|
|
|
| ||||||
| ||||||
|
Let's remain warm and friendly. We are gentlemen first (or ladies, whichever is appropriate to our gender) and swordsmen second. I'm stepping into the middle of the conversation a bit out of context, so let me just address J. Christoph Amberger's viewpoint on whether there is a modern day warriorship. The United States military constantly train in killing methodologies. They train to kill and train to preserve life. Just because some of the soldiers have not participated in any modern day wars does not mean that their training is anything other than warrior skills. If these men and women have volunteered to dedicate themselves to protect and serve their country by undergoing this training, this *is* the warrior attitude. Further, what is the value of the skills they train in? Is it valueless simply because they have not tasted combat? No. Our military does *not* waste time and money on combat training that will get you killed; follow the commanding officer's word to the letter and you will servive and kill the enemy. Is all ancient swordsmanship for warriorship or was it for sport? Romantic notions aside, swordsmanship was developed for survival, protection of your self and your people, and defeating the enemy. Those were brutal times where you might be a lawful person, but a lawless tribe might invade your peace-loving city on a whim. People who did not live by an honor code or by any standard of law could tear in and kill, steal and destroy. I believe the combat arts were developed for defense and offense *first*. If there was any application for recreational performance or sport, these are only *secondary* but not the primary purpose. *Modern* stage combat (as opposed to Ancient) began in the early days of Hollywood when actors that were into Olympic style fencing were asked to adopt fighting for the screen. Bear in mind that the blades and swords then were not necessarily of historical weight and proportions. Your handling of heavier battlefield blades is going to be different than handling a foil. Much of earlier stage combat is based on sport fencing. Period manuals show a plethora of methodologies, mentalities and scientific approach beyond sport fencing. In terms of Warrior vs. Sport attitude, I believe this is simply defined. With sport, the goal is to score a hit. With Warriorship, the idea is to preserve life or to take it. In sport, the goal is to win. With Warriorship, you train because one day your ability to affect life and death may depend upon your training. Your outlook on life is different. Professor Robert L. Humphrey (1923-1997) author of "Living Values" wrote "The Warrior Creed" as follows: Wherever I go, everyone is a little bit safer because I am there. Wherever I am, anyone in need has a friend. Whenever I return home, everyone is happy I am there. There is some martial value in sport fencing, but I believe there is much more in Historical European Swordsmanship. I believe that one is a warrior regardless of the age in which the fighting methodology is founded. H.E.S. is scientific and methodical. We may be in an era of firearms but believe it or not we all still have bodies, skeletal structure, etc. We move the same way our ancestors did. We still can be cut and can bleed. In short, just because some are studying Historical European Swordsmanship from a warriorship standpoint, I do not believe that they are any more uneffective or playing than those who trained in the Medieval and Renaissance Era but were on stand-by and not the ones to immediately ride out to the battlefield. It depends on *how* you train and with what mentality you undergo that training.
|
||
| Follow Ups | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Post Followup | ||