Methodology in HEMA - by Adam Franti
This article is provided by guest author Adam Franti of Lansing Longsword Guild, and published here with his kind permission.
Introduction
Whether you’re aware of it or not, your engagement with Historical European Martial Arts is informed by a methodology. That is, the kinds of questions raised by our collective exploration of written sources related to swordplay have to be answered by historical inquiry. Historical inquiry can’t help but have a methodological construction, even if the person making the inquiry is unaware of it. Methodology is, pretty simply, the use of particular tools of analysis related to the goals of the analysis. To a historian, the goal of an analysis is to answer a historical question. For a historical fencer, the goal is likely something much more general.
The following article proposes a basic outline of the methodological approaches that are most visible among people in the HEMA community, whether they are individual fencers, club leaders, scholars, or otherwise. This outline is meant to be a tool and resource for fencers looking to make their practice and inquiry more meaningful. None of the following approaches or goals are considered more or less important than any other.
What Is Methodology?
Methodology is a word used to describe an intellectually framed approach to a field of study, a shorthand way of categorizing the questions, hypotheses, and practices of that field. HEMA, as a physical practice informed by historical inquiry, is similar to many fields of intellectual study in that there are certain distinct analytical frameworks and approaches that form a methodological geography of study. This is true even if many fencers have never considered or purposefully constructed their particular analytical approach.
Every action we take as historical fencers has a methodological element. It informs the way we look at our sources, the way we choose or compile our sources, the way we design and structure activities of our clubs and our approach to competition. Every element of historical fencing reflects important choices that we make to answer countless questions that arise naturally from the activity. It reflects how we answer questions raised by students, by spectators, and by the sources themselves. It reflects how classes are constructed, and how students are guided to or through the source. There is no way to engage with HEMA without answering these questions, and the collection of a particular club’s questions and answers represents their particular methodology.
Methodology is a tool. It helps us better understand what we want to do, but also to help understand the goals and practices of others. HEMA is still a relatively new practice, and the ability for people all around the world to converse with one another anywhere at any time amplifies some of the unsettled questions that exist within the practice. Many of these devolve into unhelpful or antagonistic arguments because, in part, the participants fail to recognize the difference between a disagreement of content versus a disagreement of methodology. The purpose of the following article is to describe a few of the analytical tools at our disposal when we pick up a book or a sword and start fencing.
Historical fencing, when based on the interpretation of historical documents, can be considered an interdisciplinary historical study. As such, it can and should be held to standards similar to those held by professional and amateur historians. Disciplines of study in the modern world all share similar values about the types of questions asked, the kinds of guesses or hypotheses suggested, the kinds of evidence utilized, and the proposed answers. All of these disciplines also subject other researcher’s conclusions to scrutiny.
Where scientific and historical disciplines often start with a question, most HEMA fencers start with a goal: they want to win competitions, they want to get in shape, they want to understand a source, or get skilled with a particular weapon. Fencers then apply an analytical framework: they choose which sources and secondary evidence they will utilize to achieve in their study or training. Their practice or the structure of their classes will also often reflect their core goals.
This interaction of an overall Goal with a supporting methodological Framework is the basis of the following schema. The interaction between goal and framework can be complex, and none of the categories listed below should be considered rigid or inflexible. The model proposed below is a starting point for a conversation about relevant methodological frameworks that can sharpen our physical and historical practice.
Limits of the Model
There is a specific and limited definition of Historical European Martial Arts used by the proposed model, and that is that it is applicable only to those who base their study and practice specifically on a source or group of sources. There are many ways to participate in HEMA which do not have any particular basis in the interpretation of a source, and while fencers should be encouraged to engage with the community in whichever manner is most valuable or fun for them, this methodological construct will be of very little use to those who don’t base their studies on a source. A written source represents the closest thing to an objective authority as exists in the HEMA community. While no two interpretations may ever be exactly the same, the fact that all existing interpretations can be checked against the sources they’re based on is what makes the basis for discussions that add value to the community.
So while there are extremely skilled fencers and talented writers who may seldom engage in direct source study who may have their own particularly curated methodologies, they are not the subject of this model and should be encouraged to map their own approaches.
Purpose of the Model
While every club and potentially every fencer is different, there are affinities between fencers and clubs that reflect the degree to which their goal, framework, and practices conjoin. Organizations like the Meyer Freifechter Guild or the International Armizare Society are a product of overlapping or complementary goals and practices, but still allow independent organization and practices at the club and individual level.
Collaboration with those who have similar goals and practices, together with conversations with those who have differing goals and practices, can improve the community of historical fencing as a whole by allowing more fruitful conversations between people who are aware of the limits of their particular approach, and those of others.
The proposed methodological framework presented in this article is based on the assumption that HEMA is distinct from other sword-based activities because of its relationship to written sources. As such, it assumes that these categories apply only to those who make use of the sources in their practice.
The following is an attempt to map some of the goals, frameworks, and practices of the modern HEMA community. It is an attempt to articulate some of the more popular methodologies that exist in the community, and to provide readers, fencers, club leaders, and researchers with ideas that can inform their study and sharpen their practice. It is not an attempt to dictate or judge any approach as better or worse than another, nor to advocate for a specific approach.
Goals
Goals are as diverse as fencers, but in general, they tend to align with only a few broad categories:
Study a single weapon
Win competitions
Embody a source
Community Improvement
Find the ideal
1 - One of the most visible distinctions in the HEMA community’s apparent methodology is between those who study a source or sources—for instance those who study Meyer, or Ringeck-Danzig-Lew, or Bolognese fencing—and those who study a particular weapon. Weapon Enthusiasts attempt to understand how to best use their chosen weapon in any context in which it might be used. Enthusiasts will likely draw from a wide selection of historical sources rather than limit themselves to just one.
Enthusiasts are also likely to include historical study as part of their training, and spar under rulesets intended to reflect the perceived historical reality of the times and cultures which used their weapon. The contexts might include lethal dueling, street brawling, feuding, or warfare, as well as historical games like the Fechtschule, tournament foot combats, or performative combat.
2 - Those whose primary goal is competitive success can be called Competitors, and their practice tends to reflect their goal quite closely. Competitors might focus on a single source or many, but the main goal is to find the most useful techniques, philosophies, or strategies employed by the authors in order to apply them to modern competitions. Competitors are also likely to be tournament organizers and judges, seeing competition as a means by which the community can improve both in its skill level and in the positive experiences had by fencers who attend modern competitions. Competitors are also some of the most visible and public-facing members of the community. Competitors ultimately look to competition and the competitive environment to answer questions about their practice.
Competitors are more interested in finding techniques and approaches that lead to competitive success than they are in scrutinizing the context of historical practice, though some also do both. Competitive success or failure is the primary authority for Competitors.
3 - Those whose primary goal is to embody a source might be called Devotees, and their practice is much more likely to focus deeply on a single source (or an interrelated cluster of sources). Devotees primarily attempt to embody, as closely as they are able, the practice of a single source. Devotees might still regularly compete in modern competitions and use lessons learned to improve their fencing, but devotees are more likely to see competition as a means to understand their source better, or use them as an opportunity to put their conclusions under pressure.
Devotees are more likely to incorporate historical study into their normal practice, such as fencing under historical rulesets or in fictionalized historical conditions, like mimicking the rules of a duel, historical tournament, or battlefield situation. Ultimately, a devotee’s authority for answering questions about fencing is the source they study.
4 - Those whose primary goal is to improve the community might be called Facilitators, and their practice is likely to involve the application of modern educational theory, organizational practices, teaching methodologies, or sports science in order to improve their own performance, that of their club, or in the running of their event. Facilitators might be interested in the physical side of HEMA as in tournament organization or training best practices, or might look to improve the community by providing translations or facsimiles of existing research. Others might devote themselves entirely to historical research without much personal interest in fencing. A facilitator is more likely to apply themselves to solve a perceived problem in the HEMA community that their skills or abilities are useful for, than to focus solely on an individual goal.
5 - Lastly, those whose goal is to plumb the depths of a source or a tradition to attempt to find its purest form might be called Idealists, and their practice will likely involve a great deal of academic study and research in connecting sources like pieces of a puzzle. The most visible example of this goal is with regard to the “true” teaching of Johannes Liechtenauer, with the understanding that the glossers who followed him all only have portions of his teaching. Another might be those who study Ms I.33 and attempt to fill that source’s perceived gaps. An idealist might focus on issues in translation, on the context and content of many complementary sources, and in the process making those materials available to the community as a whole.
These are just five rather broad categorizations, and a single fencer might have interests that overlap in quite a few. Nothing prevents a devotee from competing in a tournament, and nothing prevents an idealist from acting as a facilitator. However, it’s likely that as you think about your own practice, you are drawn to one of these more than any other.
Frameworks
The next level of methodology is how one frames the sources or information available into a form that is most helpful in achieving one’s goal. In other words, how does your choice of source or sources help you further your goal?
At this level, there are four common approaches in how fencers utilize sources. One might:
Create a new, personal system of fencing
Tightly frame a small cluster of interrelated sources
Contextualize a single source
Apply a single philosophy to all fencing
1 - Fencers who are interested in creating a personal system of fencing might be best described as Synthesists. Synthesists might use a wide variety of sources or a small group, and might see utility in different combinations of sources, but are most visibly defined as those who have created a new or personal understanding of fencing based on broad reading of many historical sources. The inclusion of modern tactics and strategies, such as those intended for modern Olympic fencing or other high-level competitive sports, is also highly likely.
2 - Those who study a cluster of sources might be called Syncretists. They are generally not interested in creating anything new, but instead study carefully framed, interrelated sources that are perceived to inform and deepen each source in collaboration. Framing means choosing a criteria by which sources are included or excluded in the syncretist’s practice and study. Syncretists, in other words, use sources in harmony with one another, choosing sources that are connected in some tangible way, either through the proliferation of a particular tradition, or through regional or temporal proximity. The Ringeck-Danzig-Lew (RDL), Italian rapier, and Bolognese approaches are all syncretic frameworks. For more detail of this approach, see Brian Puckett’s companion article here: https://hemaisok.blogspot.com/2023/08/goals-and-methodologies-of-source-use.html.
Synthesism and syncretism can be difficult to distinguish, as both use a curated selection of sources as the system being studied. It may be helpful to think about the difference in terms of the relationship between the sources: synthesists will borrow everything from techniques to philosophical concepts like timing, and use whichever they think is more effective or interesting, depending on their goal; syncretists, on the other hand, limit their source selection to sources that share a single philosophy.
For instance, an Italian rapierist, despite mixing several different Italian rapier books together, will still be using sources that all use a similar definition of tempo. Fencers who study Ringeck-Danzig-Lew still study a cluster of sources that are based on the teachings of Liechtenauer and the Five Words. In contrast, a synthesist might mix German longsword techniques with an Italian rapier understanding of tempo, simply because it’s considered easier for new students to understand, perceived as more effective in competition, or for another reason connected to their overall goal.
3 - Those who study a single source and its historical and cultural context might be called Culturalists. Culturalists might study the production methods of medieval manuscripts, the linguistic or technical elements of the book, the political or military trends of the region in which it was produced, or the social and cultural practices of fencers who lived in proximity to the source’s writer. Culturalists simply take the source in its own words and try, as much as is possible, to allow the values of the source, and the source’s culture, to drive their fencing.
4 - Those whose understanding of fencing is tied to a single philosophical source might be termed Universalists. A Universalist might view all fencing with all weapons as an expression of the Liechtenauer conception of the Five Words, or see all fencing actions as utilizing Silver’s True Time. The difference between a Universalist and a Culturalist is that the former would apply that philosophy to all fencing they encounter, where the latter would attempt to use the source’s own philosophy on its own terms, rather than rewrite it as something else.
Combining goals with frameworks
The goals and the frameworks are assumed to interact closely. A single fencer or club methodology will likely involve a connection between the goal and the framework, and the methodology as a whole will reflect that combination. It’s important to point out, too, that specific practices can diverge dramatically within a particular framework. Every synthesis is likely to be a unique combination of sources, and every competitor will be working from different experiences. What synthesists share is not the particular combination of their sources and experience, but an agreement that combining sources together creates a more robust understanding of fencing. A culturalist who studies manuscript construction might differ largely in their conclusions from a culturalist who studies physical culture, but what they share is that the belief that cultural practices of the people who created fencing literature are important data points to consider in modern training.
Training
The last element of a club or individual’s emergent methodology is in how they train. The choices of training, in fact, are likely the most visible element of a fencer’s goal and the fencer’s analytical approach. There are three common elements in club training that nearly every HEMA group uses:
Study from the book, with or without supervision from an instructor
Drills under the direction of an instructor
Sparring, with or without structure
There are other activities as well. Some groups put a lot of time, money, and effort into learning how to cut with sharp swords. Some practice and play in armor.
Sparring might be the most visible aspect of the way clubs train. Some clubs prefer to get fencers to spar and play as soon as possible, where others might drill basics, like footwork and body mechanics, for months before new students are allowed to freeplay with others. The emphasis on competition also makes a difference in how soon, how often, and how intensely fencers are expected to spar.
That said, the current generation of HEMA clubs seem to have reached a fairly common pattern of training. Most clubs encourage freeplay or sparring, either with focused games set within a non-cooperative structure or simple unrestricted inter-club competition, and most clubs also incorporate drills to teach mechanics and techniques. Most clubs also base their instruction on a particular source, though the presence of that source in club lessons is also somewhat variable in the community. All that said, it is less likely today to find either a club that doesn’t spar or a club that doesn’t work from a book than it may have been ten years ago.
Training methodology can also closely reflect the club structure, rather than the club’s overall goals. A study group is an assembly of people with equal footing to interpret the text, to create drills or training games, or dictate the pace of training. A club is often structured under instructors, either on a basis of experience, tournament success, or approval by an umbrella group to qualify as an instructor. A school often has a more systematic curriculum in which students progress from basic to advanced classes arranged by topic or weapon.
Each of these approaches can interact with the goals and frameworks of a group in complicated ways.
As the old adage goes, fight how you train, train how you fight. Your training should reflect your sources, and your source curation should reflect your goals. Understanding your goals in a methodological sense might help in creating a club practice that is more closely related to the overall goals and purpose of the club.
Conclusion
Many discussions around historical fencing often assume that every fencer is essentially doing the same thing. After all, we all use the same gear, go to the same tournaments, go to the same lectures and seminars. In reality, there are many different goals and approaches, and understanding that it takes working to achieve a variety of different goals that makes HEMA so interesting. Instead of one cohesive community, there are a variety of different subcommunities who all share the same pool of resources, and who all benefit from the work done by each other subcommunity.
In intellectual fields, methodologies are used to streamline the process of research. By using a few keywords or referencing a handful of emblematic texts, the methodological thrust of a new work in the field can be quickly categorized, and used where it would be most likely to assist. This is the purpose of this rather small methodological schema; it is not to separate HEMA researchers, instructors, and fencers into separate camps, but acknowledge that better conversations can be had with people who share our goals or use a similar toolkit. It allows us to steer our questions toward those who are most likely to be interested in sharing the answer, or sharing the search for the answer.
However, it’s also important to clarify that the above schema is based entirely on how to assess one’s relationship to the sources. There are a wide variety of other approaches and behaviors that are simply out of scope for this particular methodological map because they don’t have any direct bearing on source use and interpretation.
Comments
Post a Comment