systems of Asia, like karate, kung fu, muay thai, and so forth. These systems are mostly associated with empty hands methods of combat, and imagined to be deeply rooted in Eastern spirituality. However, these assumptions are only partly correct. There is an abundance of martial arts systems in Asia, many of them are specialized in empty hand methods, and some do see the spiritual development of their practitioners as their main goal. Yet, martial arts are a much broader phenomenon, and can indeed be understood as a basic constant of human culture, common to all times and regions70 – the universality of the problem of violence has always nurtured the development of martial arts as a necessary technique for the survival of the individual, and the group. (Wetzler, 2012, p. 64) Peter Lorge gave a minimal definition of ‘martial arts’ that serves well as a starting point for the further discussion:
I define ‘martial arts’ as the various skills or practices that originated as methods of combat. This definition therefore includes many performance, religious, or health- promoting activities that no longer have any direct combat applications but clearly originated in combat, while possibly excluding references to these techniques in dance, for example. Admittedly, the distinctions can be muddled as one activity shades into another. In addition, what makes something a martial art rather than an action done by someone who is naturally good at fighting is that the techniques are taught. Without the transmission of these skills through teaching, they do not constitute an “art” in the sense of being a body of information or techniques that aim to reproduce certain knowledge or effects.71 (Lorge, 2012, pp. 3–4)
In fact, martial arts possess a very strong tendency to attract and fulfil functions beyond the immediate preparation for interpersonal violence. Martial arts training curricula that address other functions just as much or even more than actual combat application are as common as those exclusively geared towards fighting. Generally spoken, there are at least five main ‘dimensions of meaning’ ascribed to martial arts practices: 1) preparation for violent conflict; 2) play and competitive sport; 3) performance; 4) transcendent goals; 5) health care. (Wetzler, 2015, pp. 25–26) To varying degrees, all of these dimensions have been present throughout history. The notion that only the combative dimension is ‘true’ to the idea of the martial arts, while the others are symptoms of decline – often uttered by
70 See Green and Svinth (2010) for an excellent take on the omnipresence of martial arts in human culture(s). 71 I agree with Lorge that the transmission of knowledge is an integral part of the martial arts. However, we could
imagine a single person devising his or her own, personal combat system, training and fighting without ever teaching it to somebody else. I would not hesitate to classify this as a martial art. For a more detailed discussion, see Wetzler (2015, pp. 23–24).
modern practitioners – is without a historical basis. An individual martial arts system may be active in one, some, or all of the five dimensions, and of course, the dimensions may also overlap. This is the reason why a distinction between ‘martial arts’, ‘combat sports’, and/or ‘self-defence’, though practical at first glance, often becomes useless in confrontation with historical or living martial arts systems. Therefore, the term ‘martial arts’ is used here as an umbrella term for any movement system that basically refers to personal combat, and partakes in at least one of the aforementioned five dimensions. In the context of the European Middle Ages, these are mostly the combative, the sportive, and the performative dimension. Following the European tradition, the term ‘fencing’ will be used as synonym for the martial arts of the Middle Ages.
Since the Bronze Age, European culture has put tremendous efforts in the technical perfection of its weapons of war, and the history of the European sword, to name one prominent example, testifies to this.72 The swords of the Bronze Age, of the Roman Empire, the Migration Period or Viking Times were products of outstanding craftsmanship, high-tech of their days. It is hardly conceivable why such high standards in weapon production should not be matched by proficiency in the use of weapons.73 Information on pre-medieval weapon training is sparse, with only short glimpses into historical practice, like the training of Roman soldiers described by Vegetius. (Önnerfors, 1995, pp. 24–26) The same is true for Migration Period and Viking Age combat methods. Due to the lack of detailed sources, all theories on their existence or form remain hypothetical to the largest part. However, the situation changes with the High Middle Ages. From that time on, there is ample evidence for the existence of systematic martial arts training, either in the context of the military education of the knightly class (Fenske, 1990, pp. 68–82) or of judicial combat. The following quote will give an impression of how deeply professional fencing training was embedded in medieval urban culture:
Sucht man nach den hochmittelalterlichen Vorläufern der städtischen Fechtmeister, kommt dem Phänomen des gerichtlichen Zweikampfs und der Kampfstellvertretung eine zentrale Rolle zu. Zu nennen sind hierbei vor allem die teils mit einem festen Monatssold vergüteten, teils freischaffend tätigen städtischen Kämpen, die im Sinne eines Wahrheitserweises den Rechtstandpunkt einer Streitpartei unter gerichtlicher Aufsicht auf dem Kampfplatz ausfochten und als die ersten professionellen Nahkampfspezialisten des Mittelalters gelten können. In den Aachener Stadtrechnungen etwa finden sich über mindestens elf Jahre hinweg die beiden städtischen Kämpen Scotard und Beysennecken, die 1338 intensiv auf den Ernstfall vorbereitet wurden: Für
72 See, e. g., the articles collected in Deutscher, Kaiser, and Wetzler (2014).
25 kleine Goldgulden oder 33 Mark 9 Schillinge nebst Kleidung erteilte ihnen ein Meister Wiricus Unterricht im Nahkampf; zudem wurden Meister Wiricus, sein famulus und die Kämpen in dieser „Trainingsphase“ auf städtische Kosten verköstigt. Die Tätigkeit von magistri genannten Fechtlehrern in der Vorbereitung auf einen gerichtlichen Zweikampf ist auch aus England hinreichend belegt: Der vermeintliche Axtmörder Walter de Stewton wurde 1220 eigens gegen Kaution aus der Haft im Londoner Tower entlassen, um sich bei einem Fechtmeister für einen anstehenden Zweikampf schulen zu lassen – et discere eskirmire. Auch das nordfranzösische und normannische Recht schrieb für den gerichtlichen Zweikampf obligatorisch Fechtlehrer vor, die die Kämpfer in der Zeit bis zum Kampftermin trainieren sollten – für diesen Zweck unterhielt etwa die Stadt Cambrai bereits im 13. Jahrhundert nicht weniger als elf bretons, wie diese Funktionsträger in den Quellen genannt wurden. Offenbar versammelte sich um den verfahrensregulierten und mit festen Vergütungssätzen lockenden gerichtlichen Zweikampf spätestens seit dem 13. Jahrhundert ein professionelles oder zumindest semi-professionelles Personal von Kämpen und Fechtlehrern, die häufig in den Städten ansässig waren. Stellvertretend seien hierbei die sieben escrémisséeurs aus dem Pariser Steuerregister von 1292, die von Luigi Zanutto eruierten neun Fechtmeister im Cividale des 13. und 14. Jahrhunderts sowie die Paduaner Kämpendynastien der Cavacio, Bravi und Dal Rio genannt. (Jaser, 2014, p. 208)
From around the year 1300 on, the fencing masters' teachings were laid down in manuals that explained the use not only of the single-handed arming sword, but also, depending on the source, of buckler, two-handed sword, messer, or dagger, of pole arms or of empty hands techniques, for the combat with and without armour. In the Middle Ages, the term ‘fencing’ was not exclusive to fighting with a single sword, as it is nowadays. On the contrary, fighting systems were ‘complete’ – they tried to prepare for all weapons and all eventualities, and were just as highly developed as their today better known Asian counterparts. The German speaking parts of Europe produced a great number of medieval Fechtbücher,74 many of which describe fighting with the two-handed sword – often in the tradition of German master Johann Liechtenauer of the early 14th century (Hils, 1985) –, before Renaissance and Early Modern martial arts culture turned towards Italian, and later French, methods of thrust fencing. Fencing manuals are no oddities, but constitute a large genre within the field of medieval practical literature. They fulfilled several functions: e. g. as mnemonic devices for the author's personal training, as presentation and advertisement for a certain style of fencing, or as written instructions for the self-learning fencer.75 Many of them describe fencing techniques by word and image, and could be called forerunners
74 For an overview over this kind of literature, see Jaquet et al. (2016) and Bodemer (2008). An overview of the medieval German fight books was given by Forgeng and Kiermayer (2007), a complete list of the German illustrated fencing manuscripts was provided by Leng (2008).
75 Eric Burkart analysed these various functions using the example of the treatises of 15th century fencing master Hans
of modern day martial arts or self-defence training books.76 Even though any interpretation of historical European martial arts techniques is hampered by a number of serious methodological problems, and though a perfectly accurate re-creation of these techniques is most likely not possible, the fencing manuals do give enough information to describe the techniques and movement patterns contained therein quite precisely.
The art of fencing, as described in the manuals, was not restricted to the knightly class, but common among wide circles of society. (Wetzler, 2012, pp. 67–68) As we have seen in the chapter on the ‘knightly mode of combat’, systematic combat training was also known the Scandinavian North. Saxo Grammaticus had his hero Gram learn the use of the sword for attack and defence. (Olrik & Ræder, 1931, p. I, 13). The konungs skuggsjá gives detailed instructions for combat exercises, not only on horseback (as quoted before), but also on foot:
En æf þu ert staddr i kaupstað eða æinum hværium þeim stað er æigi ma hæsta nyta til skemtanar þa skallt þu þæssa skemmtan ælska at ganga til hærbærgis þins oc bua þec þungum wapnum. Leita þer oc þærs felaga er mæð þer wili leic fræmia oc þu wæizt at wæl er til þæss lærðr at bæriaz unndan skillde eða buclara hvart sæm hælldr er ut lænndzkr eða herlænzkr. Tac þu oc iafnan til þæssa leics þung wapn annat twæggia bryniu eða þungan pannzara oc haf ihæannde þer annat twæggia þungan skiolld eða buclara oc þungt swærð. J þeim leic skallt þu wiðr leita at næma hœwilig hogg oc nauðsynleg oc hallkœmleg oc goð wiðr slog. Kenn þer oc at hylia þec wæl mæð þinum skillde oc þat at þu mætter þæssa luti wæl warazk fa æf þu att wið owin þinn at skipta. Ef þer þyckir noccot unnder at wæra wæl lærðr af þærri iðrott þa haf þænna leic tyswar um dagh æf þu matt wiðr komaz. En ængan dag lat þu swa allan ut ganga at þu leikir æi þænna leic æinu sinni nema heilact se þwi at þæssi iðrott er sœmilegh at kunna hværium konongs manni oc þo nauðsynleg æf til þarf at taca. […] Þar til skallt þu gera þer æitt skapt oc hælldr þungra en spiotskapt oc reis siðan marc bacca millim swa sæm skottein þar wið mattþu næma hværsu langt eða beinnt þu matt spioti skotit fa swa at skot þitt wærðe hallkœmt. Ðat er oc goð iðrott oc þo skemmtan at ganga mæð boga sinn iskot bacca mæð aðrum mannum. Su skemmtan er oc goð oc halldkem æf maðr wæn sec at kasta af slongo hvartwæggia langt oc þo beint bæðe af starfslongu oc hanndslongu. Eð wapnsteini wæl at kasta. En forðum war sa siðr at allir þeir mænn er full komnir willdu wæra iþærs kyns iðrotom at wæra wæl lærðar til wapna oc riddara skaps. Þa wanðu þeir bað hænndr iamkringar iallu wapna skipti til at gripa oc wiðr þat leitaðu æf þu þyckez þat finna at þu hæwir til þærs natturu.þwi at þeir ero bæzt at ser gœrwir íþæirri iðrott oc hættazter sinum uwinum er swa ero lærðer. […] Syn þec I orrosto diarwan oc ufælinn wægh þa mæð hœfilighum hoggum oc halld kœmum æpter þwi sæm fyrr hafðer þu numit swa sæm af goðo skapi oc þo driugleghre reiðe. Æigi skalltu bæriaz mæð liugannde hoggum eða þarflausum lagum eða mæð skialgum skotum swa sæm fælmtannðe maðr. Ga þu þærs at þu kunnr at warazk annars wigkœni (Brenner, 1881, pp. 99–100)
76 In fact, this genre never really disappeared. Even though changes in intention, presentation, function and use have to be considered, one could draw a direct line from the earliest German texts to modern guides on self-defence. For a comparison between the corpus of Talhofer fencing treatises and a modern tutorial on the Israeli self-defence system
As the quote shows, combat skills were perceived as something to be acquired by diligent training. Talent is only spoken of with respect to unusual abilities, like wielding one's weapons ambidextrously with equal expertise.
It is difficult to estimate how much impact such advice truly had on young Norwegian hirðmenn, and even more difficult to judge its influence on Icelandic martial culture. But we know that, like their Norwegian brethren, the Icelanders of the 13th century were well aware of the fact that fencing was not only “an action done by someone who is naturally good at fighting” (Lorge, 2012, pp. 3–4), but a set of techniques and qualities that could be learned, and enhanced by training. For example, the Fóstbrœðra saga tells us: Hávar og Þórelfur áttu son þann er Þorgeir hét. Hann var bráðger maður og mikill vexti og sterkur og kappsfullur. Hann nam á unga aldri að hlífa sér með skildi og vega með vopnum. (p. 776 / ch. 2) It is no coincidence that we find this explicit reference to fencing training here in Fóstbrœðra saga. Throughout the text, its author is eager to demonstrate his knowledge of matters outside the usual scope of the Icelandic horizon.77 The exceptional mentioning of systematic fencing training refers to the then en vogue martial arts of Europe.
The saga authors were aware that competence in combat is dependent on several qualities a person can have: aggressiveness, or fighting spirit is one (and probably the most important), physical strength a second, and fencing skill a third. Their descriptions of saga protagonists address these different aspects with a diverse, nuanced vocabulary. Warriors in the sagas are not only fearless and strong, but also skilled and able with the weapon, as is demonstrated by words like vígfimr, vápnfimr, vápnfærr, or liðfærr. Some men know að neyta vápna (Heiðarvíga saga, p. 1385 / ch. 30), or they are traustur til vápns (Vatnsdœla saga, S. 1850 / ch. 7). Admittedly, these words by themselves do not necessarily imply that fencing skills are acquired by training, rather than by natural talent,78 but they attest to the idea that a one has to master a certain set of movements to fight effectively. The quotes from konungs skuggsjá and Fóstbrœðra saga however prove that training was the key to weapon mastery for the Norse fencer. The same mindset shines through the lines of other sources, like Sturlunga saga, where we find important indications for the awareness of advanced European fencing technique and for the perception of
77 For a general introduction to Fóstbrœðra saga and its composition, see Kroesen (1962). A detailed discussion of the sagas sources, and the so called klausura (the learned digressions in the text), can be found in Kristjánsson (1972), whose views are supported by Bragason (2000). Ebel (2000) and Hartmann (2002) discuss meaning, motivation and moral implications of the violence described in the saga.
78 In fact, it is the mark of the true hero that he does not need to train fighting, but intuitively understands and excels in it from early age on, like Egill Skallagrímsson or strong Grettir. As far as their combat skills are concerned, such characters do not develop, but start the story with an outstanding level of expertise that they keep throughout the action, if not injured or growing old.
martial arts as a skill that does not just ‘happen to be there’: Lauga-Snorri gekk fyrir Sturlu ok hlífði honum með buklara ok hafði sverðit undir buklaranum, sem þá er menn skylmast. (Jóhannesson, Finnbogason, & Eldjárn, 1946, p. 435) The combination of sword and buckler79 mentioned here is well attested both in the literature80 and in illuminations of the High and Late Middle Ages. Most noteworthy, it is the subject of Europe's oldest surviving fencing manual, now kept in the Royal Armouries in Leeds, England, and known according to its signature as the MS I.33 (sometimes also called Tower or Walpurgis Fechtbuch). The book was written by a German-speaking fencer, as the Latin instructions are interspersed with German fencing terminology. It displays a highly advanced system of fencing with arming sword and buckler.81 One of its basic principles is the use of the buckler to protect
79 For a detailed history of the European buckler, see Schmidt (2016). Schmidt lists several Norwegian bucklers which are very similar in material and appearance. One of them (Kulturhistorisk Museum Oslo, nr. 954) even carries a runic inscription: kun=nar gerþi mik hlhi a mik (siglum N 189 M). (Schmidt (2016, pp. 118–119))
80 Kellett (2012, pp. 37–40) has discussed the depiction of fencing – or schirmen – with sword and buckler in Middle High German literature, for example in Kudrun. Her observations are highly interesting in our context, since she is also willing to interpret literary representations of combat as witnesses to a European martial arts tradition, once they match existing sources on fencing, and shall thus be quoted in full length:
“The epic Kudrun features a passage giving one of the most detailed descriptions of the practice of schirmen to be found in Middle High German literature. The depictions of combat in Kudrun, as in the Nibelungenlied, are somewhat archaic in style, with the combatants portrayed as ‘heroes’ rather than as ‘knights’, and there is a greater focus on the use of the sword in both Kudrun and the Nibelungenlied than on combat with the lance. Texts such as these seem likely to be a useful source for material on schirmen and the art of fencing. The description of schirmen in Kudrun takes place while Wate is visiting the court of King Hagen and his queen Hilde in Ireland disguised as a merchant. During Wate’s stay at Hagen’s court, entertainment is offered to the guests, including a display of fencing and of throwing javelins: […] The text gives details of the weapons used for schirmen: kiule (cudgels), swerte (swords) and buckelaere (bucklers). [...] Hagen asks his guest whether Wate has seen any fencing as good as this in his home country. Wate, in his guise as a merchant, pretends he has no knowledge of swordsmanship and responds that he would be grateful for a lesson. Hagen proposes that Wate take a lesson from the best Irish schermmeister at court, so that Wate will at least know drî swanke (‘three strokes’, 359, 3) to use if he is ever in combat. The meister arrives, and begins to ‘teach’ Wate, but it quickly becomes obvious that Wate is by far the better swordsman. As the fight begins, Wate takes up a guard position ‘as if he were a champion’ (‘Wate stuont in huote, | sam er ein kemphe
wære’, 360, 3–4). The meister is saved by his agility – he leaps away like a wild leopard (361, 1–2) as Wate rains
blows on his shield – but is clearly outfought by his ‘student’ (schermknabe). At this point, Hagen proposes that he fight Wate himself so that he can show him ‘his four blows’ (‘die mînen slege viere’, 362, 3). Wate reluctantly agrees