[Bill Ferny]

ARMA, formerly known as HACA, is a great organization for those interested in historical re-enactment, particularly late medieval and Renaissance. The first article by John Clements was very interesting, but as he notes himself, the comparison is very unfair.

I would love to sit down with a cup of coffee and one of Havana’s best and discuss a couple of issues with Mr. Clements.

There is no evidence to the myth that medieval martial culture was any less sophisticated or highly develop than its Asian counterparts, its tradition only fell out of use with the social and technological changes brought about by firearms and cannon.

I disagree with the later portion of this sentence. Social changes, rather than firearms and cannon that were not absent in oriental culture, were the primary catalysts of the disintegration of sophisticated marital arts in Europe, and this is evidenced by the very Italian and German fight books he mentions in the same paragraph. One of the most striking features of Hans Talhoffer’s fechtbücher, drawn by the master in the 15th century, is that the majority of his techniques are for foot soldiers, not the traditional mounted warrior. Emphasis was already sufficiently shifting from the equestrian to the infantry, heralding the era of the disciplined soldiers, on foot, recruited from common families, who were to become the backbone of the new European national armies. The days of chivalry, which literally means “what the horse soldiers did,” the days of the warrior-landed-noble, was already waning, sinking under the economic revolutions of the 15th century. Another striking aspect of Talhoffer’s fechtbücher is a demonstration of a judicial combat between a man and woman, evidence that the sensibilities of a former age were eroding.

Another more subtle reason for the preservation of martial arts in the east, surprisingly, is the relative social stability of eastern cultures. A more war-like Europe was forced to take advantage of new technology (that was ironically enough being diffused from the east) and tactics, and took a less romantic view of traditional methodologies. Thus, combat innovation in Europe eventually caught up with eastern technology, and then surpassed it due to necessity, while at the same time, the non-evolving combat methodologies of the east were becoming culturally ingrained.

Mr. Clements is quite correct when he says:

Those who think the medieval sword & shield was and is just a "wham-bam, whack-whack" fight are greatly misinformed. Those who think the use of medieval long-sword merely involves a brutish hacking are also under a tremendous delusion. It is a mystery how such beliefs can be held independently of those who today assiduously study and train in the subject as a true martial art, and spend years in practice with the actual weapons. Perhaps this ignorance is due to watching too many movies or the influence of fantasy-historical societies with their costumed role-playing.

However, Mr. Clements ignores the most important aspect of the European medieval knight: horsemanship. Continued emphasis on hand weapons and armor, probably due to our prejudice toward eastern martial arts, is one of those misconceptions or delusions that Mr. Clements otherwise is so adamantly against. While weapons and armor are to a certain degree important for our understanding of combat methodology, they are secondary to the consideration of the medieval knight’s abilities on horseback. The medieval European knight fought and thought of himself as a mounted warrior.

This fact is born out over and over again, from romances such as the Chanson d'Geste and the writings of Chretien De Troyes, to the histories of Jean De Joinville and Geoffroy De Villehardouin. The horse was the primary weapon of the knight. When a knight’s horse was killed from under him, his first priority was to find another, and a true friend or servant was he who provided the fallen knight with another mount.

As the chronicler, Jean de Tours (12th century) points out, a young man aspiring to become a knight, spends the majority of his time in caring for the horse and learning the art of horsemanship. The Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal, the romantic eulogy to the most fascinating of medieval men, devotes much praise for William Marshal as a horseman “like none other.” Considering how important the horse was to the medieval knight, and the amount of time spent in training, the typical knight’s abilities would have rivaled, and probably surpassed, those of any modern Olympic equestrian competitor. Without a doubt, they were far better horseman than any of today’s rodeo cowboys or cowgirls.

Mr. Clements omission is excusable, though. He’s in good company. This facet of medieval combat is utterly ignored by Tolkien as well. His depiction of the masters of mounted combat, the Rohirrim, is so banal and boorish, that it doesn’t fit logically into his quasi-medieval setting. The thought that a horde of people in wagons (i.e. Wainriders) could be equal adversaries against calvary is ludicrous, unless, of course, said wagons had suspensions and tires rivaling those of an SUV. Considering Tolkien’s Middle Earth in tota, its level of technology, its sociopolitical structures, its general combat methodologies, the Rohirrim, not the Men of Gondor, should have been the political masters of the “World of Men.” Or at least, the Men of Gondor should have realized the distinct benefits of the mounted warrior and applied the principle to greater advantage.

[ May 03, 2003: Message edited by: Bill Ferny ]