Core Concepts

of Eskirmology

Eskirmology, as a science, is founded upon a set core of beliefs which act as a framework for investigation. This framework orients an Eskirmologist using a perspective drawn from historiographic analysis and technical analysis.


  1. A Risk Model (RM) and Incremental Combat Model (ICM) as a ‘frame’
  2. Desired Outcomes identified in order to derive “Strategy” (See Sub-unit 1)
  3. Obstructions to those desired outcomes are overcome using “Tactics”
  4. Understanding “Strategy” and “Tactics” we generate “Technique” (See Sub-unit 2)
  5. Applying the RM & ICM to ‘strategy’ and ‘tactic’, we derive ‘structure’ and ‘hierarchy of Technique’
  6. The sum of the above is what we call “System”.
Sub-unit 1:
  • Identify what we wish to achieve
  • Outline the anticipated steps required to achieve those outcomes (i.e. ‘algorithms’)
  • Create behaviours based upon biomchanical principles, to create organic algorithms.
  • Cross-reference organic algorithms with existing databases (i.e. existing Combat Systems):
    • If algorithms already exist:
      • Test the algorithms for solutions,
        • If feedback positive, integrate into System (i.e. reconcile into Unified Combat System)
        • If feedback negative, search for other solutions.
    • If algorithms do not exist:
      • Consider reasons why,
      • Proceed with the solution and test:
        • If feedback positive, integrate into System
        • If feedback negative, question reasons why negative feedback.


This Unit is reserved for higher level Eskirmologists, and is based upon investigating the Forensics behind particular martial arts – for example, we assess from two perspectives:

  1. We profile the ‘Founder’, his particular skills and attributes, the particular known experiences which contributed to the choices he made for his System
  2. We profile the influences of that ‘Founder’, attempting to reconcile whether his world-view was inherited or organic.
  3. We profile the social context, with particular interest in the events and circumstances which affected the ‘Founder’
  4. We investigate the range of students and ‘codifiers’ who made changes to the System based upon their own attributes, influences and experiences.

We then proceed to cross-reference this with the statistical analysis of the behaviours within that System to derive the ‘technique densities’, and demonstrate whether or not the techniques accurately reflect the personal traits and abilities of the founder.

The logical process of deduction to arrive at the Anthropic Combat System.

  • Martial Arts are sets of complex motor skills built upon a set of metaphysical rules for application (i.e. ‘strategy’), which means that they have processes derived from concrete experience. Those skills are selected based upon previous experience, personal attributes and prediction of potential future events. As such they form what is termed a ‘System’.
  • Systems are designed as solutions to problems. The problem Martial Arts were designed for was Risk of violent death in interpersonal Hand-to-Hand combat.
  • Martial Arts can therefore be studied using an application of Cybernetic principles.
  • All existing Martial Arts are based upon pre-scientific and heuristic methods resulting in them being based often only upon a single set of attributes (i.e. their own).
  • The sum of all options for Strategies and technical motor skills are what we conceptually term ‘Combat Logic’
  • Pre-scientific combat systems, taught all around the world, are based upon the same basic functions and hence we can see that nomenclature is often the only real barrier to discussion.
  • Martial Arts are derived, therefore, from the Rashomon Effect.
  • Modern martial arts must be understood by using the historiographical framework created called ‘The Martial Arts Delusion‘.