What is Loyal Order of the Sword?
The Loyal Order of the Sword doesn't use a single historical style. Is it still a martial art? Is it a Renaissance martial art? Is it historical re-creation? Is it just guys whacking each other with swords?
The best way I can describe the Loyal Order of the Sword is to relate it to the Ultimate Fighting Championship, cage sport. If you recall, the idea was something out of Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome; two men enter, one man leaves. Two combatants, with some rules, had to make one or the other submit, either voluntarily or involuntarily (knockout or a judge calling the fight for safety reasons).
What happened in the early days? The black-belts, with years of martial arts experience, were trounced by wrestlers. What was intended to be Jean Claude van Damme's Bloodsport, became a wrestling match in which karate masters were tapping the mat in agony as their arms and legs ended up in painful locks. It was unexpected and those fighters who wished to be competative had to change their traditional styles which didn't work in the cage.
Martial artists tell me that they are trained to kill, thus they are hampered in a fight based around the idea of submission. Then, I wonder, how do they do any live training at all, if all they know how to do is kill? Can they not practice in free-play, because one opponent would always die? To me, the traditional martial arts are covering for weaknesses. Time has passed and the idea that only combat methods from hundreds of years ago, from one culture or another are effective, strikes me as incorrect.
The Loyal Order of the Sword wants to teach people how to fight with a blade. That means our style has to be aware of the historical methods, but not locked into them. I've come across a dozen people who practice Capo Ferro. When we free-play, the moment I circle, they fall apart, unable to match someone who isn't playing expressly by their rules. My bouts with them reminded me distinctly of the UFC, and I was the westler. I've come across classical fencers, people professing to be masters of Italian or Spanish texts, and while I'm not so arrogant as to say, 'I won every fight, every time', I will be prideful enough to say that I was never out-matched by a 'superior' style.
The historical methods, in my view, were never meant to stop growing. They refined based around the rules and the tools available. The Italians, for instance, have fencing manuals stretching over a period of more than a century. While the manuals have similarities, they are not identical. Blades and customs changed and with it the manuals. Is one superior to the other? What about the Spanish method, can it be compared to the Italian? Even the Baroque French style that came in the later days of fencing. Is it somehow inherently inferior to the other methods or superior?
I look to UFC again. Competitors, realizing that their methodology had to change, altered their style. Partially, to become more well-rounded and effective fighters and partially to take advantage of the rules of the sport. UFC schools arose where fighters were taught not just a single martial art, but a variety of combat techniques from a variety of sources. They are not fighting to kill: this needs to be pointed out, but if someone thinks a top UFC fighter would be easy for a 'killer' martial artists to take down, they are fooling themselves and have no way to prove it.
The Loyal Order of the Sword takes ideas from numerous sources and utilizes them based on the rules and the tools available. I think all methods do this. Those practicing historical fencing, when in free-play, don't remove the tips from their blades and fight to the death, thus their techniques have to be altered to fit within sparring parameters. Some groups use wooden wasters to fight with. Others have safety rules that prevent the use of certain methods. The Loyal Order of the Sword does the same thing: we alter our fighting based on tools and rules.
So what are we?
So, are we a Historical Fencing Society? No, we do not have any manual from any historical period that we are bound to. We circle like Spainiards, pass like Italians and can volte with the best Frenchmen.
Are we a Renaissance Martial Art? No, to be honest a Renaissnace Martial art would practice the historic methods exactly, based on the idea of it being effective, but also to carry on the traditions, just as is done in Eastern martial arts. I give these fellows credit, because they are warrior-scholars. They have to take the time to learn historical texts and apply them, this (like any marital-art) can take a lifetime. Many of them rarely do free-play, and instead study and drill the 'plays' by the masters. They are a very dedicated lot with great resources out there!
Are we a Re-creation group? No, we have no interest in period clothing or re-creating historical 'kingdoms'.
Are we Classical Fencers? No, we have far less rules to abide by then they did. We use much longer and heavier weapons as well.
Are we Sport Fencers? No, if you think Classical fencers get stymied by rules, sport fencers are even more so! One must bear in mind though they are currently 'socially acceptable'.
Are we a Western Martial Art? Yes. The rapier is a western weapon and we teach and practice a variety of techniques with it that steadily alter and change as time goes on. It is not stagnant, it is growing. It is not without its faults either. I'm of the firm belief most organizations are good at 'what they do' and trouble arises when they misinterpret what other groups are trying to do. We are good at teaching people how to use a rapier in order to fight another person. I'll leave it at that.
