Medieval Swordsmanship: Illustrated Methods and Techniques [ペーパーバック]

The author's first book, Renaissance Swordsmanship was a shocker. This book is perhaps worse, and it's a mystery why it continues to receive favourable reviews. I guess you can fool some of the people, some of the time.

The book covers two main weapons, longsword and sword and shield. As with his earlier work, both sections betray a very superficial understanding of any historical source. Despite showing some historical longsword guard positions, the author chooses to give his own guards, some of which resemble some historical guards, many of which don't (for example he claims that his hanging guard is the German Ochs or the Italian Posta di Donna, it doesn't really resemble Ochs and is completely different to Posta di Donna).

Clements teaches the withdrawal of the arms when cutting, something which should offend anyone with the most rudimentary understanding of tempo. He teaches what are essentially modern sabre parries with the longsword, which if he understood German theory, he would know is exactly what you are told not to do. The techniques he shows bear no resemblance to anything that can be seen by looking at original manuals.

The sword and shield section is even worse. Clements claims that his method of shield use is historical, yet it violates every principle of historical shield use. He holds the shield flat in front of the body, which authors like Marozzo tell you to do against polearms or multiple opponents, but NOT in single combat against another sword armed opponent. Clements' guards leave him vulnerable to having his shield bound by his opponent's. It also means that practically every cut he shows commits the cardinal sin of shield combat, exposing the arm in front of the shield. Lastly, Clements advocates moving the shield to block attacks, when historically combatants moved their bodies around large shields, not the shield around their body. All of the fundamentals that he could get wrong he does.

While in the longsword section you can see some effort (albeit poor) to follow historical practice, it is clear that the sword and shield section was simply made up. It is ironic that the author spends so much time criticising others for making up techniques and then does it himself.

This book was poorly researched and out of date when it was written, but it was the only book out there on medieval swordsmanship. This is no longer the case. There are a great many books, almost all of them a massive improvement on this sorry tome. For the longsword we have Christian Tobler's Secrets of German Medieval Swordsmanship, followed by his Fighting with the German Longsword. David Lindholm's Knightly art of Swordsmanship and Zabinski's Codex Wallerstein are both good works on the German system. There is also an excellent DVD by a German group called Ochs. The Italian system has Arte Gladiatoria, a translation of Vadi's manual, and the Swordsman's Companion, an excellent training manual. Sword and shield is less well covered. The Art of Medieval Swordsmanship translates the I.33 sword and buckler manual, while Medieval Sword and Shield explains it. There are also two excellent articles on the use of large shields in Spada and Spada II. Any of these books is preferable to Medieval Swordsmanship.

It is shocking to think that less than ten years ago, academic standards in this field were so low that this dreadful book was actually considered acceptable. There are so many good books in this field, with more being produced every year. The thought of anyone buying Medieval Swordsmanship in 2006 is apalling.

After reading all the reviews on this particular book I decided to buy it. After the first couple of pages I got the feeling that Mr Clements was full of himself and buy the end I was sure of it. As most I am sure, I was first introduced to sword's via the movies when I was young and even at that young age I knew it wasn't real. Mr Clement's seems to concentrate to much on pointing out the obvious. What you see in the movies is fake and the actors OBVIOUSLY aren't trying to kill one anouther. The book far to much concentrates on degrading and blatently insulting any and all asunder that do not conform to his veiw on swordmanship. The final straw for me was the attack he made on the great fantasy artists Boris and Frazetta. They paint picture's for crying out loud and it's fantasy painting! Of course it's not real Mr. Clements! People that engage in fantasy combat aren't trying to kill one anouther or worry about how authentic there costume's are. They are having fun and that's what they want to do. I have met these kind of people and they don't take thensevles seriously because they just want to enjoy their past time and have fun. This particular book has very little substance to it and often it's instruction is rudely interupted by the auther digressing to attack some form or method he doesn't agree with. I am an enthusiast that has been studying authentic sword play for many year's and I enjoy watching Conan and Xena and read many fantasy novel's and enjoy the art that adorn's its cover's. This book, at the core of it, is a way for Mr Clements to endorse his own method of sword practice as "The only way". Paladin Press did not do their editing job at all with this book so I did my own and took a black texter to the ranting's of the author and ended up with a much smaller and better book. I suggest you do the same.

It's customary for a reviewer to tell some of their experience so I'll just say I am a fencer with an interest in sword history. Nuff said there. Until discovering this book all I could find about European fencing other than the sport kind was fantasy stories and choreography lessons.

This book is an enormous store of information that just can't be found anywhere else. The book is not perfect but it doesn't pretend to be and says clearly its directed at many different audiences so not all the material will be relevant to everyone. The book states clearly it is not a how to work or a practice guide (although it practically is!). There is no question that in offering such a range of information and stating what has long been needed to say, John Clemens has done an invaluable service to all of us seriously studying their Western European martial heritage.

Beginning with an introduction what is and isn't included in the book, it goes on to give a good overview of medieval warfare and the source material for the subject. Then sword themselves are describe din great detail in a way not previously done, that of a warrior or rather a modern student. The book then goes into the use of the medieval shield and sword with hundreds of lifelike drawings that are better than photos in relaying movement clearly. The same is done for the long swords with even more material presented. There are dozens of terms provided and historical background for almost everything discussed. Not much is less unanswered or uncovered. After about 200 pages it becomes overwhelmingly clear that this is a sophisticated martial art being described and that in spite of all the information included it has only begun to be address. The books rounds out with appendixes on various editorial matters (and gets a little dull here unless you look at the larger context, hardly "controversial").

As for historical references, the book is full of them and it gives constant advice to go and study them. In a general-audience work nothing except a basic bibliography is usually required (and the book provides much more than just that). The fighting material refers back repeatedly to the source manuals and does not bother with trying to footnote every single techniques suggested or every single action a sword can make in combat (which is the same style oriental martial arts books follow in describing their styles).

To make the point about how it was historically done you can't help but talk about the faults of how it's done by some people today. About 20 pages out of 340 or so detail the differences in the various styles and approaches to medieval swordsmanship followed today and he offers comments on how they affect the resurrection of western martial arts. He shares his beliefs about how while in the context of each organization their methods and beliefs are sound, they are not necessarily conducive to the study of a real martial art. In doing so he seems to have has garnered the anger of a host of enemies. Seems like the ones crying the loudest at Clement's dead-on critiques and in your face style are the same ones who all this time have done little to nothing in the first place. No wonder they attack the man and not the power of his message. Part of the problem may be that for years we heard only from theatrical fight arrangers and SCA "fighters" about how they were the only ones who had the ancient skills of medieval swordsmen. If the book comes across as too critical about reenactment sports, it could just be the backlash against all the earlier confusion created by the role-players and sportsmen themselves.

Having seen the kind of things first hand what for so long has passed for medieval swordplay movies, renaissance festivals, SCA, and fantasy games, perhaps these things needed saying in a blistering manner to make up for it. At the least these popular practices needed to be placed in the context of what the book is conveying, namely the nature of real swords and their historical style of use. Readers need to just open up and learn from this excellent book and knowledgeable author-martial artist.

Finally, given the controversy surrounding the range of the reviews above, I feel the need to offer the following. There are disgruntled critics out there who've gotten emotional and personal with their reviews rather than addressing the content or value of the book; Why? Maybe because: 1. the book contained information the id not know (-which made them feel inadequate) 2. the book contained information that contradicted or invalidated the popular ideas they believed )-which makes them feel ignorant) 3. The book contained information which they disagree (but given the first two items above, they now are unsure of and so feel insecure) I've talked to stage performs, role-players and re-enactors who all agreed with the book's characterization of what they saw in the others, but then when it came to their own group or practices they declared it was way off. That's ironic. In summary, this is a powerful and extremely useful book that does what no other comes close to doing. While I would have liked more of some areas and less of others, there is simply no other book that has ever done what this detailed and impressive book has for the subject of medieval swordplay. The author and his work should be congratulated not insulted. It will be hard to surpass.