BFHS Position Regarding Scottish HEMA Controversy
This matter was brought to my attention some time ago by some of our Scottish members, who were concerned about claims of BFHS involvement in an initiative led by one Gordon Love. I attempted to investigate and received a variety of rather vague responses from Mr Love which did not address my concerns.
Eventually, a facebook group for the initiative appeared and I applied to join it. After hearing nothing for about a year my membership was suddenly approved. Seeing that Mr Love was still claiming to speak for BFHS clubs – some of which have expressed concern to me over this – and that he is trying to form a governing body for HEMA, I raised my concerns again. Mr Love’s response was not satisfactory, and I remain gravely concerned about this initiative and more importantly how it is being approached.
Mr Love has tried to portray my involvement as some kind of personal attack, which it is not. I have met him in person at one seminar. He seemed very agreeable. Other than that, I was not aware of him before this controversy and I have no personal animosity, though I have wearied of his evasive responses to my questions. Some of the statements he has made to me are rather disrespectful of the BFHS and of my own qualifications, but for my part I do not feel that I have insulted Mr Love. Instead I have displayed an excess of patience as I tried to get a straight answer out of him about my concerns.
What follows is to the best of my knowledge a true and accurate account of the matter to date.
The Initiative
Mr Love seems to be campaigning for the recognition of HEMA as a sporting activity, and for the creation of a governing body to oversee it. The BFHS has no official position on this matter, but we are concerned at the way Mr Love is going about it and the claims he is making. Notably, he seems to be claiming to have the support of the majority of Scottish HEMA groups. Some of those groups have expressed surprise at hearing they are supporting this initiative, which does raise questions about Mr Love’s statements.
BFHS Concerns
My involvement began when I became aware that Mr Love was claiming that ‘fruitful discussions’ had taken place with the BFHS and we were supporting his initiative to create a Scottish governing body for HEMA. As President of the BFHS I would surely have been aware of such a discussion or offer of support, so I queried Mr Love about it.
What came back was a cryptic statement that I was not the first President he had spoken to.
That may well be true, but it was not an answer to my questions. I have since asked – repeatedly – what was said by whom, and what was agreed. Mr Love will not answer. His responses – not answers – range from further vague statements that discussions were held, to a suggestion that the BFHS needs to keep proper records and hand over correctly between officers.
In fact we do, and I have a record of the emails sent to my predecessor by Mr Love. They make interesting reading. Mr Love states in some of these mails (which went to a group audience) that my predecessor’s HEMA group is ‘fully on board’ with the process and that as President of the BFHS he is supportive of the project.
The truth, however, is that my predecessor was included in these emails for information only and did not reply to any of them. He certainly did not express support or claim to be ‘fully on board’ with the process. On what basis Mr Love decided to claim this is a matter for conjecture.
There is no ‘fruitful discussion’ there, nor any agreement to support this initiative. Essentially Mr Love sent a document outlining his ideas to the previous President, and a few later mails to my predecessor and then to me. On the strength of this, I assume, he says that the BFHS has been ‘kept in the loop’. That, at least is somewhere vaguely near the truth.
I will discuss this document below. The point is that this was not a ‘fruitful discussion’ – it was an unsolicited document outlining an unworkable idea, followed by further mails to which no reply was made. This hardly constitutes a ‘fruitful discussion’.
Mr Love may have misunderstood something, or there may be some other reason why he has made this claim. I have repeatedly invited Mr Love to explain what was said by whom so that we can clear up any misunderstanding. The vagueness of his replies is, in itself, informative.
If a ‘fruitful discussion’ took place he should be able to outline what was said and by whom. He will not do so. I can only conclude that the emails sent to predecessor represent the ‘fruitful discussion’ to which he refers.
I can therefore only conclude that Mr Love’s claims of a ‘fruitful discussion’ with the BFHS are nothing more than a misrepresentation or misunderstanding; I do not know which. I do know that the BFHS never agreed to support Mr Love’s endeavour despite his claims that we did. Similarly, his claims that certain of our member groups support his project are untrue.
Gordon Love and the HEMA Recognition Initiative
Mr Love is ostensibly trying to achieve recognition of HEMA as a sporting activity by the relevant authorities. On the face of it this endeavour is not without merit. However, recognition requires a governing body, and the emergence of such a body would be of great concern to our members. Mr Love has already made reference to an AGM of the ‘governing body’ – it is clear that whilst he is taking the line that recognition is good for everyone and those who oppose it are some kind of bad guys, the fact is that he means to take control of Scottish HEMA.
In this, I believe that his motives are self-serving. Were such an endeavour lead by a well-respected long-serving HEMA instructor, it would be far more credible. Gordon Love is arguably none of these things. He is a sport fencing instructor who began teaching HEMA in recent years. This is not necessarily a problem – I personally came by the same route. However, I will offer my own path into HEMA as a comparison.
I started in martial arts in the mid 1980s and took up sport fencing in 1987. I qualified as a club leader (assistant coach) in 1989 and 1990 I qualified as a full coach. I experimented with historical martial arts along the way, but when I made the move to historical fencing I undertook what might be termed an apprenticeship in a HEMA club for some time before taking a qualification in teaching HEMA and only then began to do so. I had also studied historical combat for many years as a non-fiction author working in the field.
In short, despite my existing experience and qualifications I underwent a lengthy conversion process and took new qualifications before teaching.
To the best of my knowledge Gordon Love has no qualifications to teach HEMA. I asked, and he claimed that his British Academy of Fencing sport fencing qualifications are sufficient. I hold the equivalent from the Amateur Fencing Association and I disagree, as does the BFHS as an organisation. Mr Love also did not undertake a period of study in a true HEMA group – he simply pronounced himself fit to teach HEMA and began to do so.
Again, this would not be such a problem if the outcome were different. My own impression of Mr Love as a HEMA instructor is however extremely low. Admittedly it is only a snapshot, but I attended a class Mr Love taught at Smallsword Symposium and it was without a doubt the worst seminar class I have seen in over 30 years of martial arts experience.
This was a high-end specialist seminar at which Mr Love had been invited to teach. The audience ranged in abilities but included experienced smallsword fencers and some of the best instructors in Europe.
Mr Love’s class was ostensibly about the spadroon, but he delivered it using a Gardere-handle epee, i.e. a sport fencing weapon. He did not bring a spadroon, nor a smallsword or smallsword-simulator to the event. His class consisted of over an hour of exposition – some of which was rather inaccurate – about the spadroon followed by a couple of techniques which even the most experienced smallsword instructors were baffled by. After spending an hour standing around in full fencing kit, the actual content of the class was at best superficial and (I believe) not properly understood by Mr Love.
Mr Love also disrupted the event’s tournament by trying to tell the organisers how they should be running it, then brought the whole symposium to a halt in order to make an announcement about his own events. This was without the permission of the organisers and characterised the general disrespect he showed throughout for the event and its organisers.
I do not believe any of this was deliberate, merely that Mr Love does not understand HEMA and is so blinded by his self-interest that he failed to behave with courtesy towards the people who had invited him to teach at their seminar. The class he delivered might have been suitable for beginners or as an ‘interest’ class for a sport fencing group, but was wholly inappropriate to a seminar of this sort. This suggests to me that Mr Love does not understand the audience (HEMA practitioners) nor the material he was teaching, and is insufficiently respectful of the people he proposes to govern.
The Document
The document sent to myself and my predecessor could best be described as a sales pitch and was presented in a way that seemed to be aimed at a rather juvenile audience. The font was more decorative than professional and was anything but easy to read, and the contents were superficial at best.
This document essentially presented the idea that creating a governing body would result in various benefits, notably funding. This does not necessarily follow, but in any case the document contained nothing resembling a workable plan for making any of it happen. It was, to my reading, a pipe-dream at best and possibly a pitch to garner support for Mr Love’s attempt to gain control of Scottish HEMA. It did include the warning that ‘there can be only one’ and ‘it’s govern or be governed’. According to the emails sent to my predecessor this section was removed from the versions sent to some recipients.
My predecessor’s response was quite correct. From the appearance of the document and its (lack of) contents it seemed that this was nothing but an unworkable pipe-dream, but there was no point in saying so. He chose to monitor the situation without becoming involved and moved on to other business.
In Summary
The BFHS does not support Gordon Love’s attempts to achieve recognition for HEMA in Scotland. We are opposed to his attempt to create a governing body for HEMA in Scotland for the following reasons:
Despite Mr Love’s claims to the contrary, none of this is personal. He has chosen a course of action to which I am required to respond. I have stated what I believe to be the truth based on my own observations and the information I have to hand. Were Mr Love to address our concerns there would be some grounds for discussion but he has chosen not to.
As President of the BFHS, I have investigated this matter to the best of my ability and my conclusion is that Gordon Love has misrepresented the level of support for his endeavour from the BFHS and its member groups. If he continues to claim support that is not there, we will have to challenge this on every occasion.
This matter was brought to my attention some time ago by some of our Scottish members, who were concerned about claims of BFHS involvement in an initiative led by one Gordon Love. I attempted to investigate and received a variety of rather vague responses from Mr Love which did not address my concerns.
Eventually, a facebook group for the initiative appeared and I applied to join it. After hearing nothing for about a year my membership was suddenly approved. Seeing that Mr Love was still claiming to speak for BFHS clubs – some of which have expressed concern to me over this – and that he is trying to form a governing body for HEMA, I raised my concerns again. Mr Love’s response was not satisfactory, and I remain gravely concerned about this initiative and more importantly how it is being approached.
Mr Love has tried to portray my involvement as some kind of personal attack, which it is not. I have met him in person at one seminar. He seemed very agreeable. Other than that, I was not aware of him before this controversy and I have no personal animosity, though I have wearied of his evasive responses to my questions. Some of the statements he has made to me are rather disrespectful of the BFHS and of my own qualifications, but for my part I do not feel that I have insulted Mr Love. Instead I have displayed an excess of patience as I tried to get a straight answer out of him about my concerns.
What follows is to the best of my knowledge a true and accurate account of the matter to date.
The Initiative
Mr Love seems to be campaigning for the recognition of HEMA as a sporting activity, and for the creation of a governing body to oversee it. The BFHS has no official position on this matter, but we are concerned at the way Mr Love is going about it and the claims he is making. Notably, he seems to be claiming to have the support of the majority of Scottish HEMA groups. Some of those groups have expressed surprise at hearing they are supporting this initiative, which does raise questions about Mr Love’s statements.
BFHS Concerns
My involvement began when I became aware that Mr Love was claiming that ‘fruitful discussions’ had taken place with the BFHS and we were supporting his initiative to create a Scottish governing body for HEMA. As President of the BFHS I would surely have been aware of such a discussion or offer of support, so I queried Mr Love about it.
What came back was a cryptic statement that I was not the first President he had spoken to.
That may well be true, but it was not an answer to my questions. I have since asked – repeatedly – what was said by whom, and what was agreed. Mr Love will not answer. His responses – not answers – range from further vague statements that discussions were held, to a suggestion that the BFHS needs to keep proper records and hand over correctly between officers.
In fact we do, and I have a record of the emails sent to my predecessor by Mr Love. They make interesting reading. Mr Love states in some of these mails (which went to a group audience) that my predecessor’s HEMA group is ‘fully on board’ with the process and that as President of the BFHS he is supportive of the project.
The truth, however, is that my predecessor was included in these emails for information only and did not reply to any of them. He certainly did not express support or claim to be ‘fully on board’ with the process. On what basis Mr Love decided to claim this is a matter for conjecture.
There is no ‘fruitful discussion’ there, nor any agreement to support this initiative. Essentially Mr Love sent a document outlining his ideas to the previous President, and a few later mails to my predecessor and then to me. On the strength of this, I assume, he says that the BFHS has been ‘kept in the loop’. That, at least is somewhere vaguely near the truth.
I will discuss this document below. The point is that this was not a ‘fruitful discussion’ – it was an unsolicited document outlining an unworkable idea, followed by further mails to which no reply was made. This hardly constitutes a ‘fruitful discussion’.
Mr Love may have misunderstood something, or there may be some other reason why he has made this claim. I have repeatedly invited Mr Love to explain what was said by whom so that we can clear up any misunderstanding. The vagueness of his replies is, in itself, informative.
If a ‘fruitful discussion’ took place he should be able to outline what was said and by whom. He will not do so. I can only conclude that the emails sent to predecessor represent the ‘fruitful discussion’ to which he refers.
I can therefore only conclude that Mr Love’s claims of a ‘fruitful discussion’ with the BFHS are nothing more than a misrepresentation or misunderstanding; I do not know which. I do know that the BFHS never agreed to support Mr Love’s endeavour despite his claims that we did. Similarly, his claims that certain of our member groups support his project are untrue.
Gordon Love and the HEMA Recognition Initiative
Mr Love is ostensibly trying to achieve recognition of HEMA as a sporting activity by the relevant authorities. On the face of it this endeavour is not without merit. However, recognition requires a governing body, and the emergence of such a body would be of great concern to our members. Mr Love has already made reference to an AGM of the ‘governing body’ – it is clear that whilst he is taking the line that recognition is good for everyone and those who oppose it are some kind of bad guys, the fact is that he means to take control of Scottish HEMA.
In this, I believe that his motives are self-serving. Were such an endeavour lead by a well-respected long-serving HEMA instructor, it would be far more credible. Gordon Love is arguably none of these things. He is a sport fencing instructor who began teaching HEMA in recent years. This is not necessarily a problem – I personally came by the same route. However, I will offer my own path into HEMA as a comparison.
I started in martial arts in the mid 1980s and took up sport fencing in 1987. I qualified as a club leader (assistant coach) in 1989 and 1990 I qualified as a full coach. I experimented with historical martial arts along the way, but when I made the move to historical fencing I undertook what might be termed an apprenticeship in a HEMA club for some time before taking a qualification in teaching HEMA and only then began to do so. I had also studied historical combat for many years as a non-fiction author working in the field.
In short, despite my existing experience and qualifications I underwent a lengthy conversion process and took new qualifications before teaching.
To the best of my knowledge Gordon Love has no qualifications to teach HEMA. I asked, and he claimed that his British Academy of Fencing sport fencing qualifications are sufficient. I hold the equivalent from the Amateur Fencing Association and I disagree, as does the BFHS as an organisation. Mr Love also did not undertake a period of study in a true HEMA group – he simply pronounced himself fit to teach HEMA and began to do so.
Again, this would not be such a problem if the outcome were different. My own impression of Mr Love as a HEMA instructor is however extremely low. Admittedly it is only a snapshot, but I attended a class Mr Love taught at Smallsword Symposium and it was without a doubt the worst seminar class I have seen in over 30 years of martial arts experience.
This was a high-end specialist seminar at which Mr Love had been invited to teach. The audience ranged in abilities but included experienced smallsword fencers and some of the best instructors in Europe.
Mr Love’s class was ostensibly about the spadroon, but he delivered it using a Gardere-handle epee, i.e. a sport fencing weapon. He did not bring a spadroon, nor a smallsword or smallsword-simulator to the event. His class consisted of over an hour of exposition – some of which was rather inaccurate – about the spadroon followed by a couple of techniques which even the most experienced smallsword instructors were baffled by. After spending an hour standing around in full fencing kit, the actual content of the class was at best superficial and (I believe) not properly understood by Mr Love.
Mr Love also disrupted the event’s tournament by trying to tell the organisers how they should be running it, then brought the whole symposium to a halt in order to make an announcement about his own events. This was without the permission of the organisers and characterised the general disrespect he showed throughout for the event and its organisers.
I do not believe any of this was deliberate, merely that Mr Love does not understand HEMA and is so blinded by his self-interest that he failed to behave with courtesy towards the people who had invited him to teach at their seminar. The class he delivered might have been suitable for beginners or as an ‘interest’ class for a sport fencing group, but was wholly inappropriate to a seminar of this sort. This suggests to me that Mr Love does not understand the audience (HEMA practitioners) nor the material he was teaching, and is insufficiently respectful of the people he proposes to govern.
The Document
The document sent to myself and my predecessor could best be described as a sales pitch and was presented in a way that seemed to be aimed at a rather juvenile audience. The font was more decorative than professional and was anything but easy to read, and the contents were superficial at best.
This document essentially presented the idea that creating a governing body would result in various benefits, notably funding. This does not necessarily follow, but in any case the document contained nothing resembling a workable plan for making any of it happen. It was, to my reading, a pipe-dream at best and possibly a pitch to garner support for Mr Love’s attempt to gain control of Scottish HEMA. It did include the warning that ‘there can be only one’ and ‘it’s govern or be governed’. According to the emails sent to my predecessor this section was removed from the versions sent to some recipients.
My predecessor’s response was quite correct. From the appearance of the document and its (lack of) contents it seemed that this was nothing but an unworkable pipe-dream, but there was no point in saying so. He chose to monitor the situation without becoming involved and moved on to other business.
In Summary
The BFHS does not support Gordon Love’s attempts to achieve recognition for HEMA in Scotland. We are opposed to his attempt to create a governing body for HEMA in Scotland for the following reasons:
- Gordon Love is wholly unsuited to run such a body. He is not qualified to teach HEMA, let alone govern it, and has shown little respect either for the arts or for their long-established practitioners.
- A number of spurious claims have been made about support for this endeavour from the BFHS and its members. Mr Love will not address our concerns but has instead engaged in obfuscation and evasion over matters that should be very simple. We therefore feel that he cannot be trusted.
Despite Mr Love’s claims to the contrary, none of this is personal. He has chosen a course of action to which I am required to respond. I have stated what I believe to be the truth based on my own observations and the information I have to hand. Were Mr Love to address our concerns there would be some grounds for discussion but he has chosen not to.
As President of the BFHS, I have investigated this matter to the best of my ability and my conclusion is that Gordon Love has misrepresented the level of support for his endeavour from the BFHS and its member groups. If he continues to claim support that is not there, we will have to challenge this on every occasion.
