often do not thank our significant others (wives/girlfriends/husbands/boyfriends/insert appropriate title) enough for allowing us to pursue something which gives us so much joy. There is a time factor which needs to be taken into account. It is not just the weekends away at events every now and then, it is the during the week training as well, those can surely rack up if you count them. This post is to thank all of the significant people in our lives for giving us the time to pursue our passion.

Thank you.

For them to share their time with other people, most of whom they have never met before, or sometimes will never meet, there has to be some level of understanding. It is an understanding that this pursuit and study of swordsmanship, whatever its form, is important to us. Life can be very difficult when this understanding is not present, arguments are abound as there is no understanding why you need to spend the time going to training, or reading the books, or spending the money to pursue swordplay. It might be more understandable if it was relevant to our current age. It might even be more understandable if it was more "popular" or "normal", but it isn't. So there is a level of expectation of understanding for our sake. It is understanding that it is important for us. This also requires thanks.

Thank you.

Then there is the focus. For some of us the focus can be so great it tends to blot everything else out of existence. I am in that particular category quite often. For most things, if it requires huge effort and it does not relate to swordplay, you're going to have a hard time motivating me. Further things in our lives get more motivated toward swordplay. Getting fitter because you can fence longer. Expanding your book collection because you want to get more fencing manuals. Getting a place with a backyard or a close park so there is somewhere to train. This focus can be hard to live with sometimes. For understanding this focus when swordplay has become a person's driving passion there is also thanks required.

Thank you.

You are the foundation of our support teams even though you probably did not know it. It is because it is you who sees us through the mundane tasks that gets us to swordplay. You help organise things so that we can get to participate in swordplay. For all the things that you do not realise that you do that help us with our passion, thank you.

Cheers,

Henry.

P.S. And Thank you again.

Accuracy is the Best Weapon

Greetings,

The following discussion is about accuracy and the assertion that "accuracy is the best weapon". This will be discussed from three different points of view, all of which are relevant to those with an interest in swordplay. Accuracy is an element of which its importance cannot be denied, but for many where the application of accuracy applies, it is only limited whereas its scope is much wider.

Accuracy is always more important than speed. An accurate thrust which is a little slower is far more dangerous than a fast thrust that does not always find its mark. This is the primary place where accuracy is seen as important in swordplay, but it is not the only place. The same accuracy can also be applied to the cut as well. A cut which can be directed to a specific target each time is more dangerous to an enemy than a fast one that might find its target. Speed can always be solved with timing, accuracy is reliant on itself. The most amusing thing is that the accuracy in attack leads on to a discussion which is often forgotten.

Accuracy must be maintained in the use of the weapon. This means accuracy in technique. It is from here that efficiency is built and from here that real speed is built. When the individual focuses on accuracy of technique they will find that the weapon will be more controllable, thus it will go where they want it to and be more accurate. Due to the accuracy of technique there will be less wasted motions made in the technique, thus it will be more efficient thus it will seem to be quicker. Speed is built more efficiently from accuracy of technique rather than muscle power. Accuracy of technique also means that the fencer will defend themselves better, attack better, and fence better in general. Accuracy of technique should always be the focus when using the sword.

Accuracy is also necessary in the use of research materials. It is vital that a person present what is actually said in the research materials rather than some other interpretation of what is said in them. The skill to present research materials in a usable fashion is one which takes time to hone, and also takes acknowledgement of an individual's personal biases as well, as these will colour the presentation of the research material. Especially where there is some interpretation required from what is presented, as is found in primary source fencing treatises, particular attention needs to be paid to presenting what is in these sources accurately.

Accuracy is also required in arguments. A person needs to say exactly what they mean to say, and the person on the other side of the argument needs to hear exactly what was said. One of the reasons why arguments of an intellectual kind become so heated and become emotional is because people are not accurate in the presentation of their arguments. One side or the other adds or subtracts from what was said by the other party and this is where intellectual arguments degrade into just plain arguments with little point and little intellectual result. In these arguments emotion needs to be removed so that the intellectual side may be maintained. Accuracy is important so that points of view may be presented properly and so that arguments are presented accurately.

Accuracy in all its forms is of vital importance. For the fencer this comes in many different forms, from the attacks made, to research made, to actions performed, to arguments made. Each one must be made accurately so that the fencer can put themselves forward in the best light and in the best manner. Each one takes practice and time to develop, but each has rewards for the person willing to take that time.

Cheers,

Henry.

Myth Debunking: Female Combat Training

Greetings,

One of the great joys that I take as a trained historian is debunking myths. One of the reasons for this is that there is nothing like a good historical argument, backed by evidence. The other real reason is that I like seeing the correct information going out into the public sphere for people to access. This would be the reason why I wrote one of the recent posts about curatorial elements of the sword. It also irritates me a little when people continue to spread myths around because they are just too lazy to get off their butts and do the research.

When we see ladies in reenactment we often see them dressed in dresses playing the part of the lady, as the public expects. Less often we see them in armour, but it is spectacular when they are dressed in armour and are fighting. Something which I support completely. There is a modern myth that ladies in the medieval period did not engage in combat and were not trained to do so. Yes, it is a myth.

The question of the shield maiden is something which has been brought up again ever since the series "Vikings" has become popular and there are arguments for and against their existence. There is some archaeological evidence for their existence and quite a bit of folklore to go along with it. For your convenience, if you click on "shield maiden" (above) you will find the Wikipedia site for it and I would use this as a launch-pad for future research.

The Elizabethan Era is one of the most well-known for swordplay due to the duel occurring and of course the plays of Shakespeare and the London Masters of Defense. What has also been documented is that Elizabeth watched the playing of several Prizes of the London Masters of Defense. A candidate would play a "Prize" to gain his next rank in the organization. A list of prizes which were played can be found here. If nothing else this shows Elizabeth's interest in swordplay. What's more, it is rumoured that she also encouraged her ladies to be trained with the sword as a sort of "last defence" bodyguard and also for their own virtue.

We live in a pictorial age and many people are driven by what they can see. So often we hear "Pictures or it didn't happen." Well, supporting this particular contention which is being presented is pictorial evidence from some French manuscripts. The first is from Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève  MS.1126 "Roman de la Rose"

This image clearly depicts two women crossing swords while dressed in civilian outfits. This would mean that it is most likely that they are in training rather than actually fighting. It is, however, a clear demonstration of a training scene of females being trained in combat. An image which points more toward them being engaged in actual combat follows below.

The women in this image on the left seem to be defending themselves from the group on the right. While these individuals are wearing civilian clothes, it looks less like a training scene and more like that they are defending themselves from a group of bandits. This image is also from a French manuscript of the fourteenth-century. While this image could be mistaken form some sort of training or game, the following image is less likely to.

The original manuscript in this case is from another fourteenth-century French manuscript, but can be found along with several other images of women in armour on the page Babes in Armor, which is a celebration of women in armour. That this image shows the individual in armour leaves no doubt that the individual is in a situation where she may come to harm. This would seem to break the myth that women did not put on armour and did not use weapons. The final image which I have will give those who do not think that the medieval female had training some real pause for thought.

This image is from "De Mulieribus Claris" (BNF Français 598), and clearly depicts a woman in armour and involved in the combat. That she is present on the field of combat should give one pause for thought. That she is using the weapon she is armed with and doing harm means that she is at least trained with the weapon.

We should all be careful about making large sweeping statements about things which did or did not happen in the past. It goes especially much where there is evidence for both sides of the argument present. We must all ask ourselves what influences would be making us take either side of an argument and why this is. Is the answer we are giving going to benefit or detract?

Just from the evidence presented here, I would think that some would at least consider re-evaluating their positions with regards to women in history and their positions. The female in the medieval period was obviously not barred from training in weapons, but may not have chosen to do so. Thus we must consider what position the individual was in to make this choice, if they had one at all. We should all do our best not to perpetrate, and perpetuate myths from any period of time as they muddy the history and give misdirection to our future researchers.

Cheers,

Henry.

You can view the Second Part of this discussion, with more detail and research here.

Update: 15 January 2023

There are comments below claiming that the above images are allegorical or of mythological content and that because of this possibility that this means that the women in these images were not trained in combat, and did not see combat, or were not involved, and consequently women would not and could not have been trained in combat. This I dispute quite strongly.

I am adding this here because most of the readers have not bothered to read the second part as indicated in the link above, but have decided to ignore the historical evidence and focus on the possibility that these images are allegorical or mythological. Such ideas are based in fact, allegorical or mythological as they might be. There is historical evidence, as presented in the second part and this list https://www.rejectedprincesses.com/women-in-combat for women in combat from pre-1st century all the way up to the 20th century.

It is evident from the historical record that women were trained in weapons and they did see combat. This is evident from the list presented in the link above and also the list of individuals who are presented in the second part of this discussion. So both aspects of this discussion, and argument are covered. That the images may be allegorical or mythological is beside the point, the fact is that women were trained in combat and did see combat as indicated, as is argued in this and the second part of the discussion. The foundation for such images had to come from somewhere, further, it could be claimed that some who did see combat could be inspired by such images as Oscar Wilde states, "Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life".

Further, the argument that Jeanne d'Arc did not see combat because she did not fight, is false logic. Or the same logic could be used that none of the generals of 18th century battles, including Napoleon or Wellington to name two, saw combat because they did not fight; or that medics such as Medal of Honour recipient Corporal Desmond Doss did not see combat, because he did not fight, or even carry a weapon. 

I will not be responding to such false arguments anymore, or those directed against such simplistic ideas, negating the idea of women in combat, due to the presented source material, when there is further evidence presented in another article indicated. That women saw combat in the Medieval and Renaissance period is an historical fact, and one that is evident across many cultures. I see no reason to respond to such false arguments, which grasp desperately at straws, and deny historical truth.

Study of the Smallsword

Greetings,

Most of you know that my posts mostly focus on Renaissance rapier, and other Renaissance weapon forms. Well, I must announce something of particular interest. Over the past months I have been doing study into the Smallsword, with the aim of learning how to use it, based on research from manuals left behind.

Now some will go, "Well that explains that." Especially if you are on Facebook and have seen my posts about my new smallsword which I had made by Tim Harris. It is a beautiful weapon. The weapon is light and moves wonderfully. It was exactly what I asked for. Tim, I thank you for your excellent work, again.

I have, as per usual, been focussing on manuals which were published in English in their time. This means that I am not using any modern translations of manuals from the period. In some ways this was to limit my options as to what I was looking at. More to the point, it was designed so that I could look at manuals in their as close as possible original form with the author's words in as close to the original form as possible. This allows for the least amount of "noise" in examining the works.

In my study of the smallsword so far I have found that, much like the rapier, the weapon is not ubiquitous. There is no one smallsword which covers the entire period in which it was used.  This is not only by the design of the weapon, but also going by the use of the weapon. As a result, when discussing the smallsword, one needs to be a little careful. From my research it should really be divided up into "early smallsword" and "classic smallsword".

With this being the result of a small part of the research that I have done, it looks like that should I decide to include the entire weapon into my own curriculum, I will not be studying one weapon but two. This also poses a very interesting situation for discussions of the weapon, and its use in that we should really be specific about the weapon being used, and also the period which it came from.

I had intended this post to contain some of the curatorial information about the smallsword that I have found, but that would make this post much too long, so I will save that for another one. Needless to say the information and research that I will present about the smallsword will divide the weapon into two parts, maybe without a clear line, but it will demonstrate two different weapons, called the same thing.

Cheers,

Henry.

Fencing Treatise: Part Manual, Part Resume

Greetings,

I have in previous articles discussed period sources and their uses. These discussions have been focused on the uses of the treatises in a practical sense and also understanding the language within them. There is a slightly different approach in this article with regard to the treatises. This approaches the manuals the manuals as they are and how they were presented to the public and gives something of an explanation as to how they are written and what is presented in them.

What will be noted in many manuals is the lack of basics presented. Even though there is the demonstration of theoretical knowledge and scientific principles, this is more designed to present the knowledge of the author than to present principles. For the most part there is a demonstration of a high level of skill presented in these manuals, rather than the essential skills that a combatant would need to know to learn to survive. This knowledge and skill base presented is designed to present the skills as noble and a noble intention in their teachings. Thus many of these manuals are more resume than practical manual.

The idea of the manual being a curriculum vitae rather than a more practical approach to how the skills should be used. This is more common in the later manuals of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-centuries, ...

The rest of this article can be found in Un-Blogged: A Fencer's Ramblings by Henry Walker, which is available in paperback from:

Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Blogged-Ramblings-Henry-Leigh-Walker/dp/098764470X
Booktopia: https://www.booktopia.com.au/un-blogged-henry-leigh-walker/book/9780987644701.html
Among other places...

It is also available in electronic format (pdf) from: https://buy.stripe.com/fZecP419c7CB9VKeUV

... or direct from the author.

What is a Master?

Greetings,

There have been questions with regard to the idea of the "master" and "mastery" floating around the internet in various forms for months. Being that I post quite a bit here about fencing and I am known by some, I thought it was time that I set the record straight as to what I think of the concept. Hopefully I will also be able to address some of the mysteries of this word and some of the ideas surrounding it, at least from my point of view. Please remember as you read that this is my own point of view.

Myself as a "Master"

In some circles I am referred to as a "master" of what I do. I thought that it would be most useful to address my own position before discussing a more general pattern and thought process. In my particular case there are two times where I might be referred to by the title master. It will be noted that in each circumstance these are with regard to a specific field of expertise and are specific to the setting in which they are found. Neither has any claims of anything more grand or over-reaching.

The first title of "master" is within the Lochac Royal Guild of Defense, and this is as a Guildmaster, or Guild Master as the case may be. This is a teaching organisation formed within Australia as part of the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) in which each rank is tested. This rank is an accepted level of competence in western martial arts, and more so as an established teacher and researcher of western martial arts. The important part here is that it points these individuals out as teachers, not necessarily as great fencers, even though each is in their own particular way in their own particular right. This title is for the most part only recognised within the SCA, and in many ways only in Australia.

In the second instance of the use of the title of "master" it is Master of the School of Historical Defense Arts (SHDA). This is a title adopted for the school to denote the highest rank in the school, and as an administrative title which could be easily replaced with President or Chairman or similar things. For the most part, however this is to indicate the head trainer of the school and in many ways I get tempted to replace it with a more Elizabethan title in "Schole Maister" in order to be specific as to what the title means. It means that I am the highest rank teacher in the school. Once again no claims of anything but being a teacher and researcher.

You will notice that in both instances the words "teacher" and "researcher" are present with regard to the title of "master" in both instances. I think that this is vital. I know I have much to learn, and I am extremely happy about this. Every practitioner should and must keep learning for many reasons, the main answer for all of them is that it is better for the practitioner and also better for others who the practitioner comes into contact with. I make no claims with regards to my titles other than those which have been presented here, and I am quite happy to discuss this if anyone is interested.

"The Master"

Hopefully in this part of the discussion I may be able to shed some light on what it means to be a "master" of western martial arts. As far as I am concerned the following statement is accurate: A Master ...

The rest of this article can be found in Un-Blogged: A Fencer's Ramblings by Henry Walker, which is available in paperback from:

Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Blogged-Ramblings-Henry-Leigh-Walker/dp/098764470X
Booktopia: https://www.booktopia.com.au/un-blogged-henry-leigh-walker/book/9780987644701.html
Among other places...

It is also available in electronic format (pdf) from: https://buy.stripe.com/fZecP419c7CB9VKeUV

... or direct from the author.

The Way Forward...

Greetings,

This will be a bit of an ad hoc post rather than anything planned. So going along with the title of the overall blog this will be a bit of my ramblings. The focus of this one as is indicated is looking at the view forward overall.

In my view I see two ways forward, following the manuals and recreating them as they are, and taking what we can from the manuals applying these techniques and developing our own ways. In some ways this is like the emergence of eastern martial arts in the 70's and 80's. What needs to be realised by all is that both approaches have their benefits and issues.

The first is an historical recreation of skills expressed by previous masters which keeps the examination of period masters alive and the history associated. In many ways this provides some of the fuel for the second approach. These investigations provide examinations of period masters and thus reproductions of techniques developed.

The second approach uses manuals but in a different manner taking core principles and techniques in order to enhance new approaches. This is more focussed towards the western martial arts approach and thus a much more practical one. The investigations are focussed toward how the techniques apply as applied to an opponent before them.

What is important in this is that both approaches need to be encouraged as each one fuels the other. The first approach finds period manuals and investigates them to see how the techniques work, the second uses the techniques and encourages further investigation. In both approaches the investigation needs to be a broad overlook, not narrowing into a singular school or approach. The only way for all to benefit is for all to share with one another and thus benefit all.

Cheers,

Henry.