Are you an Academic or Practitioner?

[Eric Meulemans]

In continuing research related to my History MA work, as well as personal curiosity motivated by such, I pose the question to you, with regard to Western Martial Arts/Historical European Martial Arts:

[Brent Lambell]

I have a feeling this one is going to end up with most of us leaning towards the combination scholar-warrior. My experience within ARMA thus far has shown me that we tend to attract those who love to train and fight hard, but also enjoy looking in some archaic fighting manual trying to read 500 year old verse. Personally, I relate to the classical idea of strong mind and strong body so this fits hand in hand.

[Aaron Pynenberg]

well, as a "dead" art, it's pretty difficult at this stage to not be a scholar. You have to have some grounding in the historical sources, otherwise you will loose many valuable insights into what our craft entails.

As we all know, the problem sometimes comes in when we spend too much energy in just the one area. We need Scholars to practice, read and fight. This method keeps us all grounded and on the right track-AP

[Shane Smith]

There are plenty of folks who could talk me to death concerning our art, but I much prefer to fence. I feel any competent RMA practitioner must be both a thinker and a doer of things. Still, I prefer the experience of the "doing" of the Art above all else.

[Mike Cartier]

scholar practitioner with a side of mashed potatoes

[Brent Lambell]

well, as a "dead" art, it's pretty difficult at this stage to not be a scholar. You have to have some grounding in the historical sources, otherwise you will loose many valuable insights into what our craft entails.

I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment for myself, but as I become more familiar with the HEMA community, I am realizing a lot of people are happy to accept and practice flawed interpretations just because someone they see as reputable told them to do it. ARMA's method requires a certain amount of skepticism and desire to prove the art to oneself by interpretation and application.

I also think part of the scholar-practitioner draw is the historical context, the Italian Renaissance was a revival of classical culture that valued a strong mind and strong body. I can say that is part of the appeal for me.

[Matt Bryant]

I think that in the majority of cases if you are only a practitioner, your lack of scholarly understanding will keep you from reaching your full potential. Likewise, if you are only a scholar and do not practice your interpretations will suffer immeasurably due to not understanding how fighting works.

All in all, I agree with Doebringer who says that it is better to just practice without a deep understanding versus having that understanding and not practicing. Physical fitness does more for you in a fight than theoretically knowing how to kill someone.

[Benjamin Smith]

Despite the fact that I do quite a bit of "research" I haven't generated any real original material yet, and the vast majority of what I do is practicing and perfecting what I have learned. I'm definitely not split equal despite the fact that I spend a lot more time doing serious research than anyone else in my area, so I answered Martial Practicioner.

[Stacy Clifford]

Likewise, although I do my own share of research, I listed myself as a practitioner because my activities are not distributed evenly, which is how he defined it in the poll. If he hadn't specified, I would certainly have claimed both.

[Nathan Dexter]

I don't think its really all that possible to be a practitioner without being a scholar as well. I think its a little eisier vice versa though. Although I have to say my practitioning has been lacking lately.