Amberger+Clements="Enemies"?

Folks,

Back in the old days of J. Christoph Amberger's HAMMERTERZ FORUM historical fencing newsletter, ARMA man John Clements had several articles published--one on constructing realistic sparring "swords", one concerning Miyamoto Mushashi, and one that considered the possible outcome of a fight between a katana-armed samurai and a European rapier stylist (there may have been a few others that I can't currently recall). All were rather interesting, and were presumably well-received. Then, Amberger wrote a somewhat (deserved) mixed review of Clements' "Medieval Swordsmanship", and from then on, I believe, Clements did not write any more pieces for HAMMERTERZ FORUM. Then, when HAMMERTERZ folded and Amberger started doing articles for FENCER'S QUARTERLY Magazine, Amberger wrote a fascinating, though rather sharply-critical article concerning WMA groups in general, and it appeared that ARMA (then HACA) and Clements were among those that Amberger had the biggest problem with ["The Death of History: Historic European Fighting Arts in the Mis-Information Age", Fencer's Quarterly, Spring 2001]. This came somewhat as a surprise to me, since, aside from the review of "Medieval Swordsmanship", everything had seemed basically fine between these two people (like Amberger is always found of saying, "Fencers love to disagree with each other"). Now, when I was on the ARMA site yesterday, looking at the "Most Recommended WMA Books" section, I couldn't help but notice that Amberger's awesome "Secret History of the Sword" was conspicuously absent. I don't mean for all of the above to be some sort of internet gossip (especially as I am a long-time admirer of Amberger, and I also respect Clements)--I'm just really interested as to what happened to cause the current situation. I have spoken with Mr Amberger on several occasions over the years (he's a really cool and really smart guy), but I frankly never felt really comfortable just asking him what happened. What I would like to know is this--have any of you folks out there noticed this comparatively recent rift between Amberger and Clements? I realize that situations like this do occur (look at Cecchine and Furey), but I'm just not totally clear on what led to this current state of affairs between the former HAMMERTERZ publisher and the founder of ARMA.

Very Cordially,

TFS

P.S. Again, I wish to stress that it is NOT my intention by bringing any of this stuff up to cause any further problems between Mr Amberger and Mr Clements. The above material was posted purely out of mere curiosity. Thanks.

I'm not aware of any bad blood between them specifically, but it's not difficult to see where it could stem from- they have two completely different backgrounds and approaches to the WMA. Clements is taking a reconstrucionist approach and doesn't differentiate his influences for specific techniques in his books. Amberger studied an existing system and from what I remember of his book (been awhile since I picked it up last), was conscientious in footnoting his sources.

Moreover, I've noticed that ARMA is very insular in that they don't seem to interact much with the broader WMA community. They don't appear to attend or instruct at WMA conventions/seminars that aren't sponsored by ARMA. I don't know if they simply aren't invited or that they don't choose to attend. Similarly, you don't really see any marketing of ARMA events to the broader WMA community, but instead they seem to market only to their member groups.

I'm not sure what influenced the move from HACA to ARMA, but I have a feeling that they might have circled the wagons with that change. I believe they now have some kind of membership requirement, I don't know if it is a kind of "inner circle", though. I've noticed HACA/ARMA is pretty heavy on the censorship on their forums, also, so I think they may be a little over-sensitive to criticism these days.

As an outsider, I don't know how all of the above may work together, but there certainly seems to be something going on over there. So I'm not surprised if they cut ties with Amberger if they believed he was criticsing their approach to WMA.

Jason Couch

Maintaining credibility is very difficult when actual combat experience is lacking. There are two ways to address this problem. The first is to demand standard academic qualities and to work as a facilitator of the expansion of knowledge rather than the ultimate source. The other way is through sheer strength of personality which unavoidably breaks down into clannishness and politics.

Amberger takes the first path, Clements the second.

Jason and Manicured Brawn,

Very interesting commentary from both of you. Thanks.

I'd like to get other peoples' opinions as well, so if anyone else has anything to add, please do so.

TFS

P.S. I'm also thinking about posting at least excerpts from Amberger's "Fencer's Quarterly" article--let me know what you folks think.

A while back on one of the Sword Forum discussion forums, there was a prolonged flamewar pitting Amberger against Clements and some other HACA/ARMA folk. I mention it because from what I recall it shed some light on the issues between Clements and Amberger.

Clements started the ball rolling by posting a review of an online article by Amberger which discussed the use of kicks in swordfighting. Amberger responded with a pissed-off post in which he accused Clements (justifiably, IMO), of mis-representing what Amberger had said in the article, and of being (possibly deliberately) obtuse about what the points made in the article really were.

From what I recall of the ensuing verbal mayhem, it appeared that Clements was unhappy with Amberger's edting of some of Clements's pieces for Hammerterz Forum, and that Clements and his disciples were indeed pissed about the review of Medieval Swordsmanship. It also appeared that there had been some previous online exchanges in which each man felt that the other had been disrespectful or innaccurate or both.

The exchange quickly degenerated into name-calling, with Clements & co basically accusing Amberger of being an armchair theorist who didn't fight, and Amberger questioning Clements's reading comprehension, research standards, etc. I thought both guys posted some pretty silly things at this point, as people tend to do when angry.

I agree with previous posts in regard to the two having very different philosophies in regard to reconstructing WMA, and I'd guess that this plus a certain ammount of arrogance and ego on both parts
had a lot to do with the feud.

I respect both men and their contributions to WMA. I think Clements is right to emphasize sparring, but that Amberger is also correct that good research and accurate references are needed, and I agree with Amberger and others that Clements has in the past wasted a lot of time and bandwidth slamming other groups instead of concentrating on the historical record and the 'how and why' of his own approach.
(Not saying Clements doesn't research what he does, btw - I was happy to see that his latest 'Edge Parrying' article on the ARMA site gave copious references, showing that he does have the knowledge to back up his interpretations).

My intent here is not to bash anyone, but to try to give a partial answer to TFS's original question. I own both Medieval Swordsmanship and 'Secret History' and both are very good resources IMO. It's unfortunate that these two guys were apparently unable to put differences aside and maintain some mutual respect and cooperation.

I've wondered about this "feud"/split/whatever, too.
Amberger's book seems to reach a lot of the same conclusions that Clements/ARMA/HACA does. (I base this on reading Amberger's book, & stuff on the ARMA site; I do not have the Clements books.) Also, I read the review of Clements' Medieval book on Amberger's site. It did not seem particularly scathing. Did Amberger write a different one at some point?

jimmy o'curry

katsujinken,

Great commentary on the controversy here.

"Clements started the ball rolling by posting a review of an online article by Amberger which discussed the use of kicks in swordfighting. Amberger responded with a pissed-off post in which he accused Clements (justifiably, IMO), of mis-representing what Amberger had said in the article, and of being (possibly deliberately) obtuse about what the points made in the article really were."

I was not aware of the above incident--interesting.

"The exchange quickly degenerated into name-calling, with Clements & co basically accusing Amberger of being an armchair theorist who didn't fight, and Amberger questioning Clements's reading comprehension, research standards, etc. I thought both guys posted some pretty silly things at this point, as people tend to do when angry."

For Clements to accuse Amberger of being an "armchair theorist" is indeed silly. Amberger may not engage in the kind of historical reenactment and sparring that is done by guys like Clements, but he has done sports fencing (particularly saber) since 1984, and I think that it should also be taken into account that he also fought 7 schlager mensuren from 1985 to 1987--how many WMA guys are there that can make the claim that they have fought someone else with SHARP swords, with the intention to actually CUT the opponent (albeit under a highly artificial set of rules)? And how many WMA practitioners can say that they have trained in a long-established European sword system (that is NOT part of modern sports fencing) that is clearly related to old English backsword/singlestick?

I wouldn't question Clements' "reading comprehension", though he does admittedly seem a bit liberal with his "research standards" (and that is NOT meant as a sign of disrespect to Clements--the man has probably done more than any other single person to reconstruct the practical, functional side of European sword arts).

"I agree with previous posts in regard to the two having very different philosophies in regard to reconstructing WMA, and I'd guess that this plus a certain ammount of arrogance and ego on both parts had a lot to do with the feud."

Well put.

"I respect both men and their contributions to WMA. I think Clements is right to emphasize sparring, but that Amberger is also correct that good research and accurate references are needed, and I agree with Amberger and others that Clements has in the past wasted a lot of time and bandwidth slamming other groups instead of concentrating on the historical record and the 'how and why' of his own approach."

I agree.

Good stuff.

TFS









As a former Houston HACA member (I'm not an ARMA member) I think that I can answer some of your questions.

Yes, there was a cyber-rift btwn John and Amberger. Once again it was basically the fencer vs martial artist question coming up again. Everyone has an opinion but there is only one way to find out who is right! Generally speaking, fencers aren't willing to find out the answer to that question!

Yes...John used to spit out venom about non-martial role playing groups who call what they do martial. However, in the 4 yrs I sparred at Houston HACA we were snowed under with negative posts from such groups and instructors so it is only natural for John to react in a defensive manner.

Yes...HACA is now ARMA because John is trying to make a living $$$ teaching his recreationist WMA...I wish him much success btw. John owns the rights to ARMA totally so it is now John's group and not a group of independent scholars like HACA was at one time.

Amberger has fought several "sport" schlager "duels" ...so what??? I've been in several knife fights...that doesn't make me Jim Bowie- but I risked my life...not just the cheeks of my face. John also has risked his life dueling with live blades...just ask him to show you his battle scar!

BTW...John has also studied Foil, Epee, and Italian and Hungarian saber so I don't see why some "fencing" experts say that John knows nothing of modern fencing and without such "modern" fencing knowledge John is unquallified to teach swordsmanship. What makes fencers quallified to teach Historical Swordsmanship???

I wouldn't call John and Amberger exactly enemies...but I haven't spoken to JohnC in almost a year so I could be wrong...I'd just call them two commercial writers trying to sell books to the same readers!

Hope this answers your questions.


Train hard,

Brian Jones

Pakyon,I'm an admirer of both John Clements and J. Christoph Amberger. As a person with a sports fencing background, I personally must confess that I found some of your statements about Amberger, mensur duellists, and sports fencers to be rather subjective and judgemental. I would like to address some of your points in more detail in the very near future.Respectfully,TFS

Pakyon,Yes, there was a cyber-rift btwn John and Amberger. Once again it was basically the fencer vs martial artist question coming up again. Everyone has an opinion but there is only one way to find out who is right! Generally speaking, fencers aren't willing to find out the answer to that question!Could you possibly be more specific as to what the apparent points of disagreement were/are between these two men that you alluded to above?Yes...John used to spit out venom about non-martial role playing groups who call what they do martial. I still do on occasion.However, in the 4 yrs I sparred at Houston HACA we were snowed under with negative posts from such groups and instructors so it is only natural for John to react in a defensive manner.By non-martial role playing groups? By sports fencers? By both?Certainly, I do think that I have some idea about a certain "class" of sports fencers who are rather arrogant and dissmissive of any type of fencing or weaponed fighting that is not sports fencing. In my many years at BCAF I ran into my fare share of such folks, and it was annoying and frustrating from time to time. I was criticised in some circles, for example, due to my negative commentary on modern sports saber--my problem has always been that, I don't like how one is allowed to score with virtually any part of the end of the blade (ie., you can score with the flat of the blade as well as with the true and false edges). I always found this to be absurd, to the point where I would deliberately "limit" myself (in the sports fencing sense) when bouting at saber, as I insisted in always delivering proper edge cuts. One of my coaches at BCAF cautioned me early on that sports fencing is filled with its share of prima donnas--and he was certainly correct.Yes...HACA is now ARMA because John is trying to make a living $$$ teaching his recreationist WMA...I wish him much success btw. John owns the rights to ARMA totally so it is now John's group and not a group of independent scholars like HACA was at one time.I wish Mr. Clements luck. He has certainly done his fair share of research regarding the practical applications of WMA, and he is to be commended for that. Amberger has fought several "sport" schlager "duels" ...so what??? I've been in several knife fights...that doesn't make me Jim Bowie- but I risked my life...not just the cheeks of my face. John also has risked his life dueling with live blades...just ask him to show you his battle scar!Your downplaying of Amberger's fencing achievements is both unfair and innacurate. As I have already stated on this thread, Chris has a background in both modern sports fencing, as well as the use of the schlaeger in the mensur. The fact that Chris has training in such a comparatively archaic system of Western sword usage is fascinating, and again, it is clear that German schlaeger-play is related to 18th and 19th century English singlestick. While it is not a "martial art" per se, the use of the schlaeger involves a sophisticated system of cuts and parries that is not found in any other surviving method of Western sword use (though there may be some related techniques from la canne that I'm not familiar with). Considering the mensur's connections to earlier forms of more combative European swordplay, I'm surprised that you don't give Chris more credit. Also, mentioning your street knife encounters frankly wasn't even necessary--when has Amberger claimed that his mensur experience had anything to do with real life-or-death fights? And as far as risking those cheeks, I still have to honor Chris as a gutsy guy--to face off against live steel, even in such a controlled context, still takes a lot of nerve and skill.However, I would like to know more about Clements' duelling scar and the events that led to it. [continued below]

[continued from above]BTW...John has also studied Foil, Epee, and Italian and Hungarian saber so I don't see why some "fencing" experts say that John knows nothing of modern fencing and without such "modern" fencing knowledge John is unquallified to teach swordsmanship. What makes fencers quallified to teach Historical Swordsmanship???Your supposed negative view of sports fencers in general seems a bit odd, considering that Clements has a background in sports fencing himself, as you pointed out. Clements wrote to me back in '97, and proudly declared that he had fenced in all three weapons for some 17 years. As I have pointed out several times before on this Forum, modern sports fencing, despite its obvious limitations, still teaches one about proper timing and distance, as well as the basic mechanics of thrust and cut, as they are understood in the West. As Clements told me himself, sports fencing gives one a "solid base" to work with. I can only assume that your overly-critical view of the sports fencing community is a result of having to deal with the prima donnas I mentioned above. It is a a shame that you have allowed certain folks within that community to sour your opinion on the community as a whole. I wouldn't call John and Amberger exactly enemies...but I haven't spoken to JohnC in almost a year so I could be wrong...I'd just call them two commercial writers trying to sell books to the same readers!It's too bad that Amberger and Clements no longer get along, especially since they both have their share of strong and weak points (between the two of them, one has the various bases of research pretty much covered). I, personally, have learned much on the subject from both of these dedicated individuals.Sincerely,TFS

OMG...a fencer who realizes that fencing is full of prima-donna's....YAHOO!!!! I'm impressed TFS!!!...lol

IMHO the root of the problem is that John Clements is not a "qualified" fencer in the eyes of many in the the fencing community hence the "rift" btwn JC & Amberger. Ego-politics...as long as both gentlemen keep researching, and publishing, I'm happy!

Your right about Amberger having guts...and it DOES take guts to face a man weilding a schlager...but it is still not life&death! (OMG...he's not going into a Silver tirade;-)

Martial vs Duel, again...it's too long to go into here...lol However, there IS a big difference btwn risking ones life and just risking scaring a few inches of flesh!!! And a schlager is not a proper sword- if we could ever agree on what IS a proper sword...lol


When I was at HACA we were under daily "e" attack from BOTH the role-players and various fencing maestro. It got so tiresome that we just, rightly or wrongly, ignored them.

BTW Clements sword scar-battle wound is just my poor attempt at humor (@ JOhn's expense- what are friends for;-) John had a training accident and stabbed himself in the leg with a longsword a few years ago... enough said.

Yes...I do hold most sport fencers in low martial esteem... However, the best rapier fighters that I have fought WERE college foil or epee champions and JohnC always encouraged everyone at HACA to crosstrain in sport fencing. And you are right, so is John, in that sport fencing gives one many, not all, of the tools to understand and appreciate rapier play... From my personal observations having a backgroung in sport fencing accelerates the "rapier" learning curve of new scholars. I have NO background in western sport fencing btw- and TBH I suck @ rapier play. I do much prefer 'ye ole' cut&thrust blade.

TFS you are right in that the prima donnas have turned me off towards sport fencing. However, I have met some European and Australian sport fencing coaches (OK...and several American role players) who were very open to Historical swordsmanship so perhaps I could be more openminded in the future also- consider my cup emptied.

Thanks for taking the time to address my post TFS- it's much appreciated.


Train hard- fight true,

Brian Jones