Martial Art Versus Martial Sport

Greetings,

Regardless of the organisation, regardless of the weapon we use, at some point in time we need to sit back and have a look at what we are doing. We need to do this with a critical eye. Unfortunately as we become attached to a certain way of doing things in a certain group, we tend to become blind to alternatives which are just as valid, or in some instances even more valid than our own. This does not mean that we should change groups every time we find this, but we should at least look at what we are doing and with a critical eye. The purpose of this article is to ask question of whether that form of combat we are involved in is a "martial art" or a "martial sport". Both have their valid forms, but as stated we need to look at what we are doing with a critical eye in order to find the truth.

The first question to look at and one which will come up again and again is the question of consequences. In their original form the weapons and techniques used have and inherent lethality to them and the consequences for failure were for the most part dire. The presence of this level of threat, whether inferred or real is an important part of the form of combat. In the comparison between the martial art and the martial sport, this is a good place to start. In the martial sport, there are really little consequence for being struck, a combatant is struck, a point is awarded and the combatants re-start until a time limit is reached or one combatant scores a certain amount of points. This form is found in its extreme form in sport fencing. In the martial art, there are consequences present for the combatant who is struck, these are mostly simulated due to the nature of the real weapons, but are still present. A combatant who is struck with a lethal blow is considered killed, a strike to a limb results in the limb being useless for at least the rest of the bout.

In the further discussion of the idea of consequences in the combat, there is the question of the double-kill. Two combatants strike one another with equally lethal blows, what happens as a result of this determines the difference between the martial art and the martial sport. In the sport version both combatants are awarded on point each or zero points, the combatants then re-set and then continue the bout. In the martial art, both combatants are considered "dead" and the bout is ended with a loss recorded for both combatants. There is no reward and definite consequences for both combatants striking and failing to consider their defense.

Another place where the martial art and the martial sport differ is in the purpose of the pursuit. This is the reason behind what is going on in the activity. In the martial sport the reason is the results of competition, the hits, kills or wins in these competitions, besting opponents. In the martial art there is a more holistic approach to the pursuit, the lethal intent of the art is appreciated, and it is the skills which are taught which are the source of achievement. Most swordsmen like to cross blades with one another to test their skill against another person. It is the manner and purpose of this encounter which is the important factor, is it simple competition against an opponent, or a chance to test your skill and learn from the encounter? This is the important difference.

In the approach to the combat there is also a difference between the martial art and the martial sport. This is most often seen in how the form of combat is taught and what the focus is in the result. In the martial art the best thing is to strike without being struck, defensive skills are the focus of the art with the offense only coming out of a sure offense. In the martial sport as long as you strike the opponent first, it does not matter if the opponent strikes you as well. This has more of the offensive nature placed first where striking the opponent is more important than avoiding being struck.

A real encounter with swords, where there is lethal intent behind their use in the modern world, is unlikely. Bouting is our most common avenue for using our skills. The most important thing to remember here is the purpose behind what we are doing and an appreciation of the martial art and original intent of the art which is what makes the difference between the martial art and the martial sport. The important thing to realise in this situation is that if a person is getting what they want out of a martial sport, then there is nothing wrong with them continuing this pursuit, but they should remember what is behind it, and realise what they are doing. The critical eye is important in all considerations of what we are doing as swordsmen.

Cheers,

Henry.

Reasons Why I Do Not Do Sport Fencing

Greetings,

I have a fencing history which begins officially back in my late teens. Of course I played with swords when I was a child, however it was only in my late teens and my first adventure to university that anything official happened with regard to this. This first adventure into the world of swordplay was to join my university fencing club, which, of course was teaching sport fencing. Due to leaving the university, I had to stop attending the club, however after sometime, and finding other areas of swordplay I decided I did not want to go back. This entry discusses the reasons for this.

Now, admittedly my adventure into this form of fencing was not long, relatively. So, there will be those that this was not a real investment or investigation into the art of fencing. However, from what I have seen as it is presented both in the media, but also as it is presented by those who promote this particular art, I believe that my reasons for not coming back or taking it up were well-founded.

The first area I would like to highlight in this particular explanation of my choice is, aims. It would seem that to strike the opponent is the primary aim of what happens in sport fencing. In no place is this more emphasised that in epee where the difference between a "hit" and a "non-hit" is something in the vicinity of 0.25 of a second. The idea of avoiding being struck in the process of striking the opponent seems to have been lost as long as your hit scores first. This seems to go against everything I know and feel about fencing. My belief is that you should be seeking to strike while not being struck yourself, or maybe my focus is a little off.

What has been discussed above focuses on the essential principle of fencing being that it is to defend yourself first and then to strike the opponent. This is the primary principle of fencing and it seems to have been pushed aside for "as long as you strike your opponent first". I will be examining this concept a little further later on with regard to another concept and reason. The principles of fencing seem to be something which are taught to beginners and then pushed aside. The other principle which is most evidently lost is the principle of distance and knowing it. In many pictures of fencers, they are standing on one another's toes, much too close. It would seem then rather than re-adjusting distance the idea is to contort arms etc in order to strike the opponent. If this foundation principle seems to be missing, what else could be?

My next point that I would raise can be described in one word, "ugly". This comprises two areas. The first I have dealt with a little and that is the "anything for a hit" concept. This bothers me a lot as it allows a lot into the "game" which would seem not to fit into an art which was once practiced by gentlemen and ladies. The idea allows a fencer to perform whatever action he can in order to lay his point or edge on to the opponent, rather than sticking with the forms and functions of the weapon which he is using, which leads to the second area "form".

In manuals we see pictures of fencers upright and standing with arms extended. In lessons we see the same things being taught to beginners. It would seem, however, that once you become more advanced this all goes out the window. A person investigates fencing and is confronted with pictures of bodies twisted in horrible angles in order to strike their opponent. We see fencers airborne and twisting in order to avoid being struck while at the same time attempting to strike the opponent. The form and function of the actions seems to have been lost by those who practice this art, and most often it is these pictures which newer sport fencers emulate as they are usually pictures of those at the top of their game. This ugliness is not what the art is about for me.

Sport fencing has truly gone into the realms of sport and has left combat behind. The original purpose of the weapons which are being used has been lost along with the realisation of the weapons and the effects of them which were found in the originals. When swords were sharp and men fought with them in the infancy of fencing, a double-hit meant that both combatants were dead, regardless of what time passed between on hit and the other. This is something which I have alluded to in one of my previous statements. The issue of the double-hit has been indicated, but the effect of the single or double hit seems to be absent in the minds of sport fencers. The lethality of the weapon has faded from significance.

The foil is seen as a premiere weapon of the sport fencing world. It is seen as the expression of form and function in fencing, and taught right it is. However, as a weapon, it is a mere practice item. The history of the weapons and their practice has been lost. The rules for the use of the foil, and indeed the weapon itself, came about for safety reasons. The idea of priority was to stop students stabbing one another simultaneously and also to emphasise defense. The idea of taking the head "off-target" was in order that students would not die from being struck in the head. The weapon was made light so that it could be used for an extended period of time so that students could have the time to learn with it without their arms getting too sore. Hence, the height of the art of fencing has come from a practice item.

The reasons which I have given are those which have prompted me to stay doing what I am doing. Should the opportunity come for me to investigate "classical fencing" there is a good chance that I will have a look at it as it would seem that these principles are still present. We must all examine exactly what we are doing and find out the reasons why we continue with what we are doing. For myself, I prefer historical weapons which, in some form represent their historical predecessors and are used in a form which at least closely recreates them as they were used in the past. For me, the principles of the art must be present and some idea about the weapon which is being used and its potential for damage. These are principles which should underlie any good swordsmanship.

Cheers,

Henry.

What is a Master?

Greetings,

There have been questions with regard to the idea of the "master" and "mastery" floating around the internet in various forms for months. Being that I post quite a bit here about fencing and I am known by some, I thought it was time that I set the record straight as to what I think of the concept. Hopefully I will also be able to address some of the mysteries of this word and some of the ideas surrounding it, at least from my point of view. Please remember as you read that this is my own point of view.

Myself as a "Master"

In some circles I am referred to as a "master" of what I do. I thought that it would be most useful to address my own position before discussing a more general pattern and thought process. In my particular case there are two times where I might be referred to by the title master. It will be noted that in each circumstance these are with regard to a specific field of expertise and are specific to the setting in which they are found. Neither has any claims of anything more grand or over-reaching.

The first title of "master" is within the Lochac Royal Guild of Defense, and this is as a Guildmaster, or Guild Master as the case may be. This is a teaching organisation formed within Australia as part of the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) in which each rank is tested. This rank is an accepted level of competence in western martial arts, and more so as an established teacher and researcher of western martial arts. The important part here is that it points these individuals out as teachers, not necessarily as great fencers, even though each is in their own particular way in their own particular right. This title is for the most part only recognised within the SCA, and in many ways only in Australia.

In the second instance of the use of the title of "master" it is Master of the School of Historical Defense Arts (SHDA). This is a title adopted for the school to denote the highest rank in the school, and as an administrative title which could be easily replaced with President or Chairman or similar things. For the most part, however this is to indicate the head trainer of the school and in many ways I get tempted to replace it with a more Elizabethan title in "Schole Maister" in order to be specific as to what the title means. It means that I am the highest rank teacher in the school. Once again no claims of anything but being a teacher and researcher.

You will notice that in both instances the words "teacher" and "researcher" are present with regard to the title of "master" in both instances. I think that this is vital. I know I have much to learn, and I am extremely happy about this. Every practitioner should and must keep learning for many reasons, the main answer for all of them is that it is better for the practitioner and also better for others who the practitioner comes into contact with. I make no claims with regards to my titles other than those which have been presented here, and I am quite happy to discuss this if anyone is interested.

"The Master"

Hopefully in this part of the discussion I may be able to shed some light on what it means to be a "master" of western martial arts. As far as I am concerned the following statement is accurate: A Master is a researcher and teacher. A Master  is not necessarily the most excellent fencer in the world. Therefore the creation of a master in the community of western martial artists is an excellent thing. But this gives little explanation.

In the thoughts of the "general public" a master is an unbeatable, mysterious teacher, a possessor of mystic arts only passed on to dedicated and appropriate students. This is more related to martial arts movies than real expectations. This is one which has been crossed over due to many Eastern Martial Arts movies and even the Star Wars franchise. In these instances people who are referred to as "master" possess mystical martial and other skills and abilities not possessed by normal people.

The title of mastery states an expectation of a certain level of skill at teaching and also period of learning and teaching, nothing more. This is an expectation of time spent engaging with weapons, learning from manuals, researching forms and many hours of practice. It does not state any mystical ability, aside from the ability to pass on the skills of the weapons to others, which is a powerful ability indeed.

There are some western martial arts organisations which shy away from the idea of the title master in order to avoid the entire process. I think that this is foolish. These organisations have accepted levels, as above for mastery and every other level. If you are the head teacher and/or administrator of a martial arts group with a school-ish approach to learning and skill levels, why should you not claim the title? The attainment of this level does not imply any ability to sit back and finish your learning, but encourages you to continue in order that you can pass on more to your students.

How is it a bad thing to create a "master" if the level is pointed toward the teaching aspect? This merely recognises more teachers within the community, and more opportunity for students to learn and learn more. The possession of the title of "master" should encourage someone to do more rather than less, to learn more in order to keep ahead of students, and in order to teach the students more in order that they can be come better at their art. So some organisation creates a "master", how does it affect us anyway? If not over-reaching organisation? If not applicable organisation? If no expectations present? The only time a person should be concerned is where this organisation has the ability to affect what you do or what your school does.

The USFCA has created an historical martial arts mastery qualification. Firstly I live in Australia, so it does not affect me other than demonstrate a forward-looking approach and an attempt to create some pedagogy for western martial arts. Secondly I am not a member which is in any way affiliated with the USFCA, so it does not affect me. As far as I can see, so long as it is bestowed for continued and continuing teaching and researching it cannot be a bad thing.

Take a step back. Do some research. Have a look at what mastery means to you. Have a look at what becoming a master means to you. These are important questions that every western martial artist should look at. We as western martial artists need to stand up for teaching and research and things which encourage them. We should stand up for aspects which encourage pedagogical approaches to learning western martial arts. If this means making masters, based on demonstrated progression in a pedagogical sense, in organisations, then that is what we need to do. In my particular case as long as "masters" are created within the western martial arts community in order to promote the art, and they are given to people with demonstrated teaching and research I can not see it being a bad thing.

Cheers,

Henry.

Saviolo's Weapons

Greetings

I took it upon myself to examine the depictions given by Vincentio Saviolo, or at least his artist, of the two combatants and their weapons in order that I might discern the length of the weapons though proper by Saviolo for the practice of his art. While Saviolo gives no indication of the length of his weapons in his text, nor gives any particular preference to the length of the weapon desired by him, the depiction of the weapons gives some idea of what these weapons should be like. The following details the short bit of research that I embarked upon in the search for the weapons of Saviolo.

The first question is why? Or more to the point, why bother? To this I answer that having some idea of the length of the weapons is useful due to the effect which the length of a weapon has upon the combat in which it is involved. Clearly a weapon's make-up will have an effect on the combat. Weapons designed for cutting thrust less well, and vice versa. Thus gaining some idea of the length of the weapons in Saviolo will assist in the understanding of his combat, along with the proportion of the weapon to the user, which also has an effect.

What needs to be noted and accepted is that there are some inaccuracies that need to be taken into account. These inaccuracies will become apparent because of the method used and also some of the data collected from external sources. However, even with these factors the results of this examination are useful as it will give at least an approximate answer to the question.

First of all the "average" height of a male of the Renaissance period was researched in order to give some way to transfer the data from the page and into a "real world" setting. By the research performed on this particular subject the average height was established at approximately 5'5" or approximately 165-cm. The second part was to decide on what images to use to gain the data. So four images were selected, the first four given in the manual. Thus there is the depiction of the three single rapier and one from rapier and dagger. With this information gained it was then possible to start examining the images.

All of the images were scaled so that they were all from a common source. These images were then placed upon the screen and measurements taken of the height of the individual, the length of their sword arm, and the length of the weapons. Clearly using a ruler and measuring them off the screen would result in some inaccuracies, and some differences in the measurements given. As a result averages were made across the data. Not to mention any inaccuracies of the artist who produced the images.

The result of the averaging gave some single numbers to generally reflect the height of the individuals depicted, the lengths of their sword arms, and the lengths of their weapons. In order to bring these measurements into the real world, the average height was measured to the "real world" average height. The result of this calculation resulted in an average height in the real world and a multiplication factor to be applied to the average lengths of arms and weapons.

Assuming that the images depict and individual of average height, the swords depicted in the images have a total length of 118-cm or 46", with a blade length of 104-cm or 41". The total dagger length was 43-cm or 17", with a blade length of 30-cm or 12". Further, due to the calculations given, proportions of weapon to height and weapon to arm length are also possible. The sword was approximately twice the length of the arm, measured from shoulder to wrist, and approximately 70% of the height of the person.

I will in no way claim that these are the definitive answers to either weapon length or proportion to the individual as preferred by Saviolo, nor will I claim that these are the lengths of weapons used in his art. However, they are useful as an experiment as they do give us some idea of the length of weapons used in the period. This alone is useful as it allows us to tailor our weapons to a length which is more appropriate to the art which is being performed. Of course averages could have been taken from sword data, however, swords are very personal things and each person will have their preference, thus the variations would have been much wilder. Further investigation is required in this particular matter, however, the information presented is useful in giving a "ball park" and encouraging the use of weapons of an appropriate length for the art being performed.

Cheers,

Henry.

Rapier and Cloak - A Bluffer's Guide

Introduction

            While there will be reference to three manuals of the Renaissance period, this investigation is more of an introduction to the use of the cloak, based on the general principles found in these manuals. This is designed to give you and understanding of how the cloak operates so that you are able to use it in a competent fashion. More specific lessons on particular masters are of benefit to study however having a foundation in the use of the cloak will make these more in-depth lessons more useful.

            The rapier and cloak combination is one of the more difficult to use, but it can also be one of the most satisfying if performed correctly. There is an inherent amount of flair in the use of the cloak due to the nature of the combination, and much care needs to be applied in its use. There are those who do not like this particular combination and those who like it very much. This is up to personal preference. As with other combinations, there is much, which can be said about it, from the holding of the cloak, to its use.

Source Material

            The source material which is presented in this discussion uses as close to primary materials as possible. Issues with regard to this particular element of the discussion will be noted below in the bibliographic discussion. Further to this these primary materials will be in a distilled form, extracting the most important parts from each and using this as the framework upon which the investigation is based.

            This examination focusses on three masters works with regard to their use of the sword and rotella. Chronologically they are Agrippa’s Trattato di Scientia d’Arme of 1553, Di Grassi’s His True Art of Defence of 1594, and finally Capo Ferro’s Gran Simulacro dell’arte e dell’uso della Scherma of 1610. Most of the information found in these manuals is from the point of view of matched weapons i.e. sword and cloak versus sword and cloak, but the information found within can also be applied to other situations with a little modification. The best and most in-depth discussion comes from di Grassi. The other two give basic instruction and ideas about how to use the cloak.

Bibliographical Issues

            In the study of the sword and cloak there are some bibliographical issues that need to be taken into account before any real study can be achieved. One of the first things is with regard to the weapon, the second with the device in the other hand, and lastly there is a language issue that needs to be taken into account. These need to be addressed in some fashion before a real study can take place.

            First of all is the language. Of the four manuals which have been used for this investigation only one of these is written in English, that of Di Grassi’s 1594 manual. Even that is actually a translation of the 1570 Italian manual of the same name. All of the others have been translated from Italian to English in the modern period, by some very knowledgeable people admittedly, but there is still the interference of the translation of the language to take into account.

            Further to this language issue, and directly related is the names of the devices being used, the sword and the rotella. Often “spada” in Renaissance manuals is translated as “rapier” where in actual fact it simply means “sword”. This investigation is more focused on the use of the rapier and cloak and as such the words "sword" or “rapier” will be used in reference to the weapon used.

            As for the cloak itself, there is some discussion and confusion as to whether it is more appropriately called a cape or cloak. The Italian manuals use the word “cappa” while di Grassi uses “cloak”, in various spellings. In some ways this is a question of the object itself rather than a bibliographic issue, as is presented below. For the purposes of this investigation the generic “cloak” will be used.

Cloak or Cape?

            There are many different types of cloak and cape, depending on size, weight and construction, and the choices between these will be of a personal nature. The main difference between a cloak and a cape is the size, the cloak being larger. A larger cloak will protect more, but it will be heavier and easier to entangle. A smaller cloak will protect less, but will be lighter and move faster. In general the item will be called a cloak for convenience.

The cloak should be constructed of a material which will resist tearing but should also be light enough that it can still be used. The use of the cloak should be considered in its construction. It is advised that cloaks of various constructions and sizes be used before one is constructed in order to figure out which will suit you the best. The masters do not actually describe the size or construction of the cloak and thus it must be inferred from images or what they write. There is an equal chance that they could be talking about a cape or a cloak. Simple advice dictates that the best cloak to use for the techniques of the master is one which is appropriate to them and also appropriate to you.

Holding the Cloak

            The cloak may typically be held in one of three different ways, wrapped around the arm, draped over the arm, or held in the hand. Each one of these has advantages and disadvantages, which need to be considered. Wrapping the cloak around the arm will allow for the greatest control, but will limit the range and agility of the cloak. Draping the cloak over the arm will allow for a similar amount of control as wrapping, but will give the cloak more range and agility. Holding the cloak in the hand, gives the cloak the best range and agility, but the least amount of control, it is also the easiest to move the cloak from one position to another by this method, and also to throw the cloak.

            The choice of how the cloak is held will determine what is possible. Rather than focusing on a single method of use a more broad approach will be used. The cloak, as instructed by di Grassi may be wrapped about the arm, held in the hand or even simply placed folded over the arm. This allows more utility in the use of the cloak rather than restricting it. The best thing to do is to hold the cloak however is most suitable for what you want to do with it at the time.

Wards

            Just as the method of holding the cloak will determine what is possible with it, so too will the ward play a part. The position of both the cloak and rapier will determine what you are able to do with both of them and what sort of access you have to both offensive and defensive actions. In order to gain an appreciation for the options available it is useful to examine what the Renaissance masters had to say about the ward.

            Agrippa has his cloak wrapped around the hand, and also used in combination with the dagger. The cloak is kept low and the rapier adopts a high or low position. He also depicts taking the cloak off the shoulder and shows it to be about thigh length. This depiction of the cloak is useful for sizing as to usage. Both the sword and cloak are placed in a terza position and centralised.

            Giacomo di Grassi depicts only one ward but describes three wards in his text. Each one of the wards moves the position of the weapon rather than the position of the cloak, depending on the ward. The cloak however is positioned extended from the body, but also with the arm bent in order to cover the body with the position of the cloak for all of the wards. This extended position is similar to that shown by Agrippa, Capo Ferro’s ward is in a similar position.

Capo Ferro places the cloak at the same level, with the cloak draped over the arm, with it extended or retracted. Either the cloak or the rapier may be retracted depending on which item would be used to catch the opponent’s blade. The change in position will allow the combatant to change easily between the two items. Having both extended could lead to entrapment of both rapier and cloak, but gives the opportunity to use both easily. Draping the cloak makes the cloak freer to move than being wrapped, but still will limit its movement. This will also still retain some of the control of the wrapped method.

The common element in all the wards is the position of the cloak. For the most part it is extended. However there are also wards where the cloak is more withdrawn. This is determined by what the ward is most suitable for and how the cloak is likely to be utilised. The position of the weapon is commonly placed in terza, a good central position with access to variations in attack and defense. It is an advantage to change the ward to suit the situation, and thus it is advised that the wards demonstrated as well as others are examined and utilised.

Defense

            With regard to defense there are all of the usual options, plus a couple which are unique to this combination. Obviously there is the void, footwork and the sword parry, as with any other use of the rapier. For the cloak and rapier you add the parry with the cloak and also the parry with the combination of cloak and rapier.

            For the most part the masters advise that the parry with the cloak is most suitable for any attack which is below the shoulder as lifting the cloak to defend the head will obscure vision. There are a couple of instances where the cloak is used higher than the shoulder but these are usually exception rather than the rule. In these instances the sword is used to parry, and as is described by Capo Ferro the use of the guardia di testa, or head guard, may also be used to defend the head.

            Clearly where the cloak is used as a defense, the position of the sword should be considered in order not to entrap it along with the opponent’s weapon. Those times where the cloak and rapier are used together it is the cloak which is the primary parry while the rapier supports the defense. In this way the sword can then be withdrawn and used for the counter-attack.

            In using the cloak defensively, wait for the opponent to attack and then use the cloak to block or deflect the opponent’s attack. The weight of the cloak should be focused on the debole of their weapon. The motion should be a sweeping one, away from the body. The cloak can also be used to deflect the opponent’s blade. This should be done with either the loose part of the cloak or the part, which is over the hand. The cloak will take time to move and it needs to be done correctly so that the blade of the opponent is collected with the maximum amount of weight behind it. Once again the aim should be contact with the debole as primary. The cloak will require a lot of practice to use.

            Practice with the cloak alone in parrying first to understand and feel how the cloak will move and how much time it will take to move. Practice with the cloak in all of the different methods, wrapped, draped and held in the hand. Once it is easy to move the cloak, then the rapier should be added, ensure that the rapier is not entangled when parrying otherwise this will cause a lot of problems.

Offense

            Clearly the best offensive actions with this combination are made with the rapier. These attacks are all the same as found with any other combination. However it should also be noted that there are offensive actions which can be made with the cloak. The actions of the cloak are most often used to enhance the attack with the rapier which follows immediately behind it.

            In the use of the sword when used in combination with the cloak, you should make sure that the cloak is clear of the line of attack in order that it does not become entangled. For the most part the best attacks made in combination with the cloak are also made with a forward motion of the feet in order to clear the cloak. An attack can easily be fouled by the bad positioning of the cloak when the attack is made.

The most dramatic use of the cloak is when it is thrown. This is mostly made against the opponent, either directly against them or against their weapon. This action is designed to entangle either the opponent or their weapon in order to allow an attack with the weapon to be more effective. The throwing of the cloak is something which requires practice in order to gain the target and in order not to foul the weapon. The other offensive actions of the cloak are designed directly against the weapon and thus will be discussed in the next section.

Engagement

            With little surprise all the actions of the sword alone may also be used when the cloak is also being used. Being that these are discussed with regard to the single weapon these will not be detailed here. However what will be discussed are those actions of the cloak which may be used which involve the use of engagement of the opponent’s blade.

            While the throwing of the cloak, as indicated above is the most dramatic action of the cloak, there are others which can also be performed. The cloak can be used to beat the opponent’s weapon off-line to allow for an attack. The ideal for this is the same as the beat performed with the sword. The weight of the cloak makes this particularly effective however the action can be quite slow and can leave you vulnerable, thus must be performed at the correct time.

            Simple forms of blade engagement may also be performed with the cloak. Stringere is possible with the cloak allowing for an attack with the rapier to follow it. Likewise it is important that the cloak be directed against the debole of the opponent’s weapon in order to be most effective. In this way the cloak can be used like a gauntlet as it has the advantage that the hand is safe from being cut through it.

Conclusion

            The rapier and cloak form is a complex combination, and is one, which will require a great deal of time and practice to perfect. This combination can be used to great effect, and against any other weapon form. The combatant should learn to use each method of using the cloak, and then learn how to counter them so that both sides of the rapier and cloak are understood. The cloak is a great entangling combination, but must be used properly otherwise this effect can quite easily backfire on the combatant, and leave them with no defense. Practice and learn with the cloak and it can become one of the most thrilling and satisfying weapon forms.

            The lesson which has been presented will give the basic attributes of how the rapier and cloak are used in combination. This has merely scratched the surface of the many possibilities in the use of the rapier and cloak. While the description above has described direct actions against an opponent while using the cloak, the cloak may also be used as a form of deception and thus its contact with the opponent’s weapon will be incidental, this is another way in which the cloak may be used. More research and experimentation than has been described here is required in order to truly understand the operation of the rapier and cloak.

Bibliography

Agrippa, C. (2009) Fencing: A Renaissance Treatise, Translated by Ken Mondschein, Italica Press, New York, USA

Di Grassi, G. (1594) His True Art of Defence, Temple Barre at the Signe of the Hand and Starre, translated from the 1570 manual by I. G., London, UK

Kirby, J. (2012) Italian Rapier Combat: Ridolfo Capo Ferro, Frontline Books, Yorkshire, UK

di Grassi's Rapier and Cloak - The Second Part

Greetings,

This is an unusual case, as  there is a second part to the most recent blog which has been posted on di Grassi's Rapier and Cloak. Many people who read about di Grassi's Rapier and Cloak either only read the first part found in his manual or read on the second part. In order to understand the proper and complete operation of the use of the cloak it is necessary to have both. Thus what is presented below is di Grassi's information about the use of the cloak from "The Second Part intreatinge of Deceites and Falfinges of Blowes and Thruftes".

As with the previous presentations the "long s" has been replaced by "f", and all of the spelling and punctuation has been kept as it was in the original. All of the previous mentions of the conditions of the previous presentations of di Grassi's work thus also apply to this one. Enjoy.

Cheers,

Henry.

Of Sword and Cloke, or Rapier and Cloke

For to difceyue the enimie with the cloake, it is neceffarie to know how many waies in may ferue the turne, and to be skilfull how to fould it orderly about the arm, and how to take aduantage by the largenes thereof: and farther to vnderftand how to defend, and how to offend and hinder the enimie therewith, becaufe it fales not out alwaies, that men fight with their cloake wrapped about the arm, and the fword in hand, Therefore it is the parte of a wife man, to knowe alfo how to handle the cloake after any other manner.

            Wherefore one may get the aduãntage of the cloke, both when it is about his bodie, and when it is folded about his arme: The cloke being about the arme in this maner. When it chaunceth any man to bicker with his enimie, with whom he as at poynt to ioyne, but yet happelie weareth about him at that inftant no kind of weapon, whereas his enimie is weaponed, & threateneth him, then by taking both fides of the cloake as neare the coller as is pofsible, he may draw it ouer his owne head, and throwe it at his enimies face, who then being intanglerd and blinded therewith, may either be throwen downe, or disfurnifhed of his weapon very eafely by him that is nimble, efpecially if he haue to deale againft one that is flow. A man may after an other manner take the aduantage of the cloake which the enimie weareth, by taking with one hande both fides thereof, neere the coller; which fides being ftrongly holden, caufe the cloak to be a ginne or fnare about the enimies necke, the which ginne being violently haled, and plucked with one hande, he may fo forciblie ftrike him with the other on the face or vifage, that he will goe neere hande to breake his necke.

            There be manie other waies whereby one may preuaile with the cloake, to the greateft parte whereof, men of meane iudgement may eafely attaine vnto. Therefore when one hath his cloake on his arme, and fword in his hand, the aduantage that he getteth thereby, befides warding of blowes, for that hath bene declared in the true arte is, that he may moleft his enimie by falfing to fling his cloake, and then to flinge it in deed. But to falfe the flingyng of the clok is verie daungerous, becaufe it may not be done but in long time. And the verie flinging of the cloake, is as it were a preparation to get the victorie, and is in a manner rather true art then deceit, cõfidering it is don by the [ftrenght] ftreyght or fome other fhorte line: neither for any other caufe is this the rather here laide downe, in deceite, then before in true arte, then for that when one ouercometh by theis meanes, he feemes not to conquere manfully, becaufe he ftrikes the enimie before blinded with the cloake, wherefore when one mindeth to flinge his cloake, he may either do it from and with his arme, or elfe with his fword: and in fo doing it is neceffarie, that he haue not the cloake too much wrapped about his arme: I faie, not aboue twice, neither to hold it ftreight of faft with his hande, that thereby he may be the better able when occafion ferueth to fling it the more eafelie. If therefore he would fling it with his arme, and haue it goe with fuch fury, and make fuch effect as is required, he muft of force ioyne to the flinging thereof the increafe of a pace, on that fide where the cloake is, but firft of all he muft incounter, either finde, either fo enfure the enimies fword, that by the meanes of the increafe of that pace it may do no hurte.

            And it is requifite in euerie occafion, that he finde himfelfe to ftand without: and when either an edgeblow or a thruft comes, be it aboue or in the middle, as foone as he hath warded it with his fword, he fhall increafe a pace and fling his cloake, how foeuer it be folded, either from the coller, either from any other parte, or elfe to hale it off from his fhoulder, although it bee on his fhoulder: and in this order it is eafelie throwne, & is thereby the more widned in fuch fort, that the enimie is more entangled and fnared therewith.

            Concerning he flinging of the cloake with the fword, I faie, it may be throwen either with the point, either with the edge: with the poynt when one ftandeth at the lowe warde with the right foote behinde, an the cloake before: In which cafe the cloake would be well and thicke doubled and placed on the arme, but not wrapped. And in fteed of driuing a thruft with the poynt which fhalbe hidden behinde the cloake, he fhal take the cloake on the poynt of the fworde, and with the increafe of a pace, force it at the enimies face. And in this manner the cloake is fo forciblie, and fo couertly deliuered and flinged, that the enimie is neither a ware of it, neither can avoyde it, but of force it lighteth on his face, by meanes whereof, he may be ftroken at pleafure in any parte of the bodie.

            The cloake may be flong or throwen with the edge of the fworde, when one ftandeth at the lowe warde, with the poynt of the fword turned backewardes, one the left fide and the cloake vpon it, folded at large vpon he arme vp to the elbowe: but not faft wrapped about it, and whileft he falfeth a reuerfe, he may take the cloake on the edge of the fword and fling it towards the enimie, and then ftrike him with fuch a blow as fhal be then moft fit for his aduantage deliuer.

            Manie other deceites there might be declared of the cloake, afwell of flinging as of falfing: but becaufe I thinke thefe to be fufficient for an example to frame manie other by, I make an ende.

Giacomo di Grassi's Rapier and Cloak

Greetings,

What appears below is a transcription of Giacomo di Grassi's Rapier and Cloak from the 1595 edition of "His True Art of Defence". I have not included the image from the source, but have placed a marker in its place, but the spelling and punctuation is as close to the original as could possibly be transcribed. The "long s" has been replaced by "f" as was dog for the most part in the original document. Enjoy.

Cheers,

Henry.

P.S. a .docx or .pdf version of this document is available on request.

The Rapier and Cloake

That I maie continue in the weapons which are moft vfuall and moft commonly worne: After the Dagger, I come to the Cloake: The vfe whereof was firft founde out by chaunce and after reduced into Arte. Neither was this for any other caufe then for that nature doth not onely delight to inuent things, but alfo to preferue them being inuented. And that fhee may the better doe it, fhee taketh for her helpe all thofe things that are commodious for her. Wherefore, as men in diuers accidẽts haue cafually proued, that the Cloak helpeth greatly (for as much as they are to weare it daily) they haue deuifed how they may behaue themfelues in all that, in which the Cloak may ferue their turne. Which accidents, becaufe they are infinite, & do not generally ferue for our purpofe, I wil reftraine my felfe and fpeake of thofe onely which appertaine to this Arte, the which are fuch and fo effectuall, that they may greatly helpe to the obteining of fafe victorie, if they happen to be placed in fuch a man as knoweth howe to vfe and handle them. And for that in true Arte it doth little preuaile, the vfe thereof being in a manner altogether deceitfull, I was refolued to put ouer all this to the treatife of Deceit, as vnto his proper place. Notwithftanding, to the ende it may not feeme ftrange to any man, to read nothing of the Cloak in al the handling of true Arte, I am minded to laye downe a certaine fewe blowes in the accuftomed wardes, referring the more abundant handling thereof vnto the treatife of Deceit.

The manner how to handle the Cloake

As the Cloake in this Arte, hath in it three things to be confidered, to witt: length, largeneffe, and flexibilitie: fo it is to be wayed how far each of thefe will ftretch, to ferue the turne. Of which three, one doth properly belong vnto it, and that is flexibilitie, which maie neither be encreafed nor diminifhed: The other two, may receiue alteration. But yet it is at any hande to be prouided, that thefe two alfo be not diminifhed. For the Cloake is no ftrong thing, which of it felfe may withftand the blowes of the weapon, being directly oppofed againft them.

And therefore he fhall proue himfelfe but a foole who trufting to the Cloth wrapped about his arme, doth encounter any right edgeblowe therewith. For feeing the Cloake is not flexible in that parte (which flexibilitie is his onely ftrength) litle preuaileth either length or largenes, wrapped about a folide fubftãce. But being oppofite in that parte thereof, where it hath length, largenes and flexibilitie (which is from the arme downwardes) it is auailable: for all three being ioyned togither will warde any edgeblow: which manner of warding fhould not be fo fure, if the cloake had onely length and flexibilitie: for hauing behind it litle ayre, which is the thing that doeth ftrengthen it, it may eafily be beaten too, and cut, by any great blowe. Therefore, if a man haue fo much liefure, he ought to wrapp his Cloake once or twice about his arme, taking it by the Cape or coller, and folding his arme therein vp to the elbowe, and therewithall to warde all edgeblowes from the flanke thereof downwardes, afwell on the right fide, as on the left fide, alwaies remembring to carrie his foote differing from his arme, for the auoyding of danger that may rife by bearing his legg on the felfefame fide, neere his cloak knowing the Cloak wardeth not when there is any harde fubftance behind it.

            Thruftes alfo themfelues, may be giuen without if with the Cloake, or with the hand in the Cloake, the enimies fworde be beaten off, one handfull within the poynt thereof. For the edge hauing but fmall power in that cafe, is not hable in fo litle time, to cut the hand. The blowes alfo, afwell of the poynt, as of the edge, from the flanke vpwardes, ought to be warded with the fworde; For to lift the arme fo high being burdened with the waight of the Cloak, which naturally draweth downwards, as it is violent thing it is alfo perilous, leaft the arme be placed in fteede of the Cloake, and fo reft wounded, or left the arme or Cloake be placed before the eyes, which by that meanes remaine blinded.

An Aduertifement concerning the warding and wrapping of the Cloake.

There are two waies (in thefe daies) to wrappe the Cloake, the one is, when one hauing leafure taketh the Cloake by the cape or coller, and fo fouldeth it once or twice about his arme: The other is, as often times it falleth out, when letting the Cloke fall downe from the fhoulder, it is happelie taken by one fide, & fo is turned once or twice about the arme.

            Nowe as concerning ftriking, a man ought in the handling of thefe weapons as he would ftrike, firft to increafe and carrie the one foote neere to the other, and then farther to increafe a halfe, not a whole pace, as in other weapons: For at thefe weapons, it is daungerous leaft (making a whole pace) he entangle his foote or feete in the Cloake and fall downe therewith. And this muft be taken heede of, in the firft and fecond foulding, but principallie in the fecond, becaufe in it the Cloake is longer, and therefore doth more eafilie touch the earth & intangle his feet: In the firft fold, although the cloak touch not the earth, becaufe the arme doth orderlie beare it, yet by reafon of werines, the arme falleth & caufeth the foresaid effect.

[Insert image here]

The hurt of the high ward at Rapier and Clok.

In thefe maner of weapons, asin others, I will frame three wardes: The firft by the forefaid reafons, fhall be the high warde, which in thefe kind of wepons more then in anie other deferue the name of a ward. For the Rapier (fomething bending) wardeth as farre as the clok hand, and the clokhand down to the middle legg: foe that in this ward a man is warded from the top of the head down to the foot.

            Therefore ftanding at this warde, whether it be with the right foote before or behinde, he may deliuer a thruft with the encreafe of a halfe pace forwards, ftaying himfelfe in the lowe warde.

            The right edgeblowe ought to be deliuered from the wrift without any motion of the feete, refting in the lowe warde: but in deliuering of the reuerfe, it is neceffarie to fetch a whole pace, and in a manner ftraight. If the enemie warde it with his fworde, then the encounter of the enemies fworde, muft be ftayed fuddenly with the Cloake-hand in the firft part thereof, and a thruft be deliuered vnderneath, with the encreafe of a ftraight pace.

The defence of the thruft, right and reuerfed blowes of the high warde at Rapier and Cloake.

For the better auoyding of the hurts which proceede from the high warde: it is neceffarie to ftande at the lowe warde, in the which the thruft is to be warded iiij. manner of waies, to wit: either with the fingle fworde within and without, either with the fingle Cloake within and without. If with the fingle fword within, it is requifite to fetch a compas with the foot backwards on the right fide. In like cafe to turne the bodie the fame waie, to the intent, to carrie it out of the ftraight lyne (in which the blowe commeth) and to driue a reuerfed thruft at the face, the which thruft in fuch order deliuereth is the longeft that is, and fuch a one, as thereby the hurt is not onely voyded, but alfo at the felfefame time, the enimie is ftroken in the face. If it chaunce, that the fworde be encountered without then it is not onely profitable but alfo neceffarie, to ftep forwardes and with the Cloake to encounter the enimies fworde in the firft parte thereof. And recouering his owne fworde, to difcharge a thruft vnderneath with the encreafe of the right foote. And although it be laide down for a rule, not to vfe a whole pace in handling of the Cloake, this ought to be vnderftoode in ftriking, in the which (whileft one endeuoureth to ftrike with his fworde) it may be forgetting the Cloake, his arme may fall, by meanes whereof he may ftumble againft it: but in warding, it doth not fo happen. For nature being carefull to defende her felfe (at euery litle danger) lifteth vp both her armes, yea, although they be oppreffed with waight and burden.

            Wherefore it is not be feared, that in warding this thruft, his hand will be drawen downe by the waight of the Cloake.

            The fame wardes and defences may be vfed with the fingle Cloake, in which, one muft likewife ftrike, with the encreafe of the right foote. This maner of warding is not verie fure, and therefore it requireth great actiuitie and deepe iudgement, confidering he ought to beare his Cloake and arme ftretched out before him, & to marke when the enimies fwords poynt fhall paffe within the Cloakhand one handful or litle more: and not to fuffer it to paffe farther, but to beat it off, and encreafing to difcharge a thruft vnderneath; with the encreafe of a pace with the right foote. But as I haue faide, this manner of warding hath litle certaintie and great perill in it, and yet it ftriketh well, if it be done in fhort time.

            The right edgeblowe may in like manner be warded with the fingle fworde or cloake: but when it cõmeth aloft, it fhall not be commodious to encounter it with the fingle cloake, for by that meanes the eyes blinde themfelues. How much this importeth, let others iudge. But, when the faide right blo we commeth in manner lowe, fo that it may well be warded, keeping the enimie in fight, then the cloake is to be oppofed, with the encreafe of the left pace, &; prefently thereupon, a thruft to be difcharged, with the encreafe of a right pace.

            When one oppofeth the fingle fworde againft teh right blowe, he muft driue a thruft at the face, & fetch a compas with his hinder foote, cutting the face with the faide thruft and ftaie himfelfe in the broad ward. The felfe fame muft be done, when he defendeth him felfe with both together, to wit, with the fword and cloake.

            Againft the reuerfed blowe, the felfe fame manner is vfed in warding to wit, either with the one, or with the other, either with both ioyned together.

            With the cloake, by the encreafe of a pace, and by encountring the enimies fworde, as farre forwards as is poffible, that thereby it may be done the more commodioufly, deliuering a thruft therewithall vnderneath, with the encreafe of a pace of the right foot.

            With the fingle Rapier, the fame defence may fuffice, which is layde downe in the treatife of the fingle Rapier, and that is, to difcharge a thruft at the enimies thigh, the which withftandeth the full of the reuerfed blowe.

            Nowe, if one would defend himfelfe with both thefe weapons ioyned togither, he muft encreafe a pace with the right foot, &; ftaying the enimies fword with his cloake, recouer his owne fworde nimbly, and then deliuer a thruft with the encreafe of a pace of the right foote.

The hurt of the broad warde, at Rapier and Cloake.

In this warde, as well as in others, a man may both thruft and ftrike, yet diuerfly: For he may not difcharge a right edgeblowe beneath. And the reuerse is manifeftly dangerous: So that, when he is to deliuer it, he ought to perfourme in this order.

            Firft, he fhall driue a thruft, fetching a compas with his hinder foote, that by that meanes it may reach the farther, then fuddenly (without mouing of himfelfe) he fhall difcharge a right edgeblowe, from the wrift, after the which prefently, the reuerfe muft followe, with the encreafe of a pace of the right foote: and further, muft follow on with the thruft alreadie prepared, and increafe the like pace.

The defence of the broad warde, at Rapier and Cloake.

To him that will fafely warde himfelfe from the hurt of the broad warde, it is requifite, that he ftand at the lowe warde. And when the thruft vnderneath hand commeth, he fhall thruft at the face, fetching a compas with his hinder foote towardes the right fide, with which kinde of thruft, it doth lightly happen that the enimie is hit in the face: but if it faile, yet for all that, the enimie obtaineth not his purpofe, in the difcharge of the thruft of the broad warde: For by deliuering the thruft vnderneath, and compaffing of the hinder foote, the bodie is carried out of the ftraight lyne: So that, as foone as the thruft is deliuered at the face, and the foote to be plucked backe, fetling in the broad warde. To warde the right and reuerfed blows, there is a thruft to be giuen at the thighes or fome other place that may moft hinder them, in the verie fame time that fuch blowes are in their circle or compas. Although I do not beleue that there is any man fo foolifh, that (in his warde) will deliuer a reuerfe onely.

Of the hurt of the lowe warde, at Rapier and Cloake.

This warde is fo ftraight and perilons, that no man ought to affure himfelf to deliuer an edgeblow in any manner of waie. For vnder any of them he may be eafily ftrooken, and each of them may eafily be warded with the Cloake. Therefore, he muft diligently take heed, that he thruft onely, the which muft neuer be difcharged before the enimies fworde be found, and then as farre forwardes as is poffible. So then finding it, he may thruft both within and without. Neither is there in this thruft any other aduantage to be gotten, then to fteale a halfe pace vnwares of the enimie, which may be done verie commodioufly, confidering the cloak occupieth the enimies fight, And hauing drawen this halfe pace, and found the enimies fword, he muft encreafe an other halfe pace forwardes, and ftrike him, cofting and forcing the enimies fworde, on that fide where it may do no hurt. And this maie be vfed both within and without: But he whome it pleafeth, and who doubteth not to be entangled in the Cloake, maie (finding himfelfe within) carrie his left foot making a pace therewith, and betweene his cloake &; his fworde, clofe the enimies fworde, and deliuer a thruft with the encreafe of a pace of the right foote: And finding the enimies fword without, he may vfe the felfe fame encreafe and thruft. But if he finde not the enimies fword, he may deliuer a litle edgeblow from the wrift of the hand, in fuch forte, that the enimy haue no leafure to enter in: And hauing found the Sword, to difcharge a right or ftreight thruft, or elfe not voyding the enimies fword by the encreafe of a left pace, to driue a thruft from aloft downwards, lifting vp the fift fomewhat high, and deliuering it with the increafe of a pace of the right foote.

Of the defence of the lowe Warde at Rapier and Cloak.

To the ende a man may warde himfelfe from all the thruftes reckned in the hurtes of this warde, he neither ought, neither happely may doe any other thing then voide his bodie from the ftraight line, wherein the enimie purpofeth to ftrike, making a left pace forwards, fomewhat thwarting or crofsing and ftriking the enimie fafely. The which doth not fo chaunce, when one defendeth himfelfe either with the fingle Cloake or fingle Rapier: For whileft he affaileth to defend himfelf, he cannot ftrike. And if the enimie do firft moue, and ftrike ftraight, in the which, his fworde is not carried much outwardes (and it hardly done,) I faie, the enimie may be ftealing of half paces, difcharge a thruft perforce. And therefore he muft take heede, that (as the enimie moueth) he encreafe a flope pace (by the meanes voyding the hurt) then a thwart or croffing pace next, with the encreafe of a ftraight pace of the right foote, to ftrike the enimie with a thruft vnderneath.

            This may fuffice, for the handling of thefe weapons as much as appertaineth to fure plaie. All that which remaines is referued to the treatife of deceit, in which place fhall be feene manie handlings of the cloake no leffe profitable then pleafant.