| Author |
Message |
|
Nicholas Rettig
Location: Alexandria, Virginia Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 26
|
 Posted: Thu 01 Jul, 2010 7:11 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
I have read that fights would have ended very quickly yet I have also read about duels where multiple shields had to be used because they would be destroyed in the fight. Which I assume means that the fights lasted for a while if the duelist had enough time to break multiple shields.
|
|
  |
 |
Luka Borscak
|
| Posted: Thu 01 Jul, 2010 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Breaking multiple shields is more connected with viking duels, they could last longer than later medieval longsword duels.
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Thu 01 Jul, 2010 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jakub Adam Janiszewski wrote: | The main difference between fiore and German masters is that he writes about battle situation where practitioner of his art is forced to fight against multiple adversaries. His teachings are also more systematized than German. We may laugh from the naming policy yet if we look at other sections of his treaty we can easily find out that names of positions and techniques are the same . What's more it is impossible to fully understand his teachings by simply omitting first few chapters by going strait to the longsword section( I know people who did the thing and end up with pretty much useless interpretations).
So after 4 years of German indoctrination, I found out that the Flos Duellatorum offers much more complete system where each of the chapters refer to another. |
I'm going to respectfully disagree. Fiore doesn't talk about battle situations any more than the German masters. (Liechtenauer's own merkeverse flat out says to learn the art that brings you honor in war.) Fiore also barely discusses fighting multiple opponents... and the same is true for the German sources. Further, there's no actual proof that Fiore's art was more systemized than the German arts. Rather, the Fiore's *manuscripts* happen to be more complete, but there are only four manuscripts. With the German material, there are dozens of manuscripts, but none of themwere written with the same completeness, tending to either be small works or compendiums of works, or in some cases a sprinkling of techniques for several different weapons, but not true training manuals. That doesn't mean the system itself is less organized, but it does mean that the way many modern practitioners do it is less organized.
By far I've practiced far more of the Liechtenauer tradition (well over a decade) than I have of Fiore's tradition (on and off for the past couple of years), so I'm no expert on Fiore. But I've done enough of Fiore to say that the two arts, by and large, are more similar than different. The German material tends to be organized more around the use of the five master strikes, which is different. The Italian material tends to have a preferences to step into the opponent's attack while defending, whereas the German material tends to favors springing out to the opposite side (though that's a big generalization). Because of that difference in the step, the Liechtenauer tradition tends to favor winds because of the way the body is positioned, whereas Fiore has different counters. The Liechtenauer tradition also utilizes the thumb grip quite a bit, where the sword is turned in the hand to place the thumb on the flat of the blade, and that is something I've rarely seen in other arts (Marozzo's spadone does it, but I'm unaware of other arts that do). The thumb grip leads to some different preferences in counter attacks (such as the Zwerchhau, which Fiore doesn't have an equivalent to).
So there are certainly stylistic differences, just as when you compare two different schools of Japanese swordsmanship to each other. Nonetheless, it bears repeating that if you take two arts from similar regions that use the exact same weapons in the exact same contexts, you're going to come up with two very similar arts.
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
 |
|
|
Greg Mele
Industry Professional
Location: Chicago, IL USA Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 356
|
| Posted: Thu 01 Jul, 2010 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bill's post is closest to my own thoughts, and although I've agreed with bits and pieces of the posts above re: Fiore's system, some things are not supported by the text:
1. Fiore fights in due tempi instead of counterattacking.
Except that the first play of the sword in one hand, the first play first master of the sword in two hands and the first play of the second master of the sword in two-hands are counterattacks with opposition if executed well. Certainly as much so as the Zornhau Ort. Depending on measure you will hit and put the point or edge through his head (as Vadi advises) or end up with your point in his face.
Likewise, his defense against a leg attack is the same as the German solution: slip and counterattack the head.
What would be more correct is to say that he uses both single and double time responses - as do all medieval masters. As he demonstrates less individual techniques, there are less specific single-time actions shown, but as you read through the descriptions of the guards and the plays, proportionately there are plenty specified *when it it safe to do so*.
2. He crosses with the point offline more than the Germans
Not really. His basic crossing is a variation of the Zornhau (you step into the attack, left foot forward, not away, right foot forward), and as he and Vadi both say, you "stand your point to his face". Most of the plays that follow are based on what happens if you do or do not win this position.
One of his two basic thrust defenses is a form of absetzen - point is kept online and driven into the target with a pass. It's follow-on is again what happens if your thrust ends up offline. And so forth.
3. Fiore's art is more interested in battlefield combat.
Well...no. He IS more explicit about how to link the segments of his art together, but that is for two reasons, IMO: 1) it is one author's work, not a compendia, as in many of the German sources. 2) He really was a very good writer and came up with a system of explanation and cross-reference, that does not have the same sort of textual integration in other sources before the Early Modern period, be they German, Italian or Iberian. Darn good thing, too, since we have his four works, Vadi and the bits copied into German texts, and that is all!
Both arts follow a clear model of integration and emphasis in multiple contexts, but you have to go digging and cross-referencing in the German material to track it. Bummer! OTOH, you have dramatically more texts, and especially for the sword, more techniques, too look at. Hoorah! 
I *will* add that Fiore's swordsmanship has fewer actions that are likely to work only out of *any* sort of armour - based on targeting, no presences of schnitts, etc. Certainly his unarmoured sword guards and certain plays at times discuss there use in or against armour. But again, look at the *root* techniques of the Liechtenauer tradition, and you see the same core actions. I think the difference is just the early date - Fiore is righting at the end of the transitional era for harness, most of the Liechty texts show up at the height of armour. So, I see this more as a difference of emphasis, and Fiore using a smaller subset of sword skills.
4. The Germans have the Meisterhau, the Italians don't.
Err...not exactly. The Zornhau and all of its follow-on actions - duplieren, mutieren, abnehmen, etc - appear in dei Liberi and the Bolognese sources (obviously, some might have one action depicted, but not another, etc). Fiore's "Rompere di Punta" is a variation of the Krumphau to the blade, different body pivot changes how the hands look, but the action is essentially the same, and the Bolognese Spadone material is even more similar. They all use the Schietelhau.
Now, the Schielhau and Zwerchau are more complicated. Fiore has neither. Vadi's first play of the sword in two hands is at times interpreted as a Schielhau, but that would violate his own advice to make descending blows with only the true edge. Marozzo, OTOH, has the action with the spadone and uses it a few times, but it has no special name, he has to describe the action, suggesting it is not a specialized blow. Likewise, Manciolino has the Zwerchau with sword and buckler, but has to describe it in careful detail each time, again making it clear that it is not a usual action.
There's a lot more minutia we could look at, but the point I am trying to make is that, while I disagree with some of the points above, I agree with what folks like Mike, Bill and David are saying: it's really more alike than not. It is how the material is presented and what it emphasizes that is different.
Christian and I are presenting a class on this next week called "There is But One Art of the Sword". Rather than go into particulars of what we're presenting, I'm going to wait and see the replies of some of the posters here who are taking it - first to see if Christian and I conveyed our ideas coherently, we're both a bit nervous about not making the class a jumble, and then to see what they did or didn't agree with!
Greg Mele
Chicago Swordplay Guild
www.chicagoswordplayguild.com
www.freelanceacademypress.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Manning
|
| Posted: Thu 01 Jul, 2010 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Greg Mele wrote: | Bill's post is closest to my own thoughts, and although I've agreed with bits and pieces of the posts above re: Fiore's system, some things are not supported by the text:
1. Fiore fights in due tempi instead of counterattacking.
Except that the first play of the sword in one hand, the first play first master of the sword in two hands and the first play of the second master of the sword in two-hands are counterattacks with opposition if executed well. Certainly as much so as the Zornhau Ort. Depending on measure you will hit and put the point or edge through his head (as Vadi advises) or end up with your point in his face.
Likewise, his defense against a leg attack is the same as the German solution: slip and counterattack the head.
...
Christian and I are presenting a class on this next week called "There is But One Art of the Sword". Rather than go into particulars of what we're presenting, I'm going to wait and see the replies of some of the posters here who are taking it - first to see if Christian and I conveyed our ideas coherently, we're both a bit nervous about not making the class a jumble, and then to see what they did or didn't agree with! |
I stand by my earlier statement that Fiore prefers double-time to single-time defenses but shows both. The defense against a cut to the shin is a good example. But I'm a little surprised by some of your examples of single-time (cover and strike in a single motion) defenses.
How can the cover of the sword in one hand be a single-tempo defense? It cuts sottani from left Posta Longa to right Posta di Finestra (cover, one tempo), then a second tempo is needed to strike the opponent. For the sword in two hands techniques, do you mean the first and third plays of the sword in two hands Gioco Largo? I can see the third play being sort of in one time, but not the first play (and they are definitely expressed as "first you cross, then you do something else"). But you've been at this longer than I have, and maybe you have a different interpretation.
The class sounds fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Mele
Industry Professional
Location: Chicago, IL USA Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 356
|
| Posted: Thu 01 Jul, 2010 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Sean!
| Quote: |
I stand by my earlier statement that Fiore prefers double-time to single-time defenses but shows both. The defense against a cut to the shin is a good example. |
We are essentially in agreement, in most cases. And I agree that he prefers double time actions, but there is a meme that Germans rely on single time actions - they don't - and Italians double time - they don't. And that is what I'm trying to clarify.
| Quote: | But I'm a little surprised by some of your examples of single-time (cover and strike in a single motion) defenses.
How can the cover of the sword in one hand be a single-tempo defense? It cuts sottani from left Posta Longa to right Posta di Finestra (cover, one tempo), then a second tempo is needed to strike the opponent. |
Not necessarily. Fiore's cover here is the universal Italian parry: it first appears in Fiore and continues through Capoferro. There are a few ways to do this. When done without the pass (as in the play where he ripostes with a cut), it is always double time. When you pass in, as in the first play, it can be a parry-riposte or a single-time counterattack with opposition. Think of it like the first play of largo in two hands - strike *to* the opponent so that your sword parries his blade and continues into his face.
Clear as mud without pictures, right?
| Quote: | | For the sword in two hands techniques, do you mean the first and third plays of the sword in two hands Gioco Largo? I can see the third play being sort of in one time, but not the first play (and they are definitely expressed as "first you cross, then you do something else"). But you've been at this longer than I have, and maybe you have a different interpretation. |
Indeed, I do, and what you are seeing is a vaguerie of moving from language to another. This is the same action expressed by Vadi, here:
To like it better, when you parry, parry with fendente,
carefully push your sword a little away
from you, pressing down that of your partner.
Which is a parry counter, further discussed in the section on mezzo tempo:
Of all the Art this is the jewel,
because at once it strikes and parries.
Oh, it's so precious a thing,
to practice it with good reason,
it lets you bear the Art's banner.
The first play of the first master of largo is the crossing at the punta. If I win the bind and press straight through to place my point in his face or chest, if I lose I cut around. I CAN NOT bind on the punta/debole. These are the first two (and only two) plays of the first master.
The second master, the crossing at the mezza, is about the same basic set-up, but the bind can be neutral as well. The first play (aka what you called the third) can be executed just like the first, or I can perform the equivalent to a duplieren - I parry and slash behind the sword into his face as I step offline. (The other two options aren't relevant here, but if I lose the bind I use the coplo di villano, if we are neutral, I grab the debole.)
Now, Vadi gives these same options in his 16 chapter "prologue", but he also tells us that as the blades cross I can just push through and "break the brain". His weapon is also fairly long - about 54" on a man my height (just under 6'3). What I have found myself is that with a longer weapon (anything about 4' +) you tend to easily hit in a single time response, with a shorter weapon you may end up with your point standing before his face, require two tempi. So "single vs. double" here is really an answer of "it depends".
That's the long form answer to my comments above. Did it make more sense?
Like I said, I think we are generally in agreement, and I think your assessment of the plays are generally correct, as I understand them. I'm just trying to prevent certain "memes" from continuing to grow.
| Quote: |
The class sounds fun. |
We *hope* it will be!!!
Greg Mele
Chicago Swordplay Guild
www.chicagoswordplayguild.com
www.freelanceacademypress.com
|
|
|
|
|
Jakub Adam Janiszewski
Location: Poland Joined: 18 Jan 2009
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Thu 01 Jul, 2010 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill Grandy wrote: |
I'm going to respectfully disagree. Fiore doesn't talk about battle situations any more than the German masters. (Liechtenauer's own merkeverse flat out says to learn the art that brings you honor in war.) Fiore also barely discusses fighting multiple opponents... and the same is true for the German sources.
|
Agree and disagree in the same time. Ofcourse Fiore barely says directly about fighting multiple opponents, yet his system is more concentrated on such situations (namely battle scenarios), at least that is how I interpret such postures as posta di dona soprana or coda longa plus variety of voltas(all of them are pretty much useless in one-on-one duels).
|
|
|
|
|
Bryce Felperin
Location: San Jose, CA Joined: 16 Feb 2006
Posts: 552
|
| Posted: Thu 01 Jul, 2010 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Well my instructor has a nice expression for single-time/double-time attacks. A double-time attack is a single-time attack that failed. I find that often this is true for me, and if I prepare a contingency for a double-time attack in case my attack doesn't connect before I go in, then it gives me a good advantage in the fight. If your opponent gives you time to think, then use it and assess his probable responses, then make your attack and be ready to modify it into a double-time action if you don't succeed. Works for me anyway, and I doubt that German masters or Italian masters really worried about the issue...an attack that succeeds and doesn't result in you being hit is a good attack. ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Thu 01 Jul, 2010 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bryce Felperin wrote: | | Well my instructor has a nice expression for single-time/double-time attacks. A double-time attack is a single-time attack that failed. |
Maybe not strictly true in theory, but sounds really right in practice. 
I really like the idea by the way in case my first sentence is misunderstood.
A double time attack if done smoothly can also almost feel like a one-time attack.
When practising plays in slow motion and when decomposing the action into " I do this - pause - then - I do this - pause - I do this alternate action depending on context ...... play over " Repeat.
When moving faster and when the action is understood the pauses become shorter and eventually the single time action should be one move.
Now breaking down a single time action may not be the right way to train, and probably a bad idea to get too used to doing it it in a start/stop pattern, but I find it useful when initially learning a play or one of the master strokes ( Or reviewing it periodically or when training with a new student/training partner ) etc ....
If one goes too fast before learning the proper/ideal sequence of actions, and the geometry involved, there is a tendency after numerous practice cycles to start rounding out the actions and to distort them because the Agent/patient get into a pattern of anticipating and skipping and important parts of the action: If one should do 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 after a while one ends up doing 1 - 2 - 4 or worse go from 1 - 4 and not notice the error. In a real fight or bouting doing 1 - 4 with a non cooperative opponent/taining partner, the technique wouldn't work !
Sort of a tangent here about 1-time versus 2-time and general training methods.
MORE GENERAL COMMENT: I'm happy that there are a lot of interesting posts so far about the initial Topic.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Thu 01 Jul, 2010 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Greg Mele wrote: |
Christian and I are presenting a class on this next week called "There is But One Art of the Sword". Rather than go into particulars of what we're presenting, I'm going to wait and see the replies of some of the posters here who are taking it - first to see if Christian and I conveyed our ideas coherently, we're both a bit nervous about not making the class a jumble, and then to see what they did or didn't agree with! |
| Quote: | | "There is But One Art of the Sword". |
Yes and although I wasn't aware of this when I initiated this Topic, this is really the " CORE " question and I look forward to whatever insights you guys come up with. 
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Thu 01 Jul, 2010 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jakub Adam Janiszewski wrote: | | Ofcourse Fiore barely says directly about fighting multiple opponents, yet his system is more concentrated on such situations (namely battle scenarios), |
But why do you say that? Fiore specifically talks about duelling.
| Quote: | | at least that is how I interpret such postures as posta di dona soprana or coda longa plus variety of voltas(all of them are pretty much useless in one-on-one duels). |
These postures are seen in the German traditions as well, and for one on one fighting. The Zornhut is essentially the same thing as Posta di Dona, and was taught by the fencing master Meyer who was using it in a purely sport fashion, not for battlefield combat. I think you're making big generalizations and assumptions without any actual evidence.
Masters in the Liechtenauer tradition discussed fighting multiple opponents as well, and I already pointed out that Liechtenauer's original verse references learning the art for warfare.
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Maxwell
Location: New Zealand Joined: 03 May 2009
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Thu 01 Jul, 2010 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill Grandy wrote: | | Masters in the Liechtenauer tradition discussed fighting multiple opponents as well, and I already pointed out that Liechtenauer's original verse references learning the art for warfare. |
Yes, when we are advised not to take on 4 or 6 enemies at once, I don't think it's referring to duelling
Men do not care how nobly they live, but only how long, although it is within the reach of every man to live nobly, but within no man's power to live long. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dustin Faulkner
|
| Posted: Thu 01 Jul, 2010 10:20 pm Post subject: German or Italian style was better? |
|
|
Hello:
I want to add a subtle factor that might help add to Mr. Thibodeau's inquiry. I submit for discussion that regardless of which style of fighting one had studied, and assuming essentially equal ability & experience, the swordsman with the most situational awareness would most likely win. Who could anticipate and think ahead of his opponent the most? It's just like in a modern jet dogfight or boxing match.
However, I must bring to everyone's attention another very important factor. The Italian swordsman was more motivated to win a fight given the beauty of Italian women!
Ciao!
DUSTIN FAULKNER
|
|
 |
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Thu 01 Jul, 2010 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Di Grasse is the only period master I have come across that specifically and clearly talks about the use of a two-handed sword in war. He gives very general advice on that matter but he does say something...
http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/XVTwoHand.htm
I do not know how close the translator followed the original text since I do not read Italian and am unable to compare. I would like to know what Italian word is used in place of "war" in the original text and if it has other meanings, because Di Grasse does also reference mobs and thieves. The translation does make a distinction between when Di Grasse is talking about war and when he is talking about a mob or thieves, so the two are not one in the same.
One thing that does stand out to me is that Di Grasse's use of the two-handed sword is distinctly different from Fiore who is also Italian. You would think people from the same region would have a similar fighting style. Fiore seems to have more in common with Liechtenauer then with Di Grasse. I wonder if the reason for this is because Fiore and Liechtenauer are more duel focused while Di Grasse is more war oriented. That would account for the discrepancy. In the Di Grasse translation I referenced, Di Grasse makes a point of using the same sword one way in war and another way in single combat. I think this makes a lot of sense and should not be overlooked.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
|
|
 |
|
Steven Reich
Location: Arlington, VA Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Fri 02 Jul, 2010 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill Tsafa wrote: | | One thing that does stand out to me is that Di Grasse's use of the two-handed sword is distinctly different from Fiore who is also Italian. |
Well that would be because they are talking about two different weapons. Fiore is talking about the longsword, while Di Grassi is talking about the spada da due mani or spadone (two terms for the same weapon)--that is, a sword of 5'+ long with wider quillons and a longer handle (the same weapon Marozzo describes in his treatise).
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Fri 02 Jul, 2010 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Interestingly almost the same discussion is taking place elsewhere:
http://www.thearma.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24142
I made the point there that depending on whether pedagogy is included in the definition of the art or not, one may well end up with different answers... People taught in different ways can do the same thing while thinking they are doing different things (and moves that are either seen as double or single time are representative of this in my opinion).
Regards,
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Fri 02 Jul, 2010 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steven Reich wrote: | | Bill Tsafa wrote: | | One thing that does stand out to me is that Di Grasse's use of the two-handed sword is distinctly different from Fiore who is also Italian. |
Well that would be because they are talking about two different weapons. Fiore is talking about the longsword, while Di Grassi is talking about the spada da due mani or spadone (two terms for the same weapon)--that is, a sword of 5'+ long with wider quillons and a longer handle (the same weapon Marozzo describes in his treatise).
Steve |
Interesting... can we we interpret this to mean that true two-handed swords are intended for war while longswords are intended for civilian use? Di Grasse specifically mentions use in War while Fiore and Liechtenauer do not. There has to be a significance to this.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Reich
Location: Arlington, VA Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Fri 02 Jul, 2010 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill Tsafa wrote: | | Interesting... can we we interpret this to mean that true two-handed swords are intended for war while longswords are intended for civilian use? Di Grasse specifically mentions use in War while Fiore and Liechtenauer do not. There has to be a significance to this. |
I don't think we can interpret it to mean much more than a difference in how the two weapons are used based on their characteristics. Nearly all of Marozzo's material for the spadone is for one-on-one with like weapons (i.e. spadone vs. spadone--in the context of a duel) with the exception of about 3 techniques for spadone against polearm. However, the Iberian Montante material (the Montante is pretty much the same thing as the Spadone), much of the material is for things such as dealing with crowds or multiple opponents who have different (smaller) weapons, defending someone or something, and also dealing with someone who also has a Montante. While the Spadone/Montante was certainly used on the battlefield, it could be used in judicial duels, and it was used by guards in a civilian context. The main difference was that you can't really wear a Spadone/Montante at your side the way you can a longsword (not unless you're a giant).
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Fri 02 Jul, 2010 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Interesting... can we we interpret this to mean that true two-handed swords are intended for war while longswords are intended for civilian use? |
No, considering the ample evidence (particularly paintings) of longswords being carried in wartime.
| Quote: | | Di Grasse specifically mentions use in War while Fiore and Liechtenauer do not. There has to be a significance to this. |
By that logic, the poleaxe was also not a weapon of war, yet the rapier was? Because Fiore and Liechtenauer taught the former, while DiGrassi taught the latter (albeit the edge sword variety of rapier).
The vast majority of ALL fencing manuscripts pre-1700 (and possibly later) are focused on the duel. This includes DiGrassi, whom talks about battlefield applications, but is still discussing the one on one fight. Fiore and various Liechtenauer masters talk about the battlefield from time to time as well, but are still focused on the one on one application. Soldiers, who would have direct hands on training, were less likely to purchase a fencing manual. It doesn't mean that the tradition didn't deal with battlefield applications, but it does mean that if you wanted someone rich to fund your publication, you'd better show that you know your stuff in the most common scenarios (i.e. self defence or the judicial duel).
Paulus Kal, one of the masters of the Society of Liechtenauer, was employed by Duke Ludwig IX for 29 years. I doubt the Duke hired him purely to train his men to duel, and then hired someone else to teach his men a completely separate art to fight on the battlefield. We have evidence of the Duke's spending in his war with Albrecht Achilles, Margrave of Brandenburg, and it mentions payment to Kal for equipping the men for battle (including with the handgonne)... it would seem silly to assume that Kal had this long career of military service, yet only knew how to duel.
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Mele
Industry Professional
Location: Chicago, IL USA Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Posts: 356
|
| Posted: Fri 02 Jul, 2010 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Also, di Grassi's section on the spadone is really nothing new at all. His principle attack in single combat is "throwing the point" - a one-handed thrust, using the full length of the weapon. One of Fiore's six Masters of Sword Combat (the masters that precede the blows, guards and plays) teaches the same thing. His advice on fighting multiple opponents is primarily "don't use thrusts, use blows", which Vadi recommended 100 years earlier.
So with di Grassi, what you see is the form of two-handed sword more popular in his era - the true two-hander - being demonstrated in a few specific ways that exemplify the principles he laid out at the start of his book. But when you read through it carefully, keep that in mind, and compare it to other longsword and two-hander material, there is nothing truly unique.
Greg Mele
Chicago Swordplay Guild
www.chicagoswordplayguild.com
www.freelanceacademypress.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic