[Bill Grandy]

Within the past decade, it has been a common (and to a degree, necessary) occurance to have to battle sword myths by taking the opposite extreme. For example, we've all heard the myth of the heavy, cumbersome European swords that were made of low quality metal, which couldn't compete with the near-magical abilities of the Japanese katana. Most of us in the community today know this is patently false. Several years ago, though, this lead many of us, with good intentions, to combat this myth by exclaiming that all European swords were super light weight, and that Japanese swords were garbage compared to the superior European weapons. Obviously this second view is just as bad as the first, and I think most of us have come beyond this kind of extreme, polar comparisons of the weapons. Still, we as a community have definately had more than one of these types of attitudes in the past for various subjects.

There is another view, primarily with Western Martial Arts, that I hope we can move beyond. There is this false idea that medieval and Renaissance Europe was this lawless, rough and tumble world where anything went, and you might have to fight for your life at any turn of the corner. I recently watched a series of videos where the narrator went above and beyond to make the point that fencing in the Middle Ages was all about brutal efficiency, that Chivalry was left at the door when it came down to fighting, and that historical martial arts where all about dirty fighting as a means to an end in those violent days.

Yes, some fighting was brutal and vicious. That is always a factor to violence of all time periods and cultures. But if we actually look at the cultures of these arts we study, we really overemphasize this WAY too much. There is this sort of willingness to romanticize the anti-romantic, where we as modern people seem to love thinking that historical Europe came right off the pages of some spaghetti-western novel, that lawlessness abounded and people drew their swords whenever someone looked at another man cross-eyed.

Here are only a handful of the memes surrounding this myth:

-Medieval martial arts were about killing, plain and simple.

Some medieval combat was about killing. Much of it, however, was about non-lethal self-defense, personal/spiritual development, and plain old fitness. Johannes Liechtenauer's introduction to his martial arts zettel begins with a nod to Chivalric ideals, telling the "young knight" in training to learn knightly ideals (such as revering women) as well as to become strong in combat, not to become an unstoppable killing machine, but so "that your honor grows". And lets not forget the many tournaments of skill and prowess that were a large part of medieval life. While these tournaments had the benefit of training warriors for real combat, they still served an important cultural device that went beyond "kill or be killed".

In many of the various fencing treatises, there are a number of techniques that have both lethal and non-lethal techniques. For example, the master Lecküchner mentions at least once (if not more than once) in certain techniques that you can kill your opponent with the edge, but if you don't want to hurt him too badly, you can use the flat instead. And many of the dagger fighting techniques end up where you put the person in an arm lock instead of thrusting your dagger into the person (which would have been easier, truthfully, unless if you knew you didn't want to kill the person). Quite frankly, just as in modern times, you couldn't just go around killing people, sometimes even in self-defense. If your drunk father-in-law got angry at dinner and started waving a knife around, would you draw your own and kill him? Maybe, maybe not... if you could use any one of the hundreds of non-lethal take-downs taught by medieval masters, though, that'd make for a much happier marriage.

Matt Galas made a recent post on SFI that showed a number of reasons why a person in medieval France may have been pardoned for murder, showing how certain deaths were viewed as being done with the intention of being non-lethal, even if a person died by accident.

http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=90829

-Chivalry and honor are just romantic ideals. Combat is combat.

See above. Martial training in most cultures goes hand in hand with personal development, and European arts are no different. I already mention Liechtenauer's praise for chivalric honor, but he was certainly not alone. Several manuscripts talk about virtue and honor, and how these martial arts are not to fall into the hands of the unworthy who would use it for ill-will. Why would a culture spend so much time praising the deeds of both knighthood (i.e. a doer of violence) and chivalry if the two didn't cross paths? Why would knights have a code of honor if they knew they'd never use it? Sure, we know there were dishonorable men, and we know many would have broken their own vows. Does this mean that *all* knights did this? Or is it just another example where we, as modern people, are again claiming something is nothing more than romanticism, when we ourselves are guilty of romanticizing it?

-The rapier was invented in the Renaissance for street brawling, which was common in the day.

I have never seen a single shred of evidence to suggest that street brawling was common. Europe had laws, after all. Duels certainly happened, but in Italy there was a legal process that one went through... it wasn't Disney's Three Musketeers, where you offended someone and you drew swords and fought. If you did that, you'd get arrested, plain and simple. Killing was illegal, and even for duelling there was a formal legal process.

To say the rapier was invented for this kind of lawlessness is to assume our ancestors ruled without care for their citizens wellfare. Of course, some people did break the law. But if this were as common as myth would have it, why would you advertise this by carrying around a rapier? In fact, why would the government let you carry them around at all?

There are countless other things surrounding these myths, but these are just a few related ones that I keep hearing over and over again.

This post isn't intended to point a finger at anyone. Rather, I'm hoping we as a community can reevaluate some of the things that many of us spout off as fact, when the truth is that we're really just reacting to earlier myths of romanticism by replacing them with the opposite extreme.

[Jean Thibodeau]

Interesting post and maybe it is valid for all periods of history as humans are social and cooperative creatures otherwise no civil society could function.

This doesn't mean that we are not also " predator's " in nature from hunting to eat and fighting for dominance.

Fights within cultural groups involves status more than pure butchery and killing the enemy is not always the goal: Many times it is one of getting political control, honour, status as the " Alpha dog " , merging enemy groups into bigger wholes, receiving tribute etc ......

On the other hand clashes of cultures, religion, ideologies, tribes can turn genocidal, as well, periods of anarchy cancel out all the rules for a time, but people will naturally try to re-group for safety and some sense of order.

Examples: Assyrians would leave local Kings in charge of their city state if said king paid tributes and acknowledged the suzerainty of the Assyrian Emperor. This seems to have been the pattern in Sumerian, Babylonian and Assyrian times in Mesopotamia. At the same time revolt or defiance especially by a previously defeated vassal state could lead to extermination of the population and razing of the city down to ground level and the salting of the land.

Mongols would give generous terms to those who surrendered quickly without resistance but would make an example of anyone who resisted.

Anyway, not sure how on Topic this is ? But my point is that the default human way is much more cooperation than destruction, rule of law rather than complete anarchy. The exception are the small number of sociopaths, psychopaths, criminals or power hungry who are dangerous on a one by one basis but really dangerous when they get power as Kings, Dictators, or heads of governments. These people are also a very small minority that can have a disproportionate influence on history and the type of societies humans build.

In other words " GOOD " is more prevalent in human societies but " EVIL " , even by a small minority, can have a disproportionate effect on our history.

Weapons exist first of all for protection and for the good of society and depending on the culture are either ubiquitous or reserved for elites depending on many complex factors as well as " regulated " by either laws or tradition: Where weapons are common they are not abused by the average person because the average person is neither a criminal or insane.

At least that is my theory.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Hello Bill,

I largely agree but I find your third point about rapier a bit overstated...

[Allen Andrews]

An interesting and thought provoking thread. I don't feel I have the knowledge base to usefully contribute to the discussion, but this is exactly the sort of thing I like to ponder and pass on to the High School students I work with. This is one of the reasons I love this website.

[Bill Grandy]

Hi Vincent,
I definately concede that France probably had a much worse problem with duelling than the rest of Europe. But even in France, a duel was not, "You offended me, let's pick up swords and fight." And even still, that doesn't account for the rest of Europe.

In Italy, the duel went in and out of legality, but remained a fairly strong part of the moral code for their culture far beyond the Renaissance, well into the age of classical fencing (sabre and "epee"/spada).

Further, a brawl suggests that anything goes. That attitude was completely unacceptable in a private duel: The purpose of a duel was for the plaintiff and defendent to resolve their point of honor within a set of rules. If you agree to fight with swords, and I threw a rock, I am clearly showing my disregard for the duel, and therefore deserve to be the loser. This is not to say that duels were not vicious, because they were certainly violent and often deadly.

Tom Leoni wrote up a very nice summary of the rules on duelling in Italy (which were also applied in France):
http://salvatorfabris.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=104

These are very rigid rules, and yes, sometimes they didn't get followed to the letter. But it gives a strong insight into what went through a person's mind when deciding to take up the sword. It wasn't about brawling, it was about a belief to put your life on the line for something you viewed as important enough to do so.

Some highlights in particular from that:

[Ed Toton]

Bill, some excellent thoughts here. Thanks for posting! It's definitely an interesting discussion.

You often hear people comparing the medieval and renaissance periods to the "Wild West", but most people's notion of what the "wild west" was is also influenced by similarly romanticized and villainized misrepresentations of the history. I read somewhere that the relevant period for the "wild west" (which was really only one or two decades) saw less than a dozen recorded bank robberies for the entire region and period. Crime was lower than in the cities back east, per capita, and that people generally looked out for each other and cooperated for common goals. Most of the "wild" portion of the popular concept of this time came from journalists and novelists of the period who romanticized and dramatized what was happening for their readership in the cities back east.

So it's a false comparison, unless the comparison is being made to intentionally point out how popular misconception can create a distorted view.

This is a very interesting discussion.

[Max Chouinard]

I've been looking at this community for, what maybe 6 or 7 years, and I've seen an evident evolution in the way of thinking (although I might say some groups stayed behind...). When I arrived, it was the big knight vs. samurai thing. People were rediscovering that europe had some pretty effective martial arts and I don't know why but the JSA community was the most interesting to bash on. Nobody bashed on the chinese martial arts, korean or anything else. Maybe because of the mystique enclosing it, people were happy to play the iconoclasts, or maybe that it looked so much the same, like some people who hate someone else because they look the same but differ in some major points. This craze lasted many years but it soon lost momentum as many people were seeing the futility of such exercices or just didn't cared. But the good thing that this phenomenon brought was the fact that each community knew the other one a little better, and the cease of hostilities created some links between the two. Of course there are still dinosaurs who refuse to change their look and to stay isolated, but well, that's true in every community.

In the beginning we also saw many backyard groups being encouraged to establish and grow, dissing out the JSA community once again for being elitist that wouldn't let people do their own thing. Now this was necessary for a time, but now the teaching of the art being a bit more spread, people started to recommend going to a teacher and practicing for themselves only in dire situations. I think it is due mostly to the emergence of the Mcdojo phenomenon in WMA, people saw what uninformed backyard training can lead to.

That said I have also seen a split between the way of doing things. some group, I would say the majority, went in for a classical approach, with a part of research in historism, lot of driling, and some sparring. Some other went in for a more sportive approach, considering drilling to be the only way. And finally some others preferred the combative approach, going at it rough and tough, dissing out historism and trying to get close to modern combatives. I think they are the ones who, more often than not, disseminate the idea of WMA being kill of be killed arts for a time of utter barbarism and savageness, because it just help to sell it to the desired public (hey, our art comes from the most intense days of violence ever, so it must be more effective than the others, right?).

[Ed Toton]

I'm under the impression that JSA was the primary target simply because it had gained so much popularity and had taken on its own popular mystique of being nearly magical, or at least being the epitome of sword design and sword-related martial arts. The other sword arts that weren't targeted as such, I don't think ever truly reached the same level of hype in modern western culture.

The backlash, I think, was very specific, rather than lashing out at all other sword arts.

[Bill Grandy]

[Sean Flynt]

Here's an up-to-the-minute analogy from a story I heard earlier this week:

"A new survey shows that about two-thirds of Alabamians own a gun and nearly half have permits to carry concealed weapons."

Given my home-state's reputation, lots of folks, perhaps especially my European friends, might read this and imagine that Alabama is a fantastically violent place. The reality for most of us here is very different, either because of or in spite of the proliferation of firearms (take your pick). The point is this: Looking at a culture and seeing everybody carrying a gun or an edged weapon might tell us something about perceptions, technology, cultural traditions, etc., but doesn't necessarily tell us anything at all about the level or frequency of actual violence.

Add in the demographics on violence, which tell us what most of already know: Middle-class and wealth folks aren't gunning each other down in the suburbs and exurbs. The Med/Ren scene might be similar, with most men owning/carrying an edged weapon because of status issues, tradition, masculinity display, self-delusion, unfounded fear, etc. But then if we look closer we might see that armed fighting was viewed much as it is today.

Even today we tend to magnify the acts and values of people on the fringes of society.

[Ed Toton]

[Thom R.]

Even circa 1000 there were many prohibitions against dueling. for example, in the icelandic saga of gunnlaug, we have Hrafn and Gunnlaug intent on dueling each other to the death. They try to fight in Iceland, only to have the ruling council there tell them no - no dueling here. illegal upon pain of death to duel here. so they agree to sail to norway to settle their differences but again, the earl there tells them no - no dueling here. so they wind up walking into sweden just so that they could come to blows. that is a heck of a long way to travel just to find a jurisdiction where they would be free to fight. obviously there were probably plenty of deserted early morning beaches in iceland to settle their differences so it speaks to the power and intent of the ruling council there that they dared not breach the edict against dueling. sometimes the facts have a tendency to get in the way of the myths......

[Greg Coffman]

On the foyning rapier in battle Silver (unquestionably biased of course) states:
"For, you honor well knows, that when the battle is joined, there is no room for them to draw their bird-spits, and when they have them, what can they do with them? Can they pierce his corslet with the point? Can they unlace his helmet, unbuckle his armor, hew asunder their pikes with a Stocata, a Reversa, a Dritta, a Stramason or other such tempestuous terms? No, these toys are fit for children, not for men, for straggling boys of the camp, to murder poultry, not for men of honor to try the battle with their foes."
Regardless of his bias, his criticisms of the shortcomings of the rapier in battle are accurate. Now, that does not necessarily mean that rapiers were not carried on the battlefield, but it does strongly suggest that the battlefield is not the location for the development of the rapier. Rather, personal self-defense off the battlefield is where the rapier excels.

I think of the private duel as the exception to the majority of violence in the middle ages and renaissance. And if by private duel we are talking about judicial combat, "anything goes" seems to have been the rule.

Here are some excerpts from a letter of a country knight which describe the violent conditions in the Holy Roman Empire during the early 16th century. (taken from http://thearma.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23391)

"under princely protection we still live in constant apprehension. Indeed, whenever I leave my tower I face danger. If I fall into the hands of those who are at war with my overlord, they seize me a carry me away. If my luck is bad I lose half my patrimony in ransom... No wonder we must spend large sums on horses and arms and employ retainers at great expense to ourselves. I cannot travel a mile from my home without putting on armour. I dare not even go hunting or fishing except clad in iron. Not a day passes without some dispute or altercation breaking out amongst our retainers. Often it is nothing more than a contention among stewards....Knights and retainers go to and fro, among them thieves and highway robbers, for our houses are open to all, and how can we tell one armed man from another?"

Other parts of the letter do seem to make distinction between violence in the city versus violence in the country. In the country, the protection provided by such knights and princes is the only justice. But the letter speaks strongly to the inherent threat of violence in every day life for these people. Altercations break out regularly though they are often minor scraps. But who knows when somebody will draw a dagger, sword, or otherwise take it up a notch? The writer is genuinely concerned that at any moment he and his retinue could be assaulted so much that he feels forced to travel in harness. While attackers meaning to capture his person for ransom would not try to kill him, they would probably not spare his retinue. And then there are the thieves and brigands in amongst all of the other armed peoples and knights. And just because someone is a knight doesn't mean that he isn't a thief or brigand as well. The people behind the ransom attacks are other knights, princes, or other landholders.

Hopefully, cities would operate with much more semblance of justice. Violence was certainly still present but hopefully not as common. But very little of Europe could be considered urban during even the renaissance. The larger cities in France, Germany, England (namely London), and perhaps Spain might be "urban." Italy possessed relatively metropolitan cities in comparison to the majority of Europe. For probably 80% of Europe or more, enforcement of law and order rested on the martial ability of local magistrates, often country knights, to safeguard the innocent and apprehend the guilty in their jurisdiction.

Hopefully, the rest of Europe was not as bad off as the Holy Roman Empire during this time. Hopefully, the HRE was not as bad off at other times as it was in the 16th century. But let's look at the national violence in the HRE in the 16th century. There is the peasants revolt in 1524-25. Then the Turks were at Vienna by 1529. Switzerland figths a civil war in 1531 (Battle of Kappel). Then there is the Thirty Years war throughout Germany (followed by French wars of religion). And this does not even touch upon the regular infighting between local princes, knights, magistrates, etc.

The common man (and uncommon woman) could expect to witness a fight, get attacked, or be called upon to fight, not frequently, but with some degree of regularity. Fighting was first and foremost for war (whether that be on a battlefield or to intentionally engage in some smaller skirmish), then for self defense, and only lastly for duels, judicial combat, etc.

[Steven Reich]

[Chad Arnow]

I think a lot of it comes from overgeneralization. We can't paint with broad brushstrokes. Some swords were heavy, some were light; some were in the middle. Some areas were lawless and filled with sword-wielding brigands; some weren't. Some people used rapiers on the battlefield; others didn't. Sometimes knights tried desperately to kill each other in battle; sometimes they captured their compatriots, treated them like royalty and sold them back to their families. And there are areas in between all the extremes that happened, too.

I think the modern mind wants neat, easily definable buckets with which to categorize things. HIstory and humankind aren't that tidy.

The only absolute: there are no absolutes.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Hello again Bill,

Yes, I'm aware that there were rules for duelling, however these applied mostly when the duel itself was not illegal, which was not the case in France and possibly elsewhere. From what I've read it seems that the nobles here were in fact quite proud to solve their conflicts swords in hand rather than bring the matter to judges that were often not nobles. One of my books links this with the rise of a central authority in some countries, and gives Spain and Austria as other examples. It would be interesting to find out the real level of "illegal" duelling in these other countries...

In fact even in Italy I wonder how cool they were with dueling, because if I recall correctly the church called for the excommunication of duellists and of those who helped them... But then maybe this was not applied very firmly either In these circumstances, as a fencing master, you'd better be stressing that what you teach is very relevant to battlefield and not mention dueling too much...

When the practice is not lawful it also becomes less reglemented. For one thing there is no one to refuse to grant the duel if it is unfounded. The choice of weapons, location, time is more limited. Careful attention wasn't always payed to the equality between participants. In the Duel of the Mignons I mentionned before, one of the participant complained that his opponent had a dagger and not himself, and he was told that he should have thought of it before...

Many duels were thus fought on completely futile causes, by people who just loved to fight, or who wanted to take someone out for political reasons. Of course honour had to be maintained and so there were things that would have been seen as inappropriate. I also think that many dirty tricks were not used simply because they were not nearly as efficient as the proper use of your weapon...

That does not make these duels brawls, I agree. But it brings them just a step closer. It also means that as a noble, you were expected to be able to defend yourself in these situations without much preparation, in more or less appropriate places (that includes the streets indeed, even the parvise of Notre-Dame from what I've read), against opponents that might have been provoking you just to pick a fight and are not so keen on their honour.

As I see it, the rapier is perfectly suited to these situations. It's versatile enough to face a variety of weapons. Its particular style of use is the most economical and efficient to defend one on one without significant armour on either side. You can carry it all day with you, and it is still a sword, with all the associated symbols of status, not a knife or dagger... I'm not saying the rapier was designed out of nothing with this context in mind, just that this context certainly influenced its development from earlier swords, quite a bit more than concerns of military efficiency. Otherwise I figure that thrusting swords would have been widely used after the disparition of rapier, not just as token of rank.

I get your point and I agree that these times were not completely lawless with the streets overflowing with brawlers, but I don't think we should go to the other extreme. However well designed it can seem, the letter of the law was not always respected everywhere, even sometimes never respected, and the weapons and martial arts had to adapt to that.

Regards,

[Greg Coffman]

[Wes Pryor]

[Bennison N]

[Steven Reich]