Inspiration

This post was inspired by a blogpost by historian and historical fencing instructor Adam Franti about methodology in HEMA. I recommend reading it. Don’t worry: it isn’t very long.

In that post, Adam argues that all HEMA practitioners have a methodology even if they are not consciously aware of it.

“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 in HEMA” by Adam Franti

He proposes a model for understanding how HEMA practitioners develop their methodology. This model is based on the interaction between two key components:

• a practitioner’s goals and
• a supporting methodological framework

He sees this model not as prescriptive, but descriptive and as a tool for facilitating more productive conversations between historical fencers.

“The following [model] 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.”

– “Methodology in HEMA” by Adam Franti

I agree that understanding one’s unspoken assumptions about fencing is key to having better discussions between historical fencers. I’ve written in the past about what I called “fencing ideology”, which I see as a similar and related concept. I liked Adam’s analysis and decided to apply his framework to myself to examine my own methodology.

Classifying my methodology

Adam’s model is based on the interaction between two key components:

• a practitioner’s goals and
• a supporting methodological framework

Goals

Adam describes five general categories of goals:

• Study a single weapon
• Win competitions
• Embody a source
• Community improvement
• Find the ideal

You can read his detailed descriptions of what these categories mean in the original post here.

I think all of these goals are somewhat important to me, but I do not find them all equally important. I would rank these five goals for me, personally, from (1) most important to (5) least important like this:

1. ★★★★ Study a single weapon (but applied to many weapon types)
2. ★★ Find the ideal
3. ★★ Community improvement
4. ★ Win competitions
5. ★ Embody a source

The stars (★) represent how much weight I give to each goal.

If I had to summarize all of my fencing goals in a single sentence, it would be this:

My core motivation in historical fencing:
I want to understand how people thought about fencing in times and places where fencing was not just a pastime, but also a practical skill, and I want to be able to apply the insights I gain from that study in practical fencing practice.

Framework

Adam describes four general categories of frameworks that historical fencers use to facilitate their goals and gives names to the kinds of fencers who apply that framework:

• Synthesists create a new, personal system of fencing
• Syncretists tightly frame a small cluster of interrelated sources
• Culturalists contextualize a single source
• Universalists apply a single philosophy to all fencing

You can read his detailed descriptions of what these categories mean in the original post here.

In terms of framework, I think I’m clearly a synthesist. Although I am interested in developing a well-informed understanding of many individual sources and traditions, my motivation for understanding those traditions is not to embody each one specifically, but to better understand the diversity of fencing and improve as a fencer.

“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.”

– “Methodology in HEMA” by Adam Franti

At the same time, I reject the notion that I am inventing anything new. I’m simply compiling existing concepts. How I mentally sort and structure these concepts and arrive at my personal understanding of fencing may be new and unique, but I would argue that every single person who has ever fenced has developed a personal conception of fencing based on what fencing concepts they were exposed to. That personal understanding in unavoidable. Nevertheless, because my focus is on developing my personal understanding of fencing based on a broad reading of many historical sources, I clearly fit Adam’s definition for the synthesist.

I see a bit of myself in Adam’s universalist category too, because I’m happy to conceptualize a given fencing tradition using anachronistic or unrelated concepts if that helps me understand it.

“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.”

– “Methodology in HEMA” by Adam Franti

However, I draw a distinction between using anachronistic concepts to facilitate understanding versus using anachronistic concepts to interpret the historical source. I am aware that bringing foreign concepts to the interpretation of a historical source runs the risk of projecting ideas onto the source that are simply not there. For example, although the laws of physics have not changed since the middle ages, our understanding of the laws of physics has; we should not assume that a medieval author had a Newtonian understanding of mechanics. Analogous examples can be made for philosophical or fencing concepts in historical sources. Therefore, I see great value in understanding each historical source on its own terms and am grateful for the culturalists and syncretists who are more specialized in their approach.

What’s the point?

I think it’s worthwhile to examine where one lands on the methodological map. I think there’s utility in analyzing one’s own goals and methods for achieving those goals. I also just found the exercise kinda fun 🙂

I’ve also found that historical fencers can easily talk past one another because what we do is simultaneously very niche and very diverse. Being aware of how our goals and methods differ can save us a lot of time arguing and allow us to skip ahead to saying “okay, that’s cool – you do you”.

I invite you to examine your own methodology too!

Further Info

I think Adam Franti has a lot of really good takes. If you want more from him, I can recommend the following:

• He wrote “Foundations of Fencing”, a workbook designed for modern students of the 16th century fencing master Joachim Meyer, which can be found here
• He hosts a podcast called “Murder Hobos” about masculinity and violence throughout history that can be found here or on Spotify here
• He has published a number of fun lectures through the Lansing Longsword Guild on YouTube here