Rotella: Considerations of Form and Size

 Greetings, 

Considerations of the form and size of our companion items tends to be relegated to secondary discussions. In this discussion there will be a short investigation of the rotella, with these considerations in mind, it will be one of my more formal posts.

Cheers,

Henry.

Abstract

          A fencer needs to consider the size of their companion item as much as their primary weapon. The discussion that follows addresses the size and form of the rotella directing the investigation toward the proportion of the rotella in reference to the individual who uses it. This investigation is derived from extant images from different sources including martial art treatises, to found these ideas in the period in which the rotella was used, and to give the discussion some practical consideration.

Introduction

          When the rotella is considered by many, there is the consideration of a ubiquitous round shield which is used by the combatant to perform various actions. There is rarely any consideration of the form of the rotella or its size. When the form is considered, small things such as its strap configuration and how the combatant holds the rotella make a difference. When size is considered the size of the rotella can determine whether or not the rotella is effective in protecting the combatant who is using it or is too cumbersome for the combatant to use it as effectively as it could be. For the examination of the rotella there will be an examination of images from period eight period pieces, including five treatises from Renaissance martial art treatises. From this it is hoped that a greater understanding of the rotella in its form will be gained.

Historiography

          The first is an image by Bernat Martorell Sant Celoni, from 1452, an altarpiece of Saint Vincent, referred to as MNAC 15797.[1] This piece depicts several armoured individuals, but the one in the foreground is armed with a round shield, so is of great interest to this study. This is the earliest piece and gives a preview of the rotella, rather than its final product.

Chronologically, the next two images come from Marozzo’s treatise of 1536[2] and represent the rotella in its more usual situation, in a civilian context, or the context in which many know it from. What is most interesting is this form is actually more a military than a civilian form intended for use in pike formations, adopted for civilian use. This depicts the rotella as it is more commonly known.

Next are three images which come from Agrippa’s treatise of 1553[3] and present three situations with pairs of combatants in civilian attire combating with sword and rotella. The images are quite clear about the actions and the form of the rotella is quite established by this time. Again it is the civilian use of this form.

Following after this is the first of the images from Giacomo di Grassi’s treatise. First there is the image from his original treatise of 1570.[4] This is from the original treatise. This should not be confused with the later treatise by the same author as this is the translated treatise of 1594.[5] Both depict an individual with arm extended holding a sword in one hand and a rotella in the other, strapped to the arm.

Lovino published his treatise in 1580[6] however the images which were used for this discussion were sourced from a different location.[7] This was to get better images so the detail could be seen more clearly. The rotella which are present in these images are somewhat different to the others which are present in the others which make an interesting difference, even if it is only slight.

An image from the British Museum of an individual standing with a sword and a large round shield was used, the original image made by Jacques de Gheyn II in 1587.[8] This is clearly a military figure with the line of soldiers marching past behind him. It demonstrates that the shield, and sword, had not been completely outmoded on the battlefield, it also gives a good example of a shield of the period.

Next are two images from Capo Ferro’s treatise of 1610,[9] which depict two civilian combatants fighting with rapier and rotella. The rotella are very plain having only the essential details that are required of them for the image to make sense and for their effect to be known. It gives the reader enough of an impression to know what’s going on but not so much to be distracted.

Finally there is a portrait of Alessandro Farnese from 1611.[10] This depicts an interesting round shield with a very large spike on the front of it. The shield is one of the ones which will be made note of in the discussion as it has features which stick out as different from the more standard format, more discussion will be made of its distinct features. The portrait depicts the individual in a military situation, which places the rotella firmly at the cross-roads of civilian and military use as is known of it.

The Form of the Rotella

          The two prime elements of the rotella which have been presented through the examination of the images which have been presented are that the rotella has two straps on the back of it and that it is primarily convex in shape. The first strap is held by the hand and the second strap goes about the arm. The convex shape is important, it is not merely a round, flat shield, the convex shape is important as this shape serves to deflect the incoming blade of the opponent.

          While the face of the shield in MNAC 15797 cannot be seen, from the back of the shield and the shape present, it is likely that this shield is flat. This makes it more likely that it is in fact merely a round shield rather than an actual rotella. It can be seen as the precursor to the rotella as it possesses the other elements found in the later forms of the rotella.

          Later additions such as the shoulder strap seen in the Jacques de Gheyn II example and the portrait of Alessandro Farnese are examples of how the weight of the shield was taken up to relieve the individual who may be carrying the shield for an extended period of time or to move it out of the way, but again, do not appear to be a standard form of the rotella, likewise the spikes seen on both of these examples can likewise be seen as additions to the form rather than standards of the form.

          There is also noted in the di Grassi 1570 and Lovino 1580 examples where the straps seem to be mounted rather than in the middle of the rotella, but slightly lower on the rotella. This may enable the fencer who is using the rotella to more easily be able to protect their head, again this is not a standard form found in all examples. Further on the di Grassi 1594 example the straps seem to be mounted more toward the “back” of the rotella, giving more distance from the hand at the front, pushing the rotella forward. This could be to give the fencer an additional advantage, or it could merely be a mistake in this woodcut example in copying the 1570 during translation to the 1594 edition.

          Further on the location of the straps, some have the strap for the arm located on the forearm, while others have it located in the crook of the elbow. This may be from the artists’ impression or, it may be deliberate to change the effect of using the rotella. All seem to have a similar location for the strap, however which makes this location more likely dependent on the individual who is using the rotella rather than the make of the rotella itself, or by design. Such considerations are important when considering the size of the rotella, especially in proportion to the user.

Size and Proportion of the Rotella

          The size of the rotella, especially in proportion to the user is significant as this determines the best size of rotella for the individual, and will determine such things as how much room there is between the hand and the edge, and also where the second strap sits across the arm. Further the proportion of the rotella to the individual in regard to its size will also determine how effectively an individual will be able to use the rotella, especially considering specific rotella actions. Too large and the combatant will not move it effectively, too small and the rotella will not sufficiently cover the combatant.

          In regard to the size in proportion to the individuals depicted some interesting results have been gained. Five results where the rotella measures from shoulder to the middle of the thigh, six results where the rotella measures from a fist in front of the hand to the mid-bicep, two results where the rotella measures from shoulder to waist, or a little in front of the hand to mid-bicep, and a single result where the rotella measures from the shoulder to the top of the thigh.

          In the images supplied by Agrippa 1553, there is an equivalence gained where the rotella is determined as above the shoulder to mid-thigh, or one fist in front of the hand to about half the bicep, or one fist behind the elbow strap. This could mean that the two highest results could be combined together to form a single result due to the equivalent measurement presented.

          The proportion of the rotella to the fencer is important as it will determine how the fencer can use the rotella. A rotella which is smaller in proportion to the user will move more freely, while a larger one will cover more easily. The fencer has to make a decision about what approach they will be taking, indeed which treatise they are studying and whether the rotella is appropriate in size and proportion to themselves for the actions described.

Conclusion

          The rotella is a most interesting a useful device when used properly. To use it properly the rotella itself has to be of the correct form, strapped correctly, and of the correct proportion to the user. The consideration of what proportion to use will depend on the approach taken, thus the particular treatise which is chosen. Particular attention should be paid to the form and proportion of the rotella which is depicted in the treatise as this will make a difference.

          There have been examples presented of various round shields from the simple round shield in the earliest example to later military examples of shields with extra additions made to them to create different effects in their use. The attempt has been made to cover various different forms so that examples are present of the widest range and the greatest variety. This was to find the proper form and proportion of the rotella. The result was that there was a general idea of what the rotella form was, and a couple of ideas about the proportion, but these are dependent on the use of the rotella as determined by the particular treatise which is being followed.

 

Bibliography

Agrippa, Camillo (1553) Trattato di Scientia d'Arme, con vn Dialogo di Filosofia, https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Trattato_di_Scientia_d%27Arme,_con_vn_Dialogo_di_Filosofia_(Camillo_Agrippa)

 

Capo Ferro (1610) Gran Simulacro dell'Arte e dell'Uso della Scherma, https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Ridolfo_Capo_Ferro_da_Cagli

 

de Gheyn II, Jacques (1587) British Museum No: 1864,1114.465, https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1864-1114-465

 

di Grassi, Giacomo (1570) Ragione di adoprar sicuramente l'Arme, https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Ragione_di_adoprar_sicuramente_l%27Arme_(Giacomo_di_Grassi)

 

di Grassi, Giacomo (1594) His True Arte of Defense, http://www.umass.edu/renaissance/sites/default/files/assets/renaissance/lord/DiGrassi_1594.pdf

 

Kirby, Jared (ed.) (2004) Italian Rapier Combat: Ridolfo Capo Ferro's 'Gran Simulacro', Greenhill Books, London

 

Lovino, G. A. (1580) Traite d’Escrime http://www.umass.edu/renaissance/sites/default/files/assets/renaissance/lord/Lovino_1580.pdf and https://elegant-weapon.blogspot.com/2016/03/episode-57-rotella.html

 

Marozzo, Achille (1568) Opera Nova, https://www.wiktenauer.com/wiki/Opera_Nova_(Achille_Marozzo)

 

Martorell Sant Celoni, Bernat (1452) Altarpiece of Saint Vincent, Museo Nazionale di Arte della Catalogna - MNAC, Barcellona, MNAC 15797 (Photo by Andrea Carloni (Rimini)), https://www.museunacional.cat/en/colleccio/altarpiece-saint-vincent/bernat-martorell/015797-cjt

 

Mondschein, Ken (ed.) (2009) Fencing: A Renaissance Treatise, Italica Press, New York

 

van Sichem, Christoffel (1611) Portrait of Alessandro Farnese, Duke of Parma, https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/collection/RP-P-OB-15.608

---

[1] Bernat Martorell Sant Celoni, 1452 Altarpiece of Saint Vincent, Tempera and gold on wood with gold leaf. Museo Nazionale di Arte della Catalogna - MNAC, Barcellona, MNAC 15797 Photo by Andrea Carloni (Rimini), https://www.museunacional.cat/en/colleccio/altarpiece-saint-vincent/bernat-martorell/015797-cjt

[2] Opera Nova, images are from the coverplates of the 1568 edition, https://www.wiktenauer.com/wiki/Opera_Nova_(Achille_Marozzo)

[3] Trattato di Scientia d'Arme, con vn Dialogo di Filosofia, the modern version is available translated:  Agrippa, Camillo (2009) Fencing: A Renaissance Treatise, Italica Press, New York (Edited by Ken Mondschein)

[4] Ragione di adoprar sicuramente l'Arme, https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Ragione_di_adoprar_sicuramente_l%27Arme_(Giacomo_di_Grassi)

[5] His True Arte of Defense, http://www.umass.edu/renaissance/sites/default/files/assets/renaissance/lord/DiGrassi_1594.pdf

[6] Traite d’Escrime http://www.umass.edu/renaissance/sites/default/files/assets/renaissance/lord/Lovino_1580.pdf

[7] https://elegant-weapon.blogspot.com/2016/03/episode-57-rotella.html

[8] British Museum No: 1864,1114.465; Date: 1587; By: Jacques de Gheyn II, https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1864-1114-465

[9] Gran Simulacro dell'Arte e dell'Uso della Scherma, a translated version is available Capo Ferro, Ridolfo (2004) Italian Rapier Combat: Ridolfo Capo Ferro's 'Gran Simulacro', Greenhill Books, London (Edited by Jared Kirby), or https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Ridolfo_Capo_Ferro_da_Cagli

[10] Portrait of Alessandro Farnese, Duke of Parma, by Christoffel van Sichem, before 1611, https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/collection/RP-P-OB-15.608

"There can be only one." Monolithic training environments and the fallacy of competence

Greetings,

Before I start with the discussion of this article I would like thank Nic Harrison for his assistance with ideas and direction in this article. His ideas and formulations have been most useful in describing this subject more fully and also directing the discussion in the direction that it needed to go. This is an important subject that each student and instructor should examine for their own part in the participation in, and rejection of monolithic training approaches.

Introduction

The discussion which follows will be broken up into various parts so that the material can be discussed succinctly and with direction. This will allow the greatest and most accurate discussion of the subject. The subject itself is designed to address the subject of monolithic training environments, those which are seen as the be all and end all of the fencer's training. These structures are inward looking limiting outward and contrary views of the subject of swordsmanship.

To begin with will be a discussion of the subject of competence and what it means both in the sense of definition and also in technical sense in operation. This will lead to the discussion of the problem of monolithic training environments and give reasons why they do not work, and that they do exist, but in effect should not, especially in our information-rich contemporary society. Various influences upon this situation will be addressed to delineate the problem as it stands.

The second part will discuss the reason that taking the opportunity to learn more, especially from different systems of swordsmanship, and in different methods, will give advantages to the fencer. These advantages will be presented in contrast to the monolithic approach. Further will be given examples how the monolithic approach can be broken, but this can only be achieved with effort on the part of the participants.

These discussions will be summed up in the final part of the discussion. Monolithic structures are difficult to break down due to their nature, but it is possible. It takes people to influence them with new thoughts and ideas from external sources, and to challenge them and to demonstrate the advantages of other approaches. These challenges need to be applied with intelligence and demonstration of the advantage of the new approach to training and swordsmanship in general.

On Competence

The online dictionary (via Google) defines 'competence' as: "the ability to do something successfully or efficiently". In fencing terms this means the ability to stay personally safe fencing while not causing harm to the partner. The implication of this is to remain safe fencing anyone you cross swords with.

Some of those people may be better, or worse than you. Some may have entirely the wrong idea and be out to 'get' you, 'beat' you or are nervous and jittery with a sword in their hand under assault. It may be a competition or social sparring. In any or all of the above cases, a competent fencer will be able to stay safe. This is not to say that only incompetent fencers get injured. We know that this is not true, but it is rare for a competent fencer to act in such a manner as to cause injury to themselves, (sometimes, but not always using their partner to do it).

Competence is developed over time through learning skills and practicing those skills. It is also developed in fencing through facing different opponents so that the fencer can develop an understanding of the different ways in which people fence. This is an element which needs to be taken into account in the consideration of competence. A competent fencer is also one who can deal with the approach and tactics of an opponent, regardless of what they might be, and regardless of the length of their weapon. The only way to gain the knowledge how to deal with different sorts of opponents is to fence them and experiment with different approaches, not limit the fencer to a single method.

The "One True Way"

Fallacy of the Single Method

There are those who believe that there is “one true way” for training in particular weapon forms of a particular style. They also believe that the weapon should only be learnt in that particular style in that particular method and that any deviance from this is a “pollution” of the style and a deviance and should be avoided. For these individuals the weapon is taught and learnt the same way without any input from outside to change any facet of the process.

The approach above may sound appropriate to a more Oriental point of view but it also has presence in some Occidental schools as well. There is a notion that if the students learn something from somewhere else then it will somehow taint what they know and by them using this knowledge it will affect all the other students who come into contact with them in a negative way. This approach to the study of swordsmanship is flawed.

The single method of training to the exclusion of all others limits ideas. It does not allow the student to experience any new ideas from other areas, nor expand their own ideas because they are limited to what is found within the school. This limitation of ideas means that the fencer, should they take their skills out of the school to a tournament, will not be prepared for different approaches to using the sword, and thus will have no way of dealing with them.

Of course there will be an answer to this and other failings.

The answer that will be given in response to questions about other approaches is that the method which is being taught is “all-encompassing” so there is no need for other methods to be examined. This response is designed to tell the student that there is no need for them to go elsewhere because the teacher at the school can teach them all that they need to know, and that the method that they are learning will deal with anything that another swordsman can throw at them. Most often this is not the case, and there will be failures.

Failures in practicing the art as described by the school, especially against other schools, will be attributed not to a failure in the art, but due to a failure in practicing by the student. The student will be instructed that if they had practiced more that particular attack would have been defeated. In this way, the blame for the failure experienced is shifted from the methodology to the student.

Worse still, in tournaments run by the school cheating may be involved to prop up the school’s method. Officials will be affiliates or members of the school and their calls will be biased toward the school. Thus through the tournament the method is “proven in combat.” Complaints about issues with officials and how the tournament was run will be put down to individual perceptions rather than any real issue.

On an individual level in single method training, once a trainee completes a training course, there is sometimes the perception that is all that there is to be learnt, that their training is now complete, because they have completed the training course. Most of the time the initial training course gives the student of swordsmanship the basic “language” of swordsmanship, thus it teaches them how; to move, to defend and how to attack. These skills are necessary so that the student can now understand the more complex elements of swordsmanship which come after.

The Trainer Influence

Trainers influence students. They must otherwise they have no ability to teach. This influence can have a positive or a negative influence on the career of the fencer, depending on what sort of influence they are and how they influence the student.

For some trainers, they guard their schools as they would have been in the Orient. In some cases this is because there has been an Eastern tradition which has had an influence on the trainer in their career. What this means is that they have an old traditional approach. The method they teach is one which they feel is a personal method which they teach to their students. This method is not to be spread among other swordsmen but kept within the school. Within these schools loyalty to the school is of great importance and to train with another school. The student should seek permission first, and to not do so is seen as a breach of faith, which is sometimes punished, if not explicitly then implicitly.

In other cases, there is no previous Eastern tradition to somewhat explain this motivation, but the same attitude is taken and many of the same elements are also adopted. This idea of the personal method can be pushed even further. Here, the trainer is seen as the only voice of reason as it is their method which they have developed over an extended period of time. Pushed far enough these become a cult of personality, with the head trainer at the top.

These monolithic training structures, both the Eastern traditional approach and the cult of personality are not healthy. These approaches heavily discourage cross-training with students of other schools for fear that the students may pick up something new that they might show the other students which deviates from the method. Further, the students may find in their cross-training that there are questions that have no answers.

One of the fears which monolithic structures have is questions which have no answers, thus a fear of the discovery of a flaw, or flaws in the method which is being taught. How can the method be one which is “all-encompassing” if it has flaws? If all the students are following the method then they are not likely to find the flaws, but if they go outside the method they are more likely to, thus cross-training training is discouraged for fear of new discovery and finding something that the method has no answer for. Of greater concern is when these ideas spread to a wider community.

Group Influence

Groups will also influence how the individual trains and whether or not they are open to outside influences. Just like the influence of the trainer this influence can be of benefit or it can be a detriment to the advancement of the individual in their training. In this regard, it is often a question of whether the group is outward looking or inward looking.

The outward looking group will seek other opportunities to learn and different points of view to enhance their view of swordsmanship, and through this gain a greater understanding of it. The inward looking group will not. The inward looking group will have a method which they stick to which suits their rule-set and it will be a method and a rule-set which they will claim is their own, and which is the only correct one.

The same group will influence the individuals within the group through its culture to feel the same way about the method and the rule-set so that they have a common belief-system, and anyone who disagrees will be more than likely ostracised. They will believe that other methods are incorrect because they are not like theirs, and because they are not taught in the same fashion as they are.

The monolithic nature of the style will be most exposed when questions are asked about the style of swordsmanship and it is vigorously defended. There is a great fear that flaws will be discovered in the method and this will be covered up with bluster about the “superior” nature of the method. The questions will even be deflected to other places and avoided.

In defence of their method and to prove that it is better than those about them tournaments will be arranged. Of course, the tournament rules and the officials will be biased toward any member of the group and find in favour of them should a dispute arise. This idea will extend even further to the scheduling of events. Events will be cross-scheduled with others to ensure that members will only attend events of their own group, to ensure that they are exposed only to the correct culture. Of course, this will be hidden behind training program requirements.

Of Weapon Forms and Historical Masters...

There are those who will claim that they do not look outside what they are doing because what is happening at a particular conference is not relevant to them because they only study rapier and only from Capo Ferro, or only do German longsword. There are issues which arise from this approach in any way that it is viewed.

Taking the point of view of those who only study rapier and only from Capo Ferro as an example, this master did not invent the weapon form. He was not even the first to present the theories which are expressed in his treatise. Even if the individual wants to look at late-Italian rapier, Giganti is a better foundation from which to move to Capo Ferro, and there are theoretical elements within Fabris which are also useful as well. Further, even investigations into Agrippa’s principles can assist as well.

In an even broader context, there is the important element to note that all forms of swordsmanship are united by the same two primary principles of Time and Distance regardless of the sword’s form. So even by studying the longsword, there are elements which one can learn about the rapier, and vice versa. Indeed di Grassi approaches the use of his two-handed sword with the same principles as he does with his single sword. So approaching the examination of swordsmanship focusing on only one weapon also denies all the associative learning which occurs.

Further there it is historically inaccurate. There is evidence through the treatises of the theorists and masters themselves that they did not learn their arts from a single individual but learnt it from several. They learnt it from whoever would teach them something which would be of use to them. This is the same approach that all should approach swordsmanship in our current age.

Then there is the argument, “I’m only starting, I need to understand [insert weapon form] properly before doing something new." This is a false argument as only by learning something new will it be possible to understand what is being studied, and possibly not even then. The issue here is that in the beginning it is difficult to understand what the possibilities really are and also the theory involved. Only through even an examination of some other weapon or approach to the same weapon is it possible to have a glimpse of other possibilities and theory.

Unknowingly Guilty

Of course when a person decides to learn a skill, or train in a weapon form, or pursue a course of study, in swordsmanship, there are the best of intentions. The same can be said when a person takes it upon themselves to train others in the same. From the outset the intention is to approach the subject to gain the greatest understanding of the material, this is not always the result.

People start with open eyes and as they become involved in various aspects of training they become more closed to opportunities and approaches, due to various reasons. The issue becomes when these avenues which are closed are closed for no good reason at all. The issue is further increased when these avenues cannot be opened because some sort of conviction has been formed that these avenues were closed and should not be opened, even when good reasons are presented. This is where the monolithic training structures are formed along with the concept of the “one true way”. Validation should always be sought and re-sought for every approach.

“The only sure knowledge is that I know nothing.” Plato

While Plato’s statement is somewhat disingenuous, in that even the beginner after their first lesson has some knowledge, it is an approach that can be taken and is a healthy one when examining outside ideas. This approach allows us to examine new ideas with the perspective of the benefit of new knowledge that will always benefit our knowledge of swordplay, regardless of whether it is the same form of weapon or not.

When the opportunity is presented to learn something new, or even learn something which is familiar from a different point of view, the opportunity should be taken with both hands. This will broaden your experience and your horizons. Only through learning new things and re-examining what we already know will we really understand what is possible.

Swordplay Universals

The essential fact is that even with a different type of sword, there are elements which are related. This is because all swordplay is related. It is related because the human body can only move in a certain set of particular ways, and because all swords carry similar characteristics which cannot be divorced from one another.

Clearly, all swords have a handle. All swords have two edges, regardless of whether one is blunt or not. All swords have a pommel of some description to hold the rest of the sword together, in most cases this also acts as a counter-balance to the blade. The balance point of a good sword is somewhere just beyond the extent of the hilt of the weapon. All of these characteristics of the weapon mean that there is commonality in the method of their use.

Masters’ Words

The masters’ treatises have a bad habit of not explaining everything. This is for two main reasons. The first is assumed knowledge, things that a student of the period the treatise would know. The second is concealment, things that the master would conceal so that the student would have to come to him for an explanation, thus pay him to teach him. This second one is found especially in the works of earlier period masters. The concealment was so people had to come and get lessons and also so only students of the master could use the treatise alone to train. In regard to the first reason there are simple concepts which were assumed knowledge because this is what was taught as a part of the education during that period. Some of this has been left behind in our modern education system so these elements need some explanation.

Learning another system adds to experience and knowledge of swordplay and this can only enhance the ability of the fencer. This experience and knowledge can be used to extend and enhance the performance of other weapons due to the common foundations and also to enhance similar weapons due to the greater understanding. There is also a prime tactical reason for learning another system.

Learning another system allows a person to examine it from the inside. To take it apart and see how it works. To discover what the essential elements are. So then the same system can be defeated through this knowledge. This means that the person who learns more systems knows better how to defeat other systems because they have a greater understanding of them.

Further the understanding of other systems can assist in understanding the development and history of the system which is the primary study of the individual. While they are not directly linked, there is evidence for foundation elements found in earlier works that is also found in later works. Similarities in formation of action and movement which are too close to be coincidence, especially when geographical considerations are taken into account. The history, while some find it unnecessary, explains why weapons and styles developed the way that they did.

Study for Understanding

Through the study of material which binds your interest in terms of time and geography can aid in understanding of the overall teaching method which a person studies under. Study is an essential part of learning, and while the beginner’s study is primarily mechanical in the beginning, they should have intellectual elements to their study as well. The more experienced student should be studying treatises and other theoretical elements to better understand what they are being taught.

There must be a reason why the instructor is teaching. There must be some sort of foundation from which they have built themselves to a position where they are able to teach and some experience and knowledge. The reason needs to be established for a person’s ability to teach and the reason that they are teaching. This reason needs to be examined, especially if the reasons seem spurious.

The clever student of the sword will learn from everyone. The teacher will learn from their students as much as the students will learn from their teacher. Everyone has something to teach, even if they do not realise it themselves. The important thing with regard to this is the approach: for the student it is learning better ways to learn; for the teacher it is learning better ways to teach.

Giving Back

The new teacher should bring something new to the school at which they are supposed to teach. A new teacher should always be adding to the curriculum not just repeating the old curriculum as it has been previously presented. Even a different perspective taken on the old curriculum is better than simply teaching it the same way. Updating the curriculum with the latest knowledge is always a good thing.

In those schools which have a ranking system similar to that of the London Masters of Defence, i.e. Scholar, Free Scholar, Provost and Master, the rank of Free Scholar should mean something. It should not be just another rank. This rank should mean that the student is “free” to learn new things. There should be an expectation of new learning and exploration placed upon individuals of this rank. This is to encourage them to find new things to study, to find different perspectives. This is a way to enhance a school and to prevent it from stagnating.

Moral of the story? Don’t make mountains, there are enough mole hills already.

The monolithic training structure is difficult to break down due to its nature. It is one solid block and those who are within it often do not see what is without it. They also do not see any issue with their approach. The nature of the structure is that the students have been taught that there is a single way to do things and it is by the structure that they have been taught. The teachers have been taught the same from their teachers, and it is in this fashion that the structure gains and maintains its rigidity. It is because the people are so invested in the structure that it is so hard to break down.

The influence to change needs to come from within the structure, but external sources need to show the flaws in the structure to elements within it for this to occur. This is where there are always issues. The external sources are external so they have little impact upon the structure unless they can influence those on the inside. Once individuals on the inside have been influenced, they need to exert influence on the inside from the inside to achieve change.

The most important thing is that this influence and challenge must be achieved through the use of demonstration and intelligence. Intelligence needs to be demonstrated in the alternative approaches along with demonstration of the use of these alternative approaches otherwise there will be no effect. Battering away at the monolith with one or the other singly will have no effect, they must be performed together. Persuasive arguments will be fended off by blunt statements without demonstration; demonstration will be fended off without intelligent argument.

Monolithic training structures believe that they have the one true path toward achievement of the way of swordsmanship. Unfortunately there are quite a few of these structures out there, even worse is that many of them can’t even identify themselves as such. There needs to be flexibility for a school or other organisation to grow with the knowledge which is being made available, this allows the organisation to remain healthy. Healthy interaction with other groups can only assist with this and can only benefit swordplay overall.

Cheers,

Henry.

Sword and Shield Treatises

Greetings,

The following is a discussion, as indicated by the title, about treatises in the discussion of the use of the sword and shield. Before any further reading is done, it should be noted that the buckler has been excluded from this discussion, thus the discussion is about larger shields which were typically used and associated with war. While this is the case, the rotella and variants has been included due to its size, and thus use characteristics. What will be noted is a distinct gap in knowledge...

Treatises

          In studying the idea of the use of sword and shield in the medieval period there is an issue as there is a large gap in knowledge. Studying the sword and shield in the Renaissance period is not so much of an issue as when the shield left the battlefield it found a place in civilian combats thus there were theorists willing to write about its use. Previous to these writings however, there is a gap in our knowledge. It would seem that the knowledge for this period was either passed from one man to another or if it was written down it was lost.

Vegetius: Roman Source Material

          One of the earliest treatises we have with regard to the use of the sword and shield is Flavius Vegetius Renatus, or as he is more commonly known, Vegetius (2008). He wrote at the end of the Western Roman Empire discussing the training methods of legionaries of the earlier periods when the Empire was at its height. It will be claimed that this particular source is not of much use because it discusses Roman methods of warfare rather than medieval forms, however, it was significant enough to be re-written and re-purposed in the medieval period as the Poem of the Pel (Neele, 1460).

          The six stanzas which are considered by most practitioners to make up the Poem which, start with the second, are an almost direct copy of the writings of Vegetius. If a comparison is made between the two documents, it will be noted that there are too many similarities between these two documents that make it unlikely that the Poem was not a paraphrasing of a selection out of Vegetius’ treatise. Unfortunately in the thousand-year gap between Vegetius and the Poem there seems to be little to go on.

Norse Sagas

          The Norse, like many people wrote great stories of the histories of their people. Within these stories there are battles which are told, these stories can tell us something of what combat was like for these people and tell us how they used their weapons. Of course being the great stories that they are, they also have to be taken with a certain degree of criticism as well as in such stories there are often exaggerations made.

          These stories cover a period in which there is not much written down which means it is useful to have them to gain some understanding of combat in this period, but they are not exactly the combat treatises that we are used to seeing from the Renaissance period. The information which is presented needs to be examined, critiqued and then experimented with for validity. The same can be said for any primary source material, but in the case of the written word where stories are concerned more care needs to be taken.

          Of course it does not mean that valuable information cannot be extracted from such sources, but it should always be validated by other sources. In some instances these sources may be other contemporary sagas, or experimental archaeological findings. In both cases the examination needs to be taken with a level of caution to avoid incorrect interpretation or personal bias.

The Medieval Gap

“anyone who might believe that there are no actual Medieval fighting manuals or that there are no real historical sources for Medieval martial arts is entirely ignorant on the subject.” (Clements, 1998:11)

           There is a large gap with regard to written sources between the Norse sagas and the Poem, mentioned previously. This leaves a gap in our written knowledge of how the sword and shield was used in the medieval period. Again, some information may be gained from eye-witness accounts and other chronicles of the period which, just like the Norse sagas, need to be critically examined before the information which they contain can be used with any authority.

          Most of the units in the medieval period were household units or units organised by a particular lord. The individuals with rank who were trained in the use of arms would have been trained by those who knew, and they would have been trained by others who knew, thus training would have been passed practically and by word of mouth rather than written down. This, of course, leaves few written sources for the historian or practitioner of martial arts to interrogate.

          What this means is that other sources have to be found to interrogate, and there are other sources available, if a person is willing to look and broaden their horizons. Rather than limiting a search to treatises, chronicles of battles can be useful where individual conflicts are described, as are individual encounters. Further, the artists of the period would paint what they had in front of them to paint or illustrate in some fashion. This gives us snapshots of situations where equipment is being used and these can be interrogated for information as well. Combined with an examination of museum pieces and accurate replicas, some experimental archaeology based on such information can discover the skills which are hidden within these sources.

The Renaissance Flourishing

          Some would claim it was firearms which sent armour and swords from the battlefield in the Renaissance period, but this is a very simplistic view, especially considering members of cavalry were still wearing breastplates and using swords in the Napoleonic Wars. What the Renaissance really did for the sword and shield was enable the information about its use to be put to print thanks to the invention of the printing press. It is true that as armour improved the shield was removed from the armoured man’s armoury, but it found a new life in that of the civilian’s, and it would also remain on the battlefield for a little while longer.

          The duelling shield as seen in Talhoffer’s (2000) manual of 1467 is a shield which is different from all others in that it could also be used as an offensive device as well, having a spike at both ends. Without using these appendages it could be utilised the same way as any other large shield of the period. This demonstrated a judicial use of the sword and shield, relatively common to the Germans.

          More common to this period was the use of the rotella of the Italians as typified by the manuals of Marozzo (1536), Agrippa (1553), di Grassi (1570 and 1594), Lovino (1580), and Capo Ferro (1610), who demonstrated the use of this round shield for civilian combats. These treatises give us detailed examinations of how these shields were used in civilian combats against others with like weapons, and while some information can be inferred about the use of previous shields caution must be taken with regard to this endeavour that personal preferences and prejudices do not interfere in this research.

          There is one final source which needs to be noted and that is Colombani (1711). This is an interesting source as it does not supply much information about how to use the shield, but places it in with other devices. The date of this treatise is also interesting in that it is so late and places it quite out of the usual range of Renaissance period instruction in this form. It does, however demonstrate a continued interest in its use.

Source Use

          In the investigation of the sword and shield it is important that rigorous investigation is made of all the available material. What has not been noted in this collection is that there are also Iberian sources which also mention the use of the shield and these need to be taken into account. Thus the researcher needs to make clear what their purpose is in their research, and also which particular area of research is being pursued.

          Further complications can arise as to whether a particular shape of shield is being used or a particular size is also being used. If, for example, the buckler is also being included in such research then treatises such as the M.S. I.33 also need to be taken into account. What will also be noted is that the buckler is a much smaller shield and thus the use of this form of shield is quite different to the much larger forms, thus some sort of focus is actually required to do the subject justice.

          A subject needs to be chosen which limits the parameters of the search, but then this search should not be limited only to the written word or only written treatises. In the case of the medieval shield, if limited to the written word, it would be severely hampered and there would be much which would have to be assumed or estimated, such things need to be taken into account. The search needs to take into account the broadest amount of materials but to keep focused on the particular subject area for efficient and effective research.

Bibliography

Agrippa (1553) Fencing: A Renaissance Treatise, Edited by Ken Mondschein (2009), Italica Press, New York

Clements, J. (1998) Medieval Swordsmanship: Illustrated Methods and Techniques, Paladin Press, Boulder, Colorado

Colombani (1711) L'Arte Maestra ("The Master Art") https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/L%27Arte_maestra_(Carlo_Giuseppe_Colombani)

di Grassi (1595) His True Arte of Defence: Showing how a man without other Teacher or Master may Safelie handle all Sortes of Weapons, Signe of the Hand and Starre, London, http://www.umass.edu/renaissance/lord/pdfs/DiGrassi_1594.pdf

Kirby, J. (ed)(2004) Italian Rapier Combat: Ridolfo Capo Ferro, Greenhill Books, London, UK, Stackpole Books, Pennsylvania, USA

Lovino (1580) http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~wew/fencing/lovino.html

Marozzo (1536) https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Achille_Marozzo

Neele, John (1460) “Poem of the Pel” in Knyghthode and Bataile (Cotton MS Titus A xxiii), Wiktenauer (http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Poem_of_the_Pel)

Talhoffer, H. (2000) Medieval Combat: A Fifteenth-Century Illustrated Manual of Swordfighting and Close-Quarter Combat, Greenhill Books, London, UK (Translated and Edited by Mark Rector)

Vegetius (2008) On Roman Military Matters: A 5^th Century Training Manual in Organization, Weapons and Tactics, as Practiced by the Roman Legions, Red and Black Publishers, St Petersburg, Florida, Translated by Lt John Clarke (1767)

The Perfect Weapon Length: A Discussion of Weapon Proportion

Introduction

            The original thought for what follows was to seek weapons of perfect length for own purposes. This would be not to go out and actually acquire said weapons, but to examine the lengths and compare them to the ones that I am currently using. Instead, I thought it would be more useful to examine various theorists’ preferences for weapon length, and what follows is not an exhaustive list of weapons or theorists. This can then move on to a discussion of other things related to weapon length such as weapon proportion and its importance.

            With regard to weapon length preference, there is a general organisation between determined and proportional for the examination of the theorist’s preferences. There will also be the question of the importance of choosing a weapon length as several theorists do not designate a weapon preference, the reasons for the choice of weapon length, and how the weapon length relates to both the form of combat and its foundation.

            With regard to the evidence presented, some will come from primary texts and others will come from secondary texts, based on primary texts. The conclusions drawn from the evidence and discussion made with regard to reasons for these choices of weapon length are, however, my own and based upon my own understanding of the various weapons and their use. Please excuse the lack of bibliographical details where they have not been included, in most cases period works simply are referenced by author and date.

Length Determined

            What is most interesting is that some theorists discussed weapon length while others did not. More interestingly is that there is a clear trend for theorists not to discuss the dimensions of the weapon rather than to discuss them. This could come down to a couple of reasons, either the length of the weapon was not considered important, or that the student should be appropriately fitted for his weapon before consulting with the teacher. Another reason could also be is that the weapon length could be decided for a duel, so weapon length would be up to the chooser and thus not appropriate to be discussed in the context of learning. In any case, what will be found below is a mix of weapons proportional and also simply determined.

            The length of a weapon could be chosen for different reasons. The proportional measurement of weapons makes most sense as this fits the weapon to the individual who would be using it and thus, by rationale make it the most suitable weapon for the individual to use. Other measurements of weapons however are simply determined by the author. Swetnam states "thy weapon fowre foot long or there about," (Swetnam, 1617). He gives no rationale simply a statement of fact. It would be assumed that this length of weapon is the one that either he is most comfortable with or has found most suitable for what he is teaching. What is most interesting is that a similar determination for length is also made with regard to the Spanish Tradition.

            While Swetnam gives a weapon length approximate and would seem to indicate a weapon length which may be longer, the Spanish seem to go in the other direction determining the maximum length of the weapon. “According to the canonical authors, the length of the weapon should be no longer than 5/4 vara. That’s an upper limit just a bit over 41 inches.” (Curtis, 2010). This indicates that a weapon should have a maximum length, but a preference for a shorter one. The weapon length determined here is echoed by Pacheco de Narváez and Francisco Lórenz de Rada (Curtis, 2010). This would indicate that for the Spanish tradition it is better to have a weapon shorter than longer, this weapon preference and choice of form and method of play have a clear relation to one another.

Length Proportional

            To broaden the scope and moving on to a shorter, but equally essential weapon, examination needs to be made of Vadi’s determination for dagger length. The length of this weapon is proportional to the user, as are all Vadi’s weapons. He states that “The length of the dagger should be just to the elbow, with an edge and two corners. The grip should be the length of the fist, as the shape is shown depicted here below.” (Windsor, 2012:173). This keeps the dagger proportional to the user, a shorter dagger would not cover the forearm for some of Vadi’s defences and a longer one would likely get in the way.

            Vadi applies a similar reasoning with regard to proportionality with regard to his primary weapon the longsword, “proportionate to the wielder, reaching from the ground to the armpit, with a long hilt, rounded pommel and an equally long, squared and pointed cross guard.” (Porzio and Mele, 2002:12). Clearly the weapon is proportional to the user of the weapon as determined by the length of the weapon overall. What is also noted is that such proportionality in the weapon is further highlighted in the formation of the hilt. The handle is determined to be a span long, and the cross guard, the same length as the handle and pommel together (Porzio and Mele, 2002:45).

Even George Silver states that the two-handed sword needs to be proportional to the user’s other weapons, “The perfect length of your two handed sword is, the blade to be the length of the blade of your single sword.” (Silver, 1599). It should be noted that there was little considered difference between the long and two-handed swords in their description in the treatises. Needless to say, with all of his vehemence against the long Italian weapons, he makes clear statement as to the perfect length of his single sword.

“To know the perfect length of your sword, you shall stand with your sword and dagger drawn, as you see this picture, keeping out straight your dagger arm, drawing back your sword as far as ...

The rest of this article can be found in Un-Blogged: A Fencer's Ramblings by Henry Walker, which is available in paperback from:

Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Blogged-Ramblings-Henry-Leigh-Walker/dp/098764470X
Booktopia: https://www.booktopia.com.au/un-blogged-henry-leigh-walker/book/9780987644701.html
Among other places...

It is also available in electronic format (pdf) from: https://buy.stripe.com/fZecP419c7CB9VKeUV

... or direct from the author.

Bibliography

Curtis, P. (2010) Destreza: Choosing  a Weapon for the Spanish Tradition http://www.puckandmary.com/blog_puck/2010/12/destreza-choosing-a-weapon-for-the-spanish-tradition/

Porzio, L. and Mele, G. (2002) Arte Gladiatoria Dimicandi: 15^th Century Swordsmanship of Master Filippo Vadi, Chivalry Bookshelf, Union City

Windsor, G. (2012) Veni Vadi Vici: A Transcription and Commentary of Philippo Vadi’s De Arte Gladiatoria Dimicandi, The School of European Swordsmanship

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 ...

The rest of this article can be found in Un-Blogged: A Fencer's Ramblings by Henry Walker, which is available in paperback from:

Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Blogged-Ramblings-Henry-Leigh-Walker/dp/098764470X
Booktopia: https://www.booktopia.com.au/un-blogged-henry-leigh-walker/book/9780987644701.html
Among other places...

It is also available in electronic format (pdf) from: https://buy.stripe.com/fZecP419c7CB9VKeUV

... or direct from the author.

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