We started this blog to spread general knowledge and discussion within the HEMA community. One of the ways we wanted to do that was by interviewing well-known practitioners, innovators, researchers, or folks that have been part of HEMA from the earliest days and have had a hand guiding to what it is currently. I am very proud to offer the first such interview in what we hope will be monthly installments, a little chat with Christian Henry Tobler. Enjoy!
-- Scott
As I have come to start all of these interviews, can you tell everyone your martial arts background and how you first became interested in HEMA? Since you are such a ground-breaking researcher for the rest of us to follow after, what was it like researching the treatises feeling like an island unto yourself? Were there ever times you wondered why you were doing it and considered giving up?
I did tournament fighting, in and out of armour, for almost two decades before becoming exposed to the early WMA scene in the 1990’s. I wouldn’t say I felt like an island though. The other researchers back then were quite tight-knit and many of us kept in daily contact, debating things like “what the hell is a Krumphau?” and such. And my first book drew heavily upon work already done by Jörg Bellinghausen and Chris Kaindel. I also owe a lot to Steve Hick, who is very much my mentor and established the ‘best practices’ that I use in my own approach to the material. It’s fair to say I had the shoulders of giants to stand upon.
The work was, and remains, challenging, but I don’t think it ever drove me to consider giving up. There was a strong sense of it being important and valuable, and that still drives me.
What was it like in the founding days of HEMA research? How did one at that time go about finding the manuals and treatises, then gaining access to them, translating them, and then finally working out what was being said? We now have a fund of common knowledge and accepted understandings to test our personal interpretations against, but in the early days there was none; how did you test an interpretation for historical validity and martial function?
A lot was exchanged via email and CDs that circulated among the early researchers. Often these consisted of dodgy scans or grainy photocopies! In the case of Ringeck – the subject of my first book – I never even saw the manuscript. Instead, I had access to Welles’ transcription and Chris Kaindel’s modern German transliteration.
Interpretations were tested via triangulation – a combination of comparing notes with other martial artists, testing out blows with steel swords, and sparring with various simulators (all of them crude by today’s standards!). Contextual analysis was also important, which raised questions such as “How would this action work against period clothing and/or armour?” or “does this action make sense for 15th-century self-defense or dueling?”
What are your thoughts about current HEMA research in the age of the internet, when finding a manual can often be as easy as going to the Wiktenauer page? Do you think that encourages more people to look at the manuals, or do you feel like there's a sense nothing new is to be learned, so now people don't actually research for themselves?
While there will always be practitioners who don’t gravitate toward research, I think the impulse to do so remains strong. Certainly, the majority of my senior students are strongly drawn to the manuscripts themselves. Online access to the manuscripts has done nothing but make them available to budding researchers, so this is a good thing!
By this point in your career, you have researched, translated, and studied numerous fighting manuals. Which of them would you say is your overall favorite, and why? Are there any manuals you haven't yet had the chance to look at and would dearly love to? What have you learned in all the treatises you've studied has surprised you the most?
Well, I have two favorites, each speaking to a different aspect of my love for this stuff. For simple inspiration, I adore the Munich Paulus Kal; it’s beautiful and has a very ‘personal’ quality to it. For sheer utility though, the ‘Von Danzig’ fight book is my favorite. It features the best set of glosses, plus multiple takes on various disciplines – you can compare four different armoured treatises, two on dagger, two on wrestling, and two on mounted combat. That’s a lot of data right there!
I think I’ve looked at all the 15th-century German material currently known, but there are some I’ve not focused as much on yet. The sheer volume of actions in Lecküchner’s messer treatise has precluded my trying out all of them, for instance.
As for surprises, I suppose what surprises me most is that, given its great utility in memorization, we don’t see verse for every weapon. There is no Zettel for dagger or wrestling. That’s very curious.
You have also written several books, many of which are direct translations of existing treatises. How do you determine which are the manuals you will study for the sake of edification and which you will then interpret and publish. Is there something about the masters whose work you have published -- Paulus Kal and Peter Falkner -- that you thought would make them the most appropriate to introduce to a larger audience?
I’ve published four translated works. Two of them, Ringeck and Von Danzig, were chosen because they were rich sources of material to be interpreted into physicality. The Paulus Kal book, on the other hand was chosen because he was poorly understood by the community up until that time, when in reality he was a more direct exponent of Liechtenauer than the better known Talhoffer – plus the whole manuscript just appealed to my personal aesthetics. My motivations for translating Peter Falkner partook of all the above: there was good material amenable to easy interpretation (particularly in the dagger material), plus he was little known by practitioners. So sometimes it’s a matter of “here’s some red meat to chew on” and at others “you should know about this interesting master, too”.
Over the years you have reinterpreted some of your own work, so much so that you recently re-released an updated version of your 2004 book "Fighting with the German Longsword." What are some of the specific techniques you have reinterpreted or tweaked over the years? What typically makes you question some of your own earlier interpretations?
In the 2004 version, the shoulder version of the guard vom Tag is shown with the sword aloft over the shoulder. While one can argue that some illustrations indicate the possibility of such a variant, the four major glosses of the 15th century all describe it as on the shoulder. Given the book was based on those commentaries, this error on my part needed correction.
The 2004 edition also depicted too close a measure – largely an artefact of using aluminum blunts that were on the short side. The new version works with much ‘cagier’ use of measure. Actions are now also presented using smaller, more economic frames of motion: when I look at the old version, the actions look too ‘big’ to my present eye.
Beyond that, the raw interpretations weren’t that different so much as how they were presented was updated; there’s certainly a much bigger jump from “Secrets of German Medieval Swordsmanship” to the original “Fighting” than between the latter and the present text. I reorganized and added to the material; the new volume is considerably bigger. Perhaps most importantly, I cleaned up a lot of the mechanics shown in the original volume, with an emphasis on showing proper structure and cleaner footwork.
Some interpretations simply and slowly drift with time, become cleaner and more efficient. But when there are big changes, 90% of the time this is because I re-read the source material and realized I’d not gotten the right gist the first time around.
What advice would you have for the HEMA fighter who also wants to delve into research, especially if what they are researching is not well investigated and so, therefore, there is a scant fund of accepted knowledge to test their conclusions against?
I’d advise them to seek out others steeped in basic fencing theory. There’s a current in some quarters suggesting we should treat sources as unique entities, separated from other fencing traditions, and I think that’s a very unproductive way of thinking. Of course, by all means, look for unique ways in which a given source may express common concepts, but be aware there are basic and universal laws of fence that inform everything.
Beyond that, follow “[Steve] Hick’s Law” – do exactly what the text says, and if you can’t make it work, go back and read the text again.
What have you been researching lately? Any new books or other learning material coming along in the near future?
Oh yes – I’ve always got something in the pipeline. Right now, I’m at work on another anthology book, a sort of “Bride of In Saint George’s Name”. Since the monster movie sequel title thing doesn’t work for HEMA titles though, it will be called “Lance, Spear, Sword, and Messer: Further Adventures in German Medieval Martial Arts”. In addition to several translations of smaller treatises, it will have some essays and photo interpretations. One (probably large) section will even have a sort of addendum to “Fighting with the German Longsword”, rounding out a full coverage of the glosses. I hope to complete this work this year.
“Fighting with the German Dagger” is another prospect. I love dagger and we’ve loads of sources to draw from, so this is pretty natural thing to approach. Finally, I’m sure we’ll cook up something more on the video front. I’d like to get at least one downloadable video done this year.
I will note that I’m not as quick in producing material as in former years. From 2003 to 2014 I was a consulting engineer. Now I’m a full-time engineering manager, which demands much more of my time and energy, leaving me less flexibility for both writing and traveling to events. Ah, life’s give and take…
You co-founded the Order of Selohaar in 1979, which, according to the order website is described as an "initiatory order of chivalry dedicated to the preservation of honor, nobility, arcane wisdom, and martial excellence in an age where such traditions and values have generally been forgotten." What is the connection in your mind between the practice of HEMA and a reintroduction of chivalric ideals in the modern world? Do you think HEMA can be more than just a sport or a martial art and can actually be something that makes us better people? What would be your image of the ideal modern, chivalric HEMA practitioner?
HEMA is a lot of different things to a lot of different people. For me, the discipline of the sword is but one part of the answer to the question: how can we craft better human beings? For some people that process is one of using ‘sportsmanship’ to cultivate honesty and respect. For me, it goes further than that – the sword is not merely an extension of my arm and will, but a projection (and reflection) of self.
The ideal chivalric swordsman? I think that ties in with the medieval notion of franchise – a complete ‘buy in’ to the art, science, and being of chivalry. There should be something seen in the lists that remains with the person after they quit them – something that is evident in them at all times. It’s hard to put into words, but let me hope to illuminate via example. I’ve had members of our order ask “how will I know I’m ready to become a knight?” My answer runs something like “do you think people see a knight when you walk in the room? Do you see one in the mirror?”
I think some of it comes down to leveraging the discipline one attains with the sword into the larger world. I used to scoff at how Japanese businessmen looked to “A Book of Five Rings” as a touchstone for business behavior. Now that I have myself applied such ideas as “oppose weakness with strength, and strength with weakness” it all makes a lot more sense regarding how martial principles, and the ethics informing and underpinning them, apply to life in general.
I recognize my answer may be nebulous, but my image, as you have it, is bound up in just that – an image…something hard to put into words.
What in your own mind does "chivalry" mean in the modern context without regard to the various historical definitions? Why does the Order focus on chivalry so much, and how do you think our modern American society would be different if more people lived in a chivalrous manner?
Some historians have it that it is meaningless to talk about ‘chivalry’ because the word’s meaning has morphed too much. My pushback is that so have the words “Christianity” or “American Democracy” – both traditions have undergone tremendous change in the intervening centuries separating us from their origins – and yet historians treat them as viable subjects. That does, however, put the onus on me to define some common thread connecting medieval chivalry with something meaningful today.
To that end, let me offer my own definition that I think applies to the entire arc of chivalric history. Chivalry is the art and science of making right action joyful and celebrated. Now, consider how much more attention our society grants to horror and evil than to good works and I think the benefit of ‘chivalric thinking’ becomes apparent.
The aspect of courtesy – and I don’t mean reducing the idea to opening doors for ladies – is also important. There are simple joys in being courteous, and being treated in kind, which have fallen by the wayside in today’s culture. A courteous society is a civil one and we are much in need of civility right now.
Our order trains people to find joy, meaning, and value in good works, no matter how simple. The results have often been transformative.
It was (and continues to be) a common observance amongst Asian martial artists to practice meditations as a calming of the mind, indeed a so-called "emptying" of the mind, so they could react more efficiently, free of thoughts of failure or death. Although this topic is not often discussed in reference to Medieval and Renaissance warriors, are you aware of a similar equivalent to the Asian practice? Even if it has not been well documented, do you think such a practice was nurtured? Do you think this "warrior mind" is related to chivalry, and do you think can we cultivate a similar mindset in our modern era to be more noble, but also more empowered?
I think there are similar ideas implied in the West, such as the times where we’re instructed to be calm and await the opponent’s action – to accomplish this, you must empty yourself of expectations. In addition to emptiness, there’s the idea of being ‘filled’ by the grace of God. Certainly, the idea of seeking the help of God is prevalent in early fencing texts and this would do much to mitigate fear, allowing for a purer focus on the fight itself. And while meditation proper isn’t discussed in our martial sources, their culture was far more holistic than ours and a meditative aspect is part of the writings of church authors such as Hugh of St. Victor.
Further, there’s an interesting tension in the martial sources between ‘fullness’, such as when one sets one’s will upon a specific intent, and ‘emptiness’, where, for instance, one must be fully open to what they feel (the much-discussed Fühlen of the Liechtenauer tradition) in a bind between two weapons. Understanding and navigating these tensions certainly is a source of empowerment, and synthesizing seeming opposites is part and parcel of the chivalric ethos; witness the inherent tension between the chivalric virtues of truth and mercy, for example.
For any given activity, there is basic behavior or skill level of it that most people can learn; then, there is the art that transcends the base activity and makes it more. But even beyond that, there is a level that transcends both the activity and the art and makes it something sublime, something of an almost spiritual experience. In reference to Longsword fighting, what would you say is that highest, quasi-spiritual holistic level and what would a modern HEMA fighter who attains that level be like in a sparring match? Whom of all the historical Masters you have studied would you say most closely matched that level of sublimity in their fighting skills?
It’s a very hard question to answer because we lack biographical data for so many masters. We know Hans Talhoffer got into scraps and that Paulus Kal commanded troops, but we’ve little to no information about what their fighting looked like. Even Fiore only mentions the duels he was in and that he survived with body and honor intact. We know their teachings, but have no ‘picture’ of what their skills looked like in action.
We do however have a lot of references to the qualities of grace and courtliness. Still closer to the mark is the Italian term Sprezzatura, which Castiglione defines as “a certain nonchalance, so as to conceal all art and make whatever one does or says appear to be without effort and almost without any thought about it”. I’ve seen it in a few others at times and a fight where it manifests has an all but indescribable and transcendent quality.
This has become a standard question when interviewing people who teach: What has been your proudest or most satisfying moment as an instructor, and what are things you have learned from your students?
Seeing senior students push the envelope of our understanding makes me the most proud. Jess Finley, my most senior student and now our curriculum director and Provost, is very well known around the world, but even some of her most ardent fans don’t realize the depth of her knowledge base and commitment to understanding this stuff based on cultural context. I can cure a bad day by just looking to see her book on my shelf. That’s pride right there.
It’s also incredibly gratifying to know that I have “great grandstudents”. Jess is my student, Aine Connolly was hers, and now Aine has students of her own. That’s…breathtaking.
At least fifty percent of interpretation derives from answering students’ questions. If that isn’t the greatest gift of learning from one’s students, I don’t know what is.
With every interview I do I like to include one question that's in good nature and just for fun, so...what the heck is a Selohaar, anyway?!
Ha! Good one!
Well, in the early days of the Order of Selohaar, when we're young impressionable lads, we devised a very limited vocabulary for ceremonial purposes. Selohaar – or rather a torturously spelled early variant thereof – meant ‘guardian’ or ‘protector’. While I sometimes tire of explaining that, on the whole, the name has served well for its ‘brand uniqueness’.
In closing, I’d like to thank you, Scott, for the opportunity to take part in this interview, and for your very thought-provoking questions. It’s been a joy…
Comments
Post a Comment