Today I offer another in the series of "Short Shots," little bite-sized nuggets of blogging goodness rather than the whole chunks I actually prefer to present here. But, as we all know, life is life what it is, and as a result spending numerous hours over several days putting together a well-crafted blog post is sometimes unrealistic. So, here are some more little bits and pieces for you to consider.
Enjoy!
I've come to just accept that Hollywood movies are not going to present historical sword fights accurately (for more on this, see the short shot on this very same subject below). They make no pretense of being historical, and what they are aiming for is telling a visually compelling story, which a quick and brutal accurate sword fight might not always do. C'est la vie.
However...what we absolutely, positively must demand is for books of medieval history -- serious, scholarly, academic books written by what we can only presume are actual historians -- to stop referring to the knights' heavy armor and how once upended they couldn't get back up again.
If I were texting this you to you all here is where I'd add the shocked face, the facepalm face, and the angry face.
This is such a common cultural fallacy in the Western mind that the average person doesn't even stop to consider the accuracy of it. Those of us lucky enough to study history, or get into HEMA, or both, quickly become aware of how ridiculous this notion of highly trained warriors being defeated by the weight of their armor is. We know there is a great deal of reenacting, experimental history going on whereby (usually) amateur historians decide to actually try something to see how it works rather than assume it will work a certain way, so there are numerous videos of people getting by quite comfortably in their recreated 15th-century armor.
So perhaps we can forgive writers from an earlier era when they would peddle this tripe. After all, they never got into a suit of armor and tumbled about for a while, so perhaps having a preconceived notion of what was possible in armor was understandable. This was actually my own experience in this regard: after getting involved in HEMA and realizing that knights were capable of any number of athletic moves in full plate armor (and that it wasn't as heavy as was often reported) I was reading a book about the Middle Ages by an early 20th-century historian. When the book got to Agincourt he, predictably, stated that it was on account of the heavy armor the French knights were wearing and their inability to get up that the English won.
OK, fine, Mr. Victorian-Era-Trained-Historian, we can let this one slide. But more recently I was reading another book on the Medieval era, this one written in the 60s, and again I came across the same sentiment. Fine...again, this was before most folks started experimenting with armor to demonstrate the agility capable of it.
But for crying out loud, I recently read a book written in 2009 and then one written in 2014 in which the same damn thing was repeated. Seriously?! Seriously?!! Someone is publishing a book in 2014, when all one has to do is a quick YouTube search for videos on armor to educate yourself on how one could actually maneuver in it, and this falsehood is still being peddled?!!
So, I'll say it again: Stop. Just, please, stop!
The definition of a pedant, according to Dictonary.com, is a person who: 1) makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning, 2) a person who overemphasizes minor rules or details, or 3) a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to common sense.
I'd have to say that in life in general, but especially in HEMA, you do not want to be a pedant. Please allow me to reemphasize the "especially in HEMA" part of not being a pedant.
The pedant is that person who always insists they are right, regardless of what evidence suggests otherwise. Not only that, but they will typically belittle whatever disagreeing views others may have. They find other's inability to see their perspective as proof of other's inherent failings, and rails against being misunderstood and ill-appreciated. They refuse to see things as others do, regardless of the preponderance of obvious evidence.
And please note, some of the greatest creations or conclusions have been the work of people who think well outside the box. Despite that, there comes a point where the non-pedant realistically has to note they are the only one holding a given perspective and there is evidence suggesting the error of their understanding. Not for the pedant, however! No, for the pedant everyone else's ignorance is so overwhelming that they fail to note the minutia only the pedant can interpret, and so therefore everyone else is wrong.
Be a pedant in life and you're likely to be perceived as unbearably obnoxious, pretentious, and generally disagreeable. However, be a pedant in HEMA and you essentially miss the overarching concept behind the totality of historical European martial arts.
Anyone who says they are the only one who truly understands something -- whether it is a given treatise, or a weapon, or anything else -- is either a liar, a narcissist, clinically pathological, or some funky combination of all three. One of the main points of HEMA is that we don't know, and we're cool with that. We do our due diligence to get things right, our interpretations are historically valid, our work sound, yet ultimately we do not know (and, as is usual, I'm referring to my club's work within the larger HEMA milieu, which is the earlier stuff; clearly one who focuses primarily on 19th-century British army saber fighting has a better idea of what's going on).
That's the bedrock upon which much of HEMA is built. There is a great deal that we are unaware of, so claiming to have some kind of intellectual high ground and to declare oneself a "master" as a result is simply repugnant. Don't pedantically believe you are the only one who understands something, because simply by taking that stance you prove you understand nothing.
I'd referred to this above, but let me reiterate: We need to just accept that movie sword fights will never be accurate.
Don't get me wrong, I love to point out the stupidity of movie sword fights as much as the next HEMA person. A heavy sigh, a roll of the eyes, perhaps a question asked to an unanswering screen why the protagonist didn't simply wind left when there was clearly no thought given to the historicity of the fight, yes. But, we ultimately need to simply accept this eventuality.
Movie sword fights are just going to be unrealistic.
Let's consider some facts: First, the movie fights are not made for us, they're made for everyone. As stinging as it is to consider, no one in Hollywood -- or Bollywood, for that matter -- is overly concerned about our opinion of these fights. What they want is to impress and entertain the average moviegoer. This person knows nothing of historical sword fighting and cares even less, they just want to see some slick moves on the screen.
Second, as we all know a truly historical sword fight could be over very quickly, which quite honestly makes for terrible cinema. Imagine we've watched the hero overcome obstacle after obstacle for almost two hours to corner the bad guy, they draw swords for the final confrontation, and then...then the hero buries his sword halfway in the bad guy's head with a nasty Zorn in the Vor. Accurate, no doubt, perhaps even satisfying to some degree, but generally anticlimactic to the average moviegoer.
Now, I know some people are saying "but it can be done accurately and look good," and you're right. Please consider the fine work done by the good people at Adorea Olmouc. I won't waste words trying to explain their awesomeness, just watch:
And watch:
And watch this, too:
And, what the hell, watch this too:
So, we can take it for granted now that historical sword fights can be done in a way that is accurate and yet visually appealing at the same time. Yet, I still think there is an issue with this, which again is about the average moviegoer.
The problem here is that even when fights are accurate, I think the average moviegoer doesn't get what's happening. Consider for a moment that we HEMA practitioners are able to note the various moves being used and to maintain the flow of the fight because we are aware of these moves. I think for the average person a truly historical fight just looks like a blur of swords, so better for them to keep it to the simple sword attack/sword attack of the normal fight.
Bottom line, my friends: Movie sword fights are going to be inaccurate. We need to accept that.
Just a real quick final note...who here has heard of Niel Peart? OK, I see you guys in the back with your 2112 shirts and your Starman logos.
For any of you who don't know that name without following the link, Niel Peart was the drummer for the legendary rock band Rush. He joined the band for their second album in 1975 and remained with them for the rest of their long tenure together, until their 20th album released in 2012. He played for the band on all but one of those 20 albums, in hundreds of shows, and practiced his art for tens of thousands of hours.
And yet, when in 2007 the chance came for him to take lessons from an even more legendary drummer, Freddie Gruber, he did not hesitate to do so.
He didn't point to the band's successes, nor their long tour history, nor his evident skill as a drummer. He essentially laid himself bare and opened himself up to learn something new.
I'm sharing this with you in part because I'm a huge Rush fan, more importantly, because it teaches us something very important to HEMA. It doesn't matter who you are, how many students you've taught, nor how many tournaments you've competed in, nor anything else. There is still something for you to learn.
Be like Niel Peart and open yourself up to learning something new.
OK, folks. Hope you've enjoyed this second offering of Short Shots.
Stay loose and train hard, my friends.
-- Scott
Enjoy!
Stop. Just, please, stop!
I've come to just accept that Hollywood movies are not going to present historical sword fights accurately (for more on this, see the short shot on this very same subject below). They make no pretense of being historical, and what they are aiming for is telling a visually compelling story, which a quick and brutal accurate sword fight might not always do. C'est la vie.
However...what we absolutely, positively must demand is for books of medieval history -- serious, scholarly, academic books written by what we can only presume are actual historians -- to stop referring to the knights' heavy armor and how once upended they couldn't get back up again.
If I were texting this you to you all here is where I'd add the shocked face, the facepalm face, and the angry face.
This is such a common cultural fallacy in the Western mind that the average person doesn't even stop to consider the accuracy of it. Those of us lucky enough to study history, or get into HEMA, or both, quickly become aware of how ridiculous this notion of highly trained warriors being defeated by the weight of their armor is. We know there is a great deal of reenacting, experimental history going on whereby (usually) amateur historians decide to actually try something to see how it works rather than assume it will work a certain way, so there are numerous videos of people getting by quite comfortably in their recreated 15th-century armor.
So perhaps we can forgive writers from an earlier era when they would peddle this tripe. After all, they never got into a suit of armor and tumbled about for a while, so perhaps having a preconceived notion of what was possible in armor was understandable. This was actually my own experience in this regard: after getting involved in HEMA and realizing that knights were capable of any number of athletic moves in full plate armor (and that it wasn't as heavy as was often reported) I was reading a book about the Middle Ages by an early 20th-century historian. When the book got to Agincourt he, predictably, stated that it was on account of the heavy armor the French knights were wearing and their inability to get up that the English won.
OK, fine, Mr. Victorian-Era-Trained-Historian, we can let this one slide. But more recently I was reading another book on the Medieval era, this one written in the 60s, and again I came across the same sentiment. Fine...again, this was before most folks started experimenting with armor to demonstrate the agility capable of it.
But for crying out loud, I recently read a book written in 2009 and then one written in 2014 in which the same damn thing was repeated. Seriously?! Seriously?!! Someone is publishing a book in 2014, when all one has to do is a quick YouTube search for videos on armor to educate yourself on how one could actually maneuver in it, and this falsehood is still being peddled?!!
So, I'll say it again: Stop. Just, please, stop!
Don't Be a Pedant.
The definition of a pedant, according to Dictonary.com, is a person who: 1) makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning, 2) a person who overemphasizes minor rules or details, or 3) a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to common sense.
I'd have to say that in life in general, but especially in HEMA, you do not want to be a pedant. Please allow me to reemphasize the "especially in HEMA" part of not being a pedant.
The pedant is that person who always insists they are right, regardless of what evidence suggests otherwise. Not only that, but they will typically belittle whatever disagreeing views others may have. They find other's inability to see their perspective as proof of other's inherent failings, and rails against being misunderstood and ill-appreciated. They refuse to see things as others do, regardless of the preponderance of obvious evidence.
And please note, some of the greatest creations or conclusions have been the work of people who think well outside the box. Despite that, there comes a point where the non-pedant realistically has to note they are the only one holding a given perspective and there is evidence suggesting the error of their understanding. Not for the pedant, however! No, for the pedant everyone else's ignorance is so overwhelming that they fail to note the minutia only the pedant can interpret, and so therefore everyone else is wrong.
Be a pedant in life and you're likely to be perceived as unbearably obnoxious, pretentious, and generally disagreeable. However, be a pedant in HEMA and you essentially miss the overarching concept behind the totality of historical European martial arts.
Anyone who says they are the only one who truly understands something -- whether it is a given treatise, or a weapon, or anything else -- is either a liar, a narcissist, clinically pathological, or some funky combination of all three. One of the main points of HEMA is that we don't know, and we're cool with that. We do our due diligence to get things right, our interpretations are historically valid, our work sound, yet ultimately we do not know (and, as is usual, I'm referring to my club's work within the larger HEMA milieu, which is the earlier stuff; clearly one who focuses primarily on 19th-century British army saber fighting has a better idea of what's going on).
That's the bedrock upon which much of HEMA is built. There is a great deal that we are unaware of, so claiming to have some kind of intellectual high ground and to declare oneself a "master" as a result is simply repugnant. Don't pedantically believe you are the only one who understands something, because simply by taking that stance you prove you understand nothing.
Ermahgerd, a Movie Sword Fight!
I'd referred to this above, but let me reiterate: We need to just accept that movie sword fights will never be accurate.
Don't get me wrong, I love to point out the stupidity of movie sword fights as much as the next HEMA person. A heavy sigh, a roll of the eyes, perhaps a question asked to an unanswering screen why the protagonist didn't simply wind left when there was clearly no thought given to the historicity of the fight, yes. But, we ultimately need to simply accept this eventuality.
Movie sword fights are just going to be unrealistic.
Let's consider some facts: First, the movie fights are not made for us, they're made for everyone. As stinging as it is to consider, no one in Hollywood -- or Bollywood, for that matter -- is overly concerned about our opinion of these fights. What they want is to impress and entertain the average moviegoer. This person knows nothing of historical sword fighting and cares even less, they just want to see some slick moves on the screen.
Second, as we all know a truly historical sword fight could be over very quickly, which quite honestly makes for terrible cinema. Imagine we've watched the hero overcome obstacle after obstacle for almost two hours to corner the bad guy, they draw swords for the final confrontation, and then...then the hero buries his sword halfway in the bad guy's head with a nasty Zorn in the Vor. Accurate, no doubt, perhaps even satisfying to some degree, but generally anticlimactic to the average moviegoer.
Now, I know some people are saying "but it can be done accurately and look good," and you're right. Please consider the fine work done by the good people at Adorea Olmouc. I won't waste words trying to explain their awesomeness, just watch:
And watch:
And watch this, too:
And, what the hell, watch this too:
So, we can take it for granted now that historical sword fights can be done in a way that is accurate and yet visually appealing at the same time. Yet, I still think there is an issue with this, which again is about the average moviegoer.
The problem here is that even when fights are accurate, I think the average moviegoer doesn't get what's happening. Consider for a moment that we HEMA practitioners are able to note the various moves being used and to maintain the flow of the fight because we are aware of these moves. I think for the average person a truly historical fight just looks like a blur of swords, so better for them to keep it to the simple sword attack/sword attack of the normal fight.
Bottom line, my friends: Movie sword fights are going to be inaccurate. We need to accept that.
There's Always Something to Learn
Just a real quick final note...who here has heard of Niel Peart? OK, I see you guys in the back with your 2112 shirts and your Starman logos.
For any of you who don't know that name without following the link, Niel Peart was the drummer for the legendary rock band Rush. He joined the band for their second album in 1975 and remained with them for the rest of their long tenure together, until their 20th album released in 2012. He played for the band on all but one of those 20 albums, in hundreds of shows, and practiced his art for tens of thousands of hours.
And yet, when in 2007 the chance came for him to take lessons from an even more legendary drummer, Freddie Gruber, he did not hesitate to do so.
He didn't point to the band's successes, nor their long tour history, nor his evident skill as a drummer. He essentially laid himself bare and opened himself up to learn something new.
I'm sharing this with you in part because I'm a huge Rush fan, more importantly, because it teaches us something very important to HEMA. It doesn't matter who you are, how many students you've taught, nor how many tournaments you've competed in, nor anything else. There is still something for you to learn.
Be like Niel Peart and open yourself up to learning something new.
⚔
OK, folks. Hope you've enjoyed this second offering of Short Shots.
Stay loose and train hard, my friends.
-- Scott
Comments
Post a Comment