The History of Eskirmology is a portrait of the progression of human knowledge in the field of fighting. Any history of Eskirmology is therefore entwined within the various pre-scientific combative systems which have littered orthodox history. As a consequence, it is not a well-known history held by tradition and passed down from generation to generation. The History of Eskirmology is rather the story which generated the sum total of all innovations in the field of fighting.

Attempts to reach genuine knowledge about fighting was rarely pursued in the East, where confucian values forced progression and innovation to take a back-seat to tradition and reverence of ancestors. In the West, however, Renaissance scholars actively followed a process of critiquing and sometimes rejecting the “knowledge” which they inherited. Often they had reason to doubt the world around them, and therefore doubt the knowledge which their ancestors had given them about that world. Their quest was to seek out the truth, by whatever means possible. The product of that quest was a method by which anyone in the world might follow the same chain of deductions to reach a conclusion. That method was the “Scientific Method”. It existed as a set of parameters by which any “knowledge” should be tested, and if that knowledge emerged from the other end of testing, it was regarded as a fact.

The problem which arises in any discussion of a “history” of eskirmology is that the progress exhibited in the West is essentially a process of becoming gradually a) more specialised, and b) less eskirmological. In which case, the “Science of Defence” (as it was known) went from an eskirmological institution to the practice and dissemination of Fencing. The sport of Fencing is one of the last remnants of evidence of any eskirmological progress.

Yet as many people know, the history of Fencing is a history of foiling a dangerous weapon for use in recreation – certainly not a process of arriving at a genuine Eskirmological (Realistic) Combative System. The History of Eskirmology therefore stretches beyond the origins of Fencing as a sport, perhaps back to warriors and knights who made it their occupation to use weapons.

The Earliest evidence of an Eskirmological Combative System was that designated the product of Johannes Lichtnawer. His actual works are lost, if any existed at all, but what evidence we have of his System, written by experts of his school demonstrate a legitimate Eskirmological practice.

Lichtnawers system has all the hallmarks of an Eskirmological System; a definite teleology, a coherent and logical tactical/operational basis, and an creative technical manifestation. From four divisions of the body came 4 methods of breaking, and from these four divisions came four principle blows directed from them, and therefore 4 postures from which those blows could be stopped. Based upon a categorical basis of Time (Vor, Indes und Nach) as well as Space (Vier Blossen) and it’s dimensions (around, through, over, under etc), Lichtnawer demonstrates a significant Eskirmological basis for his Combative System.

Moreover, Lichtnawer works in terms of Universal Statements from which any selection of specific elements may be used dependant upon specific circumstances. Lichtnawer listed a set of Catalysts through which any technical techniques might be applied. The list (composed of Vorsetzen, Nachreissen, Oberlauffen, etc) stands as a list of Operational mechanisms combining temporal or spatial (vor, nach, ober, unter, durch, um, ab, an etc) concepts with technical behaviours (lauffen, reissen, setzen, wechseln etc) through which any of the Drey Wunder (”Three Wonders”, or applications of an edged weapon) may be applied, in any of it’s spatial modes (descending or ascending). This means that he has effectively derived all existing possibilities, and has listed them all, meaning that any attack or defence ever conceived of by man is catalogued in a few simple sets of terms. The greater diffuse complexity of any set of techniques is consequently due to the variety of combinations in which these may be applied.

The profundity of Lichtnawers Combative System is truly astounding when one realises that his system was invented during the Middle Ages in 13th Century Germany. I am inclined to believe that any Combative System may be explained in terms of Lichtnawers terminology, and may also be understood better by means of his system. This means that Lichtnawers was arguably the world’s first significant step towards Eskirmological truth in fighting.

The abandonment of Lichtnawers system was as much due to lack of understanding as it was to the technological specialisation which arrived in the Renaissance. Scholars could not accept that fighting could encompass the use of both the edge and the point of a sword in fighting, and thence arose a powerful and irrecoverable polarity amongst those who pursued purely cutting and those who pursued purely thrusting.

As many fencing historians know, modern fencing is a product of those scholars who pursued the latter mode of combat. Yet this is where Lichtnawers System was completely rejecting as a means of understanding fighting. The deep association of the Lichtnawer system with the Langen Schwert meant that when the Long Sword ceased to be fashionable, so too was the Lichtnawer system of its use. This short-sighted view inevitably meant that later eskirmologists further examined fighting and described it in their own terms, and although they often did not realise – often with significant similarities with Lichtnawers system.

Bruce Lee

The pursuit of eskirmologics has never been as explicit as it was with the late Bruce Lee. Lee, coming from experience (and personal heritage) in the Far Eastern Combative Systems where tradition was not to be questioned, attempted to install an Eskirmological perspective in contrast to the submission to tradition exhibited in the East. This contrast has never been more evident than in Lee’s works, where he outright decries any submission to a tradition which supports the tradition more than the individual. To Lee, the tradition existed for the individual, not the other way around. His personal notes demonstrate that he was adhering to the works of his philosophical idols. Krishnamurti’s works, consisting of a rejection of Instituitionalism, of becoming one’s own truth, path and life became significant influences on Lee’s mind.

It has often been argued that, because no works actually exist by Lee – apart from a short article on Liberation from Karate – that his contribution to the martial arts was due to influences and not due to anything essentially his own. This argument however falls upon problems however when we consider the sheer opposition which he would have had to these views. It is one thing to read and be influenced, but it is more to apply and put into practice. This, as Lee was aware, was more important than whether he simply repeated the words of his various influences. Moreover, since all we have is his personal notes, we have no real way of knowing how he would have put his understandings into words, and although many of Lee’s quotes are almost direct from other sources, we have recourse to beleive that they stem from personal notes rather than his own wordings for a martial arts public.

Regardless, Lee’s product of Jeet Kune Do exhibits the first modern step towards liberation from Ritualised Combative Systems, and from inherited knowldge about fighting. In which case, Lee’s Jeet Kune Do might readily be defined as a Proto-eskirmology.