 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
conal
Site Admin
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:36 pm |
 |
|
Is this a good time to say "Ying tong piddle-i-po"?
I'm gonna have to print this out guys... its pharkin awesome.
Goon show classics. |
|
|
 |
admin
Site Admin
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:16 pm |
|
|
It's like watching chess masters take each other to pieces while being as polite as possible.
I support Anyad on this - we're watching closely, so keep it civil people.
Admin |
|
|
|
Chevalier
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:02 pm Good ol' medieval skills |
|
|
Colin wrote:
Yet another reason for me not to bother with the re-enactment movement.
Hi Colin,
I know for a fact that you are a cool chap who might want to consider being more diplomatic (in my understanding this is another medieval skill). After all, YOU ARE POSTING ON THE RE-ENACTMENT MOVEMENT MESSAGE BOARD.
To be honest you should admit you do in fact bother or simply not post. Otherwise your postings do not make sense.
P.S.: I´d like you to hang around! |
|
|
|
Patch
Location: Auckland
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 2:50 am |
|
|
Hi Colin, I deeply empathize with your plight with the medieval martial arts term.
You have obviously (see below) invested a lot into the idea that you were fooled and hoodwinked by the people who originally trained you. And I think you are being honest when you say that you think that it is some kind of hideous lie when a person shows a fight and you cant trace every move back to the tiny limited orthodox list from the handful of fight books that have survived the middle ages.
Unfortunately what most people on this thread seem to have been trying to suggest is that “medieval martial arts” already means something to a regular person.
We are not arguing that it would be a good idea to create that common understanding, it already exists. You can fight against it if you like, and I wish you the best of luck in reeducating the English speaking world.
I think you will find that until you manage to change it’s common use definition, pretty much everyone else will use the normal understanding of medieval martial arts because it makes for clear communication.
Remember you asked this question:
| Quote: | | “If you knew nothing about what re-enactment did combatively and they told you they did "medieval martial arts", what would be your first impression?” |
While you have every right to get upset when people answer the question in a perfectly sensible fashion, when you do it comes across as perhaps looking a little foolish.
What you seem to be talking about is this “western martial arts” movement which has it’s own name at least somewhat because it is different from medieval martial arts. AKA historical European martial arts.
You will notice that almost no one claims to be a part of the western martial arts movement, on their websites or otherwise, unless they are doing the specific fight book techniques. For all that I have studied many fight books and I find them very interesting, and practice techniques and evolve concepts and all that fun stuff derived from medieval and renaissance fighting manuals, I still make no claim what so ever to doing western martial arts.
Finally, although your combat systems appear to be based quite purely on “exactly as depicted” historical styles, from what you have said the teachings still utilize an awful lot of common sense, experimentation and development. This is no different to the way anyone else makes stuff up. Sorry.
My point is that the savage emails that you tend to post are often based on very small differences of interpretation, or perhaps just how you have chosen to define a common term, and not often actually over any kind of real issue or problem.
All of us have a powerful passion to enact the glory of medieval and ancient arts. We truly waste our time and energies squabbling over the little stuff.
--Patch.
| Quote: | “If someone claims to do 'Medieval Martial Arts' they had better be doing 'Medieval Martial Arts' rather than claiming to do so, but instead are doing something else entirely.”
“I object to the made up stuff, especially the material that came from theatrical fencing books and societies from the 50s and 60s.”
“People are too comfortable being liars.”
“My consternation enters only when people lie about what they do.”
“Personally when I came across a club that claimed to be doing "Medieval Martial Arts" I believed they were …”
“So you'd be perfectly happy that they led you up the garden path so long as they dressed up like Medieval Europeans? You'd be willing to swallow a lie…” |
<<OK I just realized the rant quote list has exceeded 2 pages so I am deleting all but the first few.>>
And finally, just in case you thought I was making it all up:
| Quote: | | “A number of historical fencing forms have survived, and many groups are working to reconstruct older European martial arts. The process of reconstruction combines intensive study of detailed combat treatises produced from 1400-1900 A.D. and practical training or "pressure testing" of various techniques and tactics. This includes such styles as sword and shield, two-handed swordfighting, jousting and other types of melee weapons combat. This reconstruction effort and modern outgrowth of the historical methods is generally referred to as Western martial arts.” |
|
|
|
|
Colin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:20 am |
|
|
| Patch wrote: | | You have obviously (see below) invested a lot into the idea that you were fooled and hoodwinked by the people who originally trained you. And I think you are being honest when you say that you think that it is some kind of hideous lie when a person shows a fight and you cant trace every move back to the tiny limited orthodox list from the handful of fight books that have survived the middle ages. |
I don't believe at the time I was "fooled and hoodwinked" since the very same people who taught me thought they had a genuine medieval martial art on their hands. It may have been the person who taught them they did the hoodwinking, or perhaps someone who taught that person.
Once I started on the path of reconstruction of historical European martial arts I wanted to know whether it fitted into any historical model. I did this because I had invested several years of training on that system, and had gotten rather good at it. I became very disappointed that I could not find it. The closest I could find was 19th century sabre where it has a vague resemblance (and emphasise on vague). It was actually Tony Wolf, a fight choreographer and director, who put me onto the various 50s and 60s books on theatrical fencing once I had described the system in question. The 50s books have a similar matching, but instead of guard one...nine uses the alphabet. The 60s books are a match, however. He was actually rather surprised that anyone tried to turn it into an actual fighting system.
| Patch wrote: | | Unfortunately what most people on this thread seem to have been trying to suggest is that “medieval martial arts” already means something to a regular person. |
While true, it isn't in the belief that you are trying to pass it off as. The 'regular' person when confronted by the term "medieval martial art" will a.) think it's judo or karate (and I'm not kidding) or b.) believe it's a martial art from the Middle Ages.
| Patch wrote: | | What you seem to be talking about is this “western martial arts” movement which has it’s own name at least somewhat because it is different from medieval martial arts. AKA historical European martial arts. |
So groups like AEMMA (you know, the Academy of European Medieval Martial Arts) don't exist? Medieval martial arts are part of both Western martial arts and historical European martial arts. There are numerous Western martial arts organisations who state categorically they are doing medieval martial arts (and AEMMA even states it in their title). They aren't doing theatrical fencing, but reconstruction of the fencing treatises from the Middle Ages.
| Patch wrote: | | Finally, although your combat systems appear to be based quite purely on “exactly as depicted” historical styles, from what you have said the teachings still utilize an awful lot of common sense, experimentation and development. This is no different to the way anyone else makes stuff up. Sorry. |
Actually it is very different. The basis is to the actual technique as described. Everything else is how to get the technique to work as described.
| Patch wrote: | | My point is that the savage emails that you tend to post are often based on very small differences of interpretation... |
Actually there's a huge gulf in differences of interpretation. I don't find any thing in common between the theatrical fencing that you learnt and the medieval fencing treatises. It's chalk and cheese.
_________________
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
See http://www.swordsmanship.co.nz/ |
|
|
|
Colin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:34 am Re: Good ol' medieval skills |
|
|
| Chevalier wrote: |
I know for a fact that you are a cool chap who might want to consider being more diplomatic (in my understanding this is another medieval skill). After all, YOU ARE POSTING ON THE RE-ENACTMENT MOVEMENT MESSAGE BOARD.
To be honest you should admit you do in fact bother or simply not post. Otherwise your postings do not make sense.
P.S.: I´d like you to hang around! |
a.) I'm not diplomatic. I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. I'm also not going to change (tried that once, made me miserable). I like being honest, which is the opposite of being a diplomat.
b.) I joined this board a long time before it was a general re-enactment movement message board.
c.) You're right, I should stop posting and leave. I've been thinking of doing just that for the last couple of months. I don't fit into the general re-enactment movement. As time goes on the gaps get wider. The ignorance passed on as fact will continue to raise my ire, and pointing it out just gets re-enactors upset (for example this thread, and the one of staff versus armour). I also cannot sit idly by and let dishonesty reign supreme.
_________________
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
See http://www.swordsmanship.co.nz/ |
|
|
|
Patch
Location: Auckland
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:33 am |
|
|
| Oh, no, never in a million years would I suggest that H.E.M.A. and A.E.M.M.A. are not a part of the wider medieval martial arts community. |
|
|
|
conal
Site Admin
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:49 pm Culture |
|
|
Colin,
Stick at it.
Any culture that attempts to be exclusive cannot survive.
conal. |
|
|
|
Colin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 3:15 pm |
|
|
Admit it Conal, you just want to see more written conflicts here 
_________________
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
See http://www.swordsmanship.co.nz/ |
|
|
|
Angel
Site Admin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 3:20 pm |
|
|
Well, it can be awfully entertaining. 
_________________
Recognise anyone? Flame Warriors |
|
|
|
conal
Site Admin
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 6:25 pm |
|
|
Nah man. I get my conflict on the paddock.
I'm just thinking that you have an angle that gives a view of the cut jem.
I may want to see all the facets rather than just the ones that WMA illuminates well.
But there's value in your opinion.
"Know the ways of many weapons" and all that jazz. (Musashi-san, Five Rings and a sore head.)
Or as the Big Boss said "make your own style". (Bruce Lee that is, not the guy he fights at the end of Enter the Dragon.)
Don't speak for me dude, if I've got an opinion y'all 'll get it.
Pradoxes of defence and all that George would have us reckon to.
Short swords for the people.
Take care,
Conal. |
|
|
|
admin
Site Admin
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:48 pm |
|
|
Colin, you may be interested to know, that 15 people are currently subscribed to receive email from the Western Martial Arts section of this site, compared to 21 from the NAAMA & General Discussion section - not that much of a gap I'd say. I think you'll find there is more interest on here than is voiced.
Admin |
|
|
|
Colin
Location: Wellington
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 8:39 am |
|
|
It's probably the same incumbents rather than "fresh blood" though
_________________
The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
- Arthur Schopenhauer
See http://www.swordsmanship.co.nz/ |
|
|
|
Patch
Location: Auckland
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 10:44 pm |
|
|
Yup, I sure receive emails from the Western Martial Arts section.
| Quote: | | "Colin, you may be interested to know, that 15 people are currently subscribed to receive email from the Western Martial Arts section of this site, compared to 21 from the NAAMA." |
| Quote: | | "Its probably the same incumbents rather than "fresh blood" though" |
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 12:33 am |
|
|
G'day all,
I'd have to say that I pretty much agree with Colin in all this. If I was to think of a definition of what a medieval martial art is it'd be something like:
"a martial art as practiced in medieval times"
If we're debating about who is doing a "medieval martial art", I'll come straight out and say, that by my own definition, I'm not doing one. I'm doing modern sport fighting. I wear armour, some of which has a passing resemblance to the medieval armour. I use weapon simulators that poorly represent swords and spears. The rules I use do a poor job of simulating medieval war but an okay job of simulating tournament foot combat with battons.
I don't for a second believe that medieval soldiers would have trained like we do in NAAMA or SCA combat.
Is there anyone here who believes that The Black Prince and his knights practiced for war by doing "touch of death combat"? Or by kneeling if someone hit their cuisse hard enough to put a dent in their armour? I don't believe they did.
Researching by examining medieval fight books, armour, weapons, stories, skeletons etc can give us clues to what they actually did. If we put together many of these clues, we can hopefully get close to what they did. We might even, with a bit of luck, get some of it spot on.
Having said all of that, I don't believe that when people say "I am doing a medieval martial art" they are intending to deceive. Communication is about one person attempting to pass a concept from their mind to another person. "Medieval" and "martial art" both have clear meanings to most people.
If I say to someone "I do a medieval martial art", it is close enough for starters. If they decide to take the conversation further, they'll probably find out that I actually belong to a club that is an out of control fancy dress party. |
|
|
|
|
|
Please read the terms of use