Author: Bret Gordon
No, I'm not talking about zombie martial artists (though there are numerous old timers who may have died, and no one told them, still kicking around - pun intended). This article actually refers to Historical European Martial Arts, known as HEMA for short. When you think of the term "martial arts," everyone instinctively envisions an Asian martial art of some nature. However, it appears that Europe throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance had an abundance of codified martial systems very reminiscent of what we find from the same era in China and Japan. Indeed, these have been left for us to resurrect in numerous manuals and treatises, the earliest being MS I.33 from around the year 1300 detailing the use of sword and buckler (a small, one-handed shield measuring about 12 inches).
For those who know me personally, in addition to my martial arts endeavors I am a living historian as well as Civil War reenactor. My love of history is what has driven me throughout my training, and is the reason I spend many sleepless nights researching everything I can on numerous systems. That's what coffee is for, right? So when I heard about the chance to study HEMA, of which many systems actually pre-date Japanese koryu arts, I was totally geeked. But something's not right.
For those who know me personally, in addition to my martial arts endeavors I am a living historian as well as Civil War reenactor. My love of history is what has driven me throughout my training, and is the reason I spend many sleepless nights researching everything I can on numerous systems. That's what coffee is for, right? So when I heard about the chance to study HEMA, of which many systems actually pre-date Japanese koryu arts, I was totally geeked. But something's not right.
All my life, I've heard masters and grandmasters professing that martial arts can't be learned from a book or video. Now, in regards to the video I think there is a small caveat in that an experienced practitioner indeed can learn from video provided that the material being shown is from a related system to what they've studied. Realistically, what is the difference between an instructor demonstrating and explaining a technique or kata live in person or on video? Not much, it's the same visual learning scenario. But can an entire art, with no living instructors, be resurrected using only 600+ year old drawings? Obviously it can, and with great technical skill being achieved. Honestly, I have no problem with that.
The problem, in my opinion, is that as the practice of HEMA starts to grow there will obviously be those with more experience leading various groups. You can even argue that they're teaching the art to others. But without a direct lineage, or even a unified governing body for a particular art, how can anyone claim any rank or title? From what it seems, there isn't even a unified practice studying the same art. What I mean is that, from what I can tell and I may be completely wrong, there are numerous independent study groups each carrying on by themselves. Sometimes there is a small organization that oversees them, but hardly do all practitioners of Fiori dei Liberi's manual (as an example) adhere to a single authority.
From my understanding, there are five ranks in HEMA: recruit, scholler, free scholler, provost and maestro. But if there is no direct line, and no recognized headquarters of an art, how does anyone have the authority to award official ranks and titles, especially something as profound as maestro/master?
Now, I will concede that the longer someone practices any endeavor the greater the degree of separation of skill and understanding will grow between practitioners. Therefore, you have very skilled and technical people teaching others around the world - people like Matt Easton, Scott Brown and numerous others who have made a name for themselves as some of the foremost authorities on HEMA. Surely no one can argue that they are more than qualified to teach.
Maybe I'm unfairly looking at this through the traditional lense of Asian martial arts, where titles such as master have very strict requirements and can only be awarded by those who hold similar rank and title themselves from an established authority or organization. But it just seems there's something wrong with people going around calling themselves masters, in anything, without really having any legitimate means to acquire such recognition.
The problem, in my opinion, is that as the practice of HEMA starts to grow there will obviously be those with more experience leading various groups. You can even argue that they're teaching the art to others. But without a direct lineage, or even a unified governing body for a particular art, how can anyone claim any rank or title? From what it seems, there isn't even a unified practice studying the same art. What I mean is that, from what I can tell and I may be completely wrong, there are numerous independent study groups each carrying on by themselves. Sometimes there is a small organization that oversees them, but hardly do all practitioners of Fiori dei Liberi's manual (as an example) adhere to a single authority.
From my understanding, there are five ranks in HEMA: recruit, scholler, free scholler, provost and maestro. But if there is no direct line, and no recognized headquarters of an art, how does anyone have the authority to award official ranks and titles, especially something as profound as maestro/master?
Now, I will concede that the longer someone practices any endeavor the greater the degree of separation of skill and understanding will grow between practitioners. Therefore, you have very skilled and technical people teaching others around the world - people like Matt Easton, Scott Brown and numerous others who have made a name for themselves as some of the foremost authorities on HEMA. Surely no one can argue that they are more than qualified to teach.
Maybe I'm unfairly looking at this through the traditional lense of Asian martial arts, where titles such as master have very strict requirements and can only be awarded by those who hold similar rank and title themselves from an established authority or organization. But it just seems there's something wrong with people going around calling themselves masters, in anything, without really having any legitimate means to acquire such recognition.
Perhaps the energy of this article should instead be directed towards a similar phenomenon that has happened within the Japanese martial arts community. Antony Cummins, a prominent historical researcher, has essentially done the same thing as the HEMA proponents and resurrected Natori Ryu, a koryu school of military strategy. He has published numerous books that translate the scrolls of Natori Ryu and set himself up as the de facto headmaster. Now, I will give him credit that what separates him from the HEMA schools is that he has actually secured the blessing of the Natori family to re-open the school and he makes it very clear he claims no such titles as master or even Soke. But at the end of the day, you're still learning from a book. There's no one to correct your interpretation, and what you end up with is merely a shell of what once was. Now surely a school of strategy would indeed be easier to resurrect correctly than one requiring physical training and techniques. Military strategy is still taught today primarily through text books at such prestigious academies as West Point. However, as time goes on and the study of Natori Ryu grows, I see him encountering the same problems as the HEMA community.
Entire schools have popped up teaching the art, establishing a hierarchy within Natori Ryu that really has no basis. And of course, you can't study Samurai era military strategy without some understanding of the bugei juhappan (18 skills of war). These are not arts that can be glanced over and condensed into a "combat basics" manual without legitimate instruction in the proper use of the various weapons and empty handed fighting arts.
Now, please don't let me persuade anyone from studying HEMA or Natori Ryu. If that's what you are interested in, don't let anyone talk you out of it. We all have our own journeys and in fact, I personally have an interest in learning sword and buckler so you may see me out there as well. There definitely is an abundance of quality information being put out on all fronts. My concern is more about the organizational structure of the practitioners. Should any other martial artist proclaim themselves a master, they would surely be torn apart and rightfully so. Why do these groups get a pass?
Entire schools have popped up teaching the art, establishing a hierarchy within Natori Ryu that really has no basis. And of course, you can't study Samurai era military strategy without some understanding of the bugei juhappan (18 skills of war). These are not arts that can be glanced over and condensed into a "combat basics" manual without legitimate instruction in the proper use of the various weapons and empty handed fighting arts.
Now, please don't let me persuade anyone from studying HEMA or Natori Ryu. If that's what you are interested in, don't let anyone talk you out of it. We all have our own journeys and in fact, I personally have an interest in learning sword and buckler so you may see me out there as well. There definitely is an abundance of quality information being put out on all fronts. My concern is more about the organizational structure of the practitioners. Should any other martial artist proclaim themselves a master, they would surely be torn apart and rightfully so. Why do these groups get a pass?
