Sharp vs Blunt Sword: The Effect on Interpretation

Greetings,

These days the two prime places we see sharp swords are as show pieces hanging on someone's wall either as an antique or as a fancy weapon, or during test-cutting. The sharp weapons are not typically used during drills and certainly not used during combats. There are safety reasons they are not used during combats. After all, these weapons were designed with the specific purpose of injuring and killing people, and one slip could result in someone injured even if the intent is not present. This leads to people using blunt weapons for drills and combats. It must be acknowledged that we are using blunt weapons, not sharp ones, as there is a difference between the two.

Sharp Swords are Different

To begin with, there is a simple physical difference between blunt and sharp weapons when it comes to how they act against one another. A blunt edge reacts differently to a sharp edge when it comes into contact with another one. The blunt edge, the tends to slip and slide easily. Whereas, due to the nature of a sharp edge. it will tend to bind on the other one, actually biting in and stopping in some circumstances. This will account for some of the reason that certain actions described in treatises don't seem to work when using blunt weapons.

The blunt sword will make a difference to the interpretation of a treatise, more so when it comes into contact with another blunt sword, as has been described previously, simply because of the different physical reaction between the weapons. There are further places where the blunt weapon will make a difference to the interpretation to a treatise as will be demonstrated as this discussion proceeds. Much of this has to do with the reaction of the opponent who is threatened by the weapon that is being held by the opponent. Certain techniques which work in theory with a sharp weapon work less effectively when the weapon is blunt.

Threat of the Weapon

In his The True Art of Defence (1594) Giacomo di Grassi states, "For there are few nay there is no man at all, which (perceiuing himſelfe readie to be ſtroken) giues not back, and forſaketh to performe euerie other motion which he hath begun." Essentially, that a man who sees that he will be struck first will pull back his offensive action to defend himself, rather than completing his offensive action. This premise is used in later techniques, for example when an opponent is about to throw a cut, a thrust is extended; the threat of the thrust encouraging the other to quit his cut and to defend himself. This would work when the weapons are sharp, but not so much when the weapons are blunt.

The problem is that because the weapons are blunt, the people involved are wearing safety equipment, and are not supposed to be there to injure one another, the fear of the weapon has been removed. There is no fear of the weapon, and no respect for it either. This means that the individuals do not feel under threat by the opponent's thrust coming at them so they will continue their cut anyway, regardless of whether or not both of them are struck or not. This leads to bad fencing, the basic rule of fencing, to strike without being struck, seems to be thrown out; all that seems to matter is that the opponent is struck.

The result of this approach is more double-hits and more double-kills, of which I have already written an article. So I won't go into detail about my thoughts on that subject again here so soon, though I have no doubt that it will appear again. What does occur is that people become so focused with the impression that their skills are good, that they believe that the rules are wrong and not their approach, so they have long debates about tournament rules regarding "double-hits" and "after-blows" and how points should or should not be awarded. I will state clearly again, if you and your opponent are struck you have both failed in your defence. The culprit is primarily a lack of respect for the weapon.

Not All Bad

The news is not all bad, however, there have been some truly excellent things as a result of using blunt weapons. These come into two categories, though it could be claimed that the one leads on to the other. Aside from the legal and insurance nightmares that clubs would have from arguing the case for fighting with sharp weapons, unless there is a failure on the part of some aspect of safety, there is little chance that a combatant using a blunt weapon will be maimed or killed.

I am going to add a caveat here. The prime method of safety for using a blunt weapon has to be the control of the individual using the weapon, PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) has to come at least secondary, if not tertiary, in regard to safety. This because they are objects which can degrade and fail, or even move without our notice. Blunt weapons can still do damage, they are still weapons that need to be respected.

All that being said, because fencers are not using their skills to kill one another, we have the chance to learn from our mistakes, unlike fencers of previous ages who died from theirs using sharp weapons. We must acknowledge the mistakes first, so we can learn from them. If a fencer does not acknowledge the mistake, they cannot learn from the mistake and they will keep repeating it, and they will not improve. Fencers in the contemporary era have the chance to make some of the greatest strides in our art if they only respect what they are doing, and learn from their mistakes.

The result is a "mixed bag" of positives and negatives. The lucky thing is that most of the negatives we can get past if we are willing to work on them conscientiously. We need to examine exactly how we are fencing see where our flaws are and move to improve them. We need to get back to the basics of fencing in many instances, focus on being safe, then strike in safety, rather than just striking at any opportunity that we see, disregarding our defence. Each person needs to do their part in this endeavour, are you ready to do yours?

Cheers,

Henry.

P.S. You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation every year to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.

di Grassi: Pick it Up and Use It

 Greetings,

In this month's post in which we look at a section in di Grassi's treatise in which he regards anything by which a person may offend and defend as a weapon. From this premise I will expand on this idea to examine some odd items which are often found laying around a campsite that may be used as a weapon, primarily of a defensive nature.

"ALbeit Wepons aſwel offenſiue as defenſiue be infinite, becauſe all that whatſoeuer a man may handle to offend an other or defend himſelfe, either by flinging or kepinge faſt in his hand may in my opinion be tearmed Weapon." Giacomo di Grassi (1594)

The following discussion is formed on the basis of the above statement found in Giacomo di Grassi's (1594) The true Art of Defence exactlie teachinge the manner how to handle weapons ſafelie, aſwel offenſiue as defenſiue, With a Treatiſe of Diſceit or Falſing, And with a mean or waie how a man may practiſe of himſelfe to gett Strength, Iudgement, And Actiuitie. This has been sourced from the 1594 translation of the treatise not the 1570 Italian and then translated, because I do not speak Italian and the Elizabethan English text is a text in its own right, worthy of study as I will likely have discussed previously. Moving on with the subject at hand...

There have been quite a few movies, especially of recent times, where a protagonist has picked up something convenient and used it as a weapon. This usually in the middle of a brawl, where rules have been thrown out of the window and the pair are fighting to survive. An incidence comes to mind where a rolled up magazines was used as a baton, for example, in "The Bourne Supremacy" (2004). The same sort of thing occurred in sword combats. While we are not likely to be involved in a brawl with a sword to save our lives, it is useful to examine some different objects, and approaches that can be used just in case we are surprised with an unfamiliar item.

Defensive Items

In this case, the focus will be on weapons of a defensive nature. This means weapons which are not intended to strike an opponent. A dagger, for example has both offensive and defensive capabilities, so will not feature in this discussion. Where as the buckler, which has the prime object of being defensive will be present, at least in reference in these discussions. 

Defensive weapons can be used for offensive purposes. Indeed, it is di Grassi who mentions the use of the "muſtachio" a blow to the face with the edge of the buckler, should the opponent be close and the sword bound or occupied. This is not their prime purpose, their prime purpose is for defending the individual who picks them up. Further, it will be some generic items, things that may be lying around in a Renaissance setting that will be addressed for use as these defensive items.

Relatable

The trick in each of these items is to approach using the item by relating it to an item more commonly used in fencing and then applying the same rules, taking into account its idiosyncrasies. There is no item which should not be relatable to another item more familiar. It is these links that should allow you to pick up anything you like and defend yourself with it. 

In an attempt to keep this discussion relatively brief, there will be a limit on the number of items that will be discussed. Each one of these will be related to a weapon form that I have discussed in one of my articles previously, so the rules can be found there, if you are unfamiliar with them. The trick is to look at them from the correct point of view.

"Buckler"

So we no doubt have all walked into a kitchen and picked up a pot lid and thought ,"Hey if this was bent the other way, it would make a great buckler." in return it could be said that it could make a good buckler just the way it is, especially in an emergency. It is the right shape, it comes with a handle in the right spot and it is made of a robust material. Further, being in a kitchen, finding an offensive device to go with it should not be a problem. The word messer does mean "knife" in German after all, and a stout blow with a rolling pin is going to make an opponent think twice. 

"Kitchen Combat" here we come? Instead, I think we should move a little "outdoors" though the same objects would be available in a camp kitchen as well. There are even more objects available when you think about it here, and the items become even more robust in nature.

"Cane"

The idea behind using a cane is a stick used to defend yourself, in its simplest terms. In a truly combative situation, the same stick could also be used as a club, and thus as an offensive device, but we will focus on the defensive aspect. Here there are many options, not restricted to flags, staffs, shooting sticks for muskets, pretty much anything with a stick involved. Let's push that envelope just a little further, what about a shovel?

It could be used sort of like a buckler and cane combined if you use the blade upward. This method, by the way is rather unwieldy and strains the arm a lot (Yes, I've actually done it.). The better way is to hold the shovel by the handle and use the blade as a counter-lever. This way it makes a very solid defence which the opponent will have a very hard time moving. It is not particularly mobile, but once you're behind it, you're pretty safe from an opponent's attacks if you stay there.

"Cloak"

Any, preferably large, piece of material can be used as a cloak. I really mean any. I have used a coat, and a tabbard both used as a cloak on separate instances. A blanket or a tablecloth, both of good material will serve as good stand-ins for cloaks in emergencies. In fact some of the best cloaks that I have seen, and worn, were made from blankets, or at least blanket-type material. It's the volume of material that makes this device effective, and also keeps the warmth in when you wear it. This is why slightly heavier and thicker material is more effective than thinner.

"Rotella"

A rotella is a large shield which protects most of the arm and shoulder, and extends out from the arm. If a chair was picked up, especially a wooden camping chair; forearm against the back, seat grabbed and legs toward the opponent, it could act as a rotella with some added reach. Now, the hand would be exposed on the outside, but the opponent would have to get past the legs of the chair first. Of course the wielder of the chair also needs to be careful about those legs, if using certain rules, to ensure they do not strike their opponent. If no such rules exist, they could be a potent weapon for striking. This does not even begin to investigate their potential for entanglement.

Out of the weapon suggestions that I have discussed, this is the only one that I have not actually put into practise more than a single time, at least in a practical/bouting situation. I have certainly thought about the theoretical side of it, and I think that there is a lot of potential. After all, I am the one who is usually writing about people sitting on the chair, not using them for weapons.

Why?

The purpose of this investigation has been to open your eyes to different possibilities. To show how different things are related to one another, that many things that we think are foreign, are actually not that different from one another. You may not have learnt, or been taught, how to use a device, but if you relate it back to a device that you do know of similar construction, then you have a step-up.

Examine the usual weapons that are used during your form of fencing, compare them to other forms of fencing, then compare them to other items that you might find laying about. See how they might be used in a similar fashion should you have to use them at a moment's notice. Think about the chance of a sudden invasion of a campsite, you have to pick up the closest thing to you to defend yourself. Think about a tavern brawl, you have to pick up the closest thing to you and defend yourself. Expand your mind have a look at objects differently, it will reveal a lot about the objects, and the objects you are basing their use upon.

Cheers,

Henry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You will notice a lot of Wikipedia links in my posts. This is a great resource of free information which is now reliably researched, as you will note by the references which appear at the bottom of each page. I donate to the Wikimedia Foundation every year to keep this non-profit group operational, and I recommend that everyone do the same, you can do this HERE. Please give, and keep this free source of information alive, there are few of them these days.

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

Against Strength

Greetings,

In a person's fencing career, they will always come up against an opponent who will want to use strength as their primary method to force their way through an engagement. Over the past months I have been dealing with this problem with some of my students, thus how to deal with an opponent who uses strength. This article deals with questions relating to the use of physical strength and where it originates.

Reasons

To understand where the idea of a person using strength, it is necessary to understand where this individual is coming from, where they get the idea that strength is the most advantageous method. This often comes from a couple of main sources: a) skill compensation, b) improper grip on the sword, and c) simple size advantage over their opponent. Each will be addressed in turn.

1. Compensation

The first is skill compensation. Often a fencer will compensate for a lack of skill with a weapon by using strength against an opponent. They will compensate for a lack of finesse in their actions by using strength, forcing the action through rather than using the correct blade engagement or Timing. This often happens when a person has not practiced the individual elements enough, or has not spent enough time honing their skill, as a result they use strength in their blade-work to force the weapon through. This results in actions which rely on strength for success.

2. Improper Grip

The next is an improper grip. If the weapon is gripped tightly or even simply incorrectly, a fencer will not be able to use an even grip on their sword. This will prevent the use of senso di ferro or sentiment du fer. This means that they will rely on a heavy pressure against their opponent's blade and will not  feel a lighter pressure against it. This will cause the fencer to force their way through an engagement rather than reading through feeling and applying the appropriate pressure for the action which they want to use. An improper grip on the weapon can cause a fencer many issues, and not just this one.

3. Size/Strength Advantage

Finally there is size advantage. A larger opponent will often use strength against an opponent who is smaller or weaker than they are believing that strength and speed are the best ways to deal with this opponent. This is often seen with larger male opponents against female opponents, but is not necessarily restricted to such. The same larger male combatant will also use strength against a weaker male opponent as well. This is simply using an aspect of physical strength against another. It is a very unsubtle approach and the weaker combatant will be surprised and defeated by the stronger opponent and will not see a way around them. But the stronger combatant can also be defeated by the weaker opponent as will be demonstrated below.

With all the discussions of the reasons that strength is used in an over-compensating way, it is now possible to discuss how to defeat a combatant who uses strength in this method. It should be noted, there is a place for strength in swordplay, but it needs to be applied with knowledge of the situation at the correct moment for the greatest effect. Much of this relies on a correct reading of the situation and thus good senso di ferro.

Against Strength

There are two prime methods of dealing with an opponent who uses strength: avoidance and using the strength against them. These two methods have a similar approach to them but are also different and thus must be explained separately. Each uses an aspect of the use of strength so that the fencer who is subject to the strength of the opponent to gain an advantage.

1. Avoidance

You can use avoidance to compensate for an opponent using strength. There are a couple of ways to do this. The first is through Absence of Blade. If the opponent is strong on their engagements and is using strength to control or move the weapon away so they can control or strike, simply do not give them the opportunity. Avoid contact with their weapon. This way the opponent will not be able to apply their strength to your weapon because they will not connect with it.

Another method is diversion. Rather than seeking solid contact with the opponent's weapon, which they can then use to gain strength against your weapon. Use your weapon to divert their attacks when they are made; divert their weapon when they want to make contact with yours. Such is achieved by angling your weapon so theirs always deflects off your weapon so it never maintains contact. Using disengages and slips with the weapon are prime methods in the arsenal for diversion.

2. Use the Strength

You can use their strength against them and also strength that they cannot resist. These are two different approaches which are based on a similar approach. The first is an approach using the Strength/Weak dichotomy. It is known that strength has the advantage over weak, because it can force the weak, but the weak can also have the advantage over the strength because the weak can slip from the weak and remain mobile and put the strength out of place. For example: The opponent engages hard with strength on the blade pushing forward, the combatant uses weakness and uses the strength to turn their weapon out of the way and back on-line so an attack can be made. This approach is similar in approach to the Avoidance approach above but uses the strength of the opponent's weapon use against them.

You can also use mechanical advantage to your advantage to create strength. Ensure that when the opponent applies strength to your weapon that you always ensure that you have mechanical advantage or can angle your weapon so theirs, through their strength, is always moved to your forte. Regardless of how strong they are, when their debole (or foible) is at your forte you have a clear mechanical advantage and their strength does not count for much. This uses some of the idea of diversion, which was discussed above.

There are aspects of strength which even the smallest and weakest can use against the largest which they cannot resist. The first of these is foot placement, if yours is better, with your feet lining up with one another, you are in a better and stronger position, especially if this lines up between theirs. This is enhanced if the forward foot lines up with your forward hand. The last part of this is what di Grassi calls the "Agreement of Foot and Hand", the previous element comes from Fiore and is noted in the foot positions of his plays. 

Added to this is skeletal alignment, any time that you can line up aspects of your skeleton, in a thrust, parry, or any other action you form a position which the strongest opponent cannot force through. They will be fighting with their muscles against your bones. So long as you keep your bones aligned you will have the strength. If you add this to the two previous elements, you will be in the position of strength.

Recommendations

In regard to recommendations of which skills to use against a stronger opponent, I would recommend those which do not try to match your strength against theirs. If they want to use strength, turn it against them. Show them how the use of strength is not an approach which will be effective against you. I teach these techniques to every student of mine who has issues with those who use strength against them. Like all skills they need to be practiced. Find the skills that suit how you fence, but be warned that applying these new skills may take a change in approach.

A fencer who only uses strength in their game is missing out on a lot. They are missing out on the finer aspects of swordplay and will not go as far as a fencer who spends the time to learn these finer aspects. Spend the time, learn proper blade engagement and all the other skills of fencing so that you have a complete skill-set to use against your opponent. A fencer with a diverse skill-set is a much greater opponent than one who relies on any one skill-set. 

Cheers,

Henry.

On Respect for the Point

Greetings,

The following article discusses the respect given to the weapon which is being used in a martial context, something which seems to be being lost in some HEMA (Historical European Martial Art) situations. The original weapons, and the idea of the original weapons, is being lost the result is this art is beginning to turn into another sport which happens to involve swords. Of note, originally this article was going to discuss the "fear" of the point, but fear is not what is required. It is a healthy respect of the weapon that is being used.

The fencer needs to respect the weapon that they are using not fear it.

If the fencer has fear of the weapon they are not likely to engage with the opponent with their full being and thus actions will be performed sloppily and without intention. This will result in inaccurate actions, bad form and bad practice on the part of the fencer. Further, the same actions engaged with fear are actually more likely to get the fencer hurt than if they engaged with them properly and fully and not holding back.

There needs to be respect for the weapon that is being used. This means that the original use and capabilities of the weapon need to be acknowledged and kept in mind when performing actions with the weapon. Having a sharp point of a sword pointed at a person will change what they will and will not do as compared to having even merely a blunted one, let alone one which is blunted and has a tip on it, regardless of whether protective gear is worn or not. The fencer must acknowledge that the weapon and techniques that they are using were once used to decide life and death struggles.

The lack of respect for the weapon is demonstrated in actions of "exchanged thrusts" or "double-kills" or "trading targets" in each of these instances the fencer is not respecting the weapon of the opponent. A person facing an opponent's sharp weapon would not willingly allow them to strike them just so that they could strike their opponent, especially with the state of medicine when these weapons were originally used. A fencer should be aiming to avoid being struck at all, thus "striking without being struck" as is the aim of all fencing.

The "double-hit" and "double-loss" in a bout today resulted in injury and death in the past. "Double-hits" should not be accepted as good fencing in any way shape or form. In all instances the safety of the fencer, thus the defence of the opponent's action should be most important, followed by the striking of the opponent; this demonstrates respect for the weapon being used. Having tournaments run in a single-kill, single-elimination format, begins to make people realise the importance of this, having people carry their wounds through the tournament also emphasizes this as well.

"For there are few nay there is no man at all, who (perceiuing himselfe readie to be stroken) giues not back, and forsaketh to performe euerie other motion which he hath begun." - Giacomo di Grassi (1594) His True Arte of Defence

Here di Grassi states quite clearly that a person who is about to be struck will give up the idea of striking to defend himself, rather than being attacked. So one of his defences against a slower action of the cut is to present the point to the opponent, who seeing it will not complete the cut. This does not work in many current HEMA bouting because there is no respect of the point which is being directed at the fencer. So, the cut will be completed and so will the thrust, resulting in a "double-hit".

If fencers are supposed to recreate these texts as they were performed. Is it not also required that the individuals who use them also have the same sort of respect for the weapons which they are using? Is it not also required that they have a healthy respect for the point and edge of the weapon, regardless of whether they can actually do damage, but what they are simulating? If this is not the case what is the difference between what is being performed with these weapons and those of sport fencing aside from some electronics, history and formalisation?

In any form of weapons use, be it swordsmanship, archery, or shooting, there must be respect for the weapon. This is necessary because the capabilities of the weapon must be recognised by the person using the weapon, regardless if the person ever actually wanted to use these capabilities. This respect is necessary for safety to ensure that the weapon is treated properly and that those around them are kept safe. In the case of fencing it is also necessary so that the art of fencing can be performed properly with the intent of the treatises that the art is based upon kept intact through its practice.

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)

Rapier to Civilian Sword - Editorial

Greetings,

Introduction

The rapier has to be one of the most argued about weapons. Every time there is a discussion about the rapier there is an assumption made about this weapon. There is an assumption made by the writer that the reader is going to conjure in their mind the same weapon that they are writing about. Unfortunately this is sometimes not necessarily the case. The result of this is that arguments ensue. The problem is the word and the connotations associated with it. Maybe it is time for a change in thinking.

Earlier Discussion

There has already been a post made with regards to the origins and identification of the weapon known as the rapier entitled, "What is a Rapier?" (https://afencersramblings.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/what-is-rapier.html). It attempted to identify and pin down this ever elusive weapon. It discussed that there were several different forms of weapon which were identified as being rapiers. This post also stated that there was a very limited presence of the word "rapier" in the period in which it was used. It indicated that there were several etymological claimants for the word, most of which were from fencing historians as they were not actually called those things in the period in which they were used. In essence it took the weapon apart and shredded many of the common "known" so-called "facts" about the origins of the weapon. It resulted in that, for the most part, the author has to identify the weapon and hope that the reader has a common opinion.

Curatorial Issues

With all of the infomation presented above alone, it can clearly be stated that there is a lot of confusion about what a rapier is and is not. For years museum curators and collectors have identified weapons primarily by their hilts rather than the entire weapons, and had only a passing interest in their blades. It is thanks to this group of individuals that you have the term "sword rapier", a ridiculous term that was supposed to indicate a rapier with a broader blade. More to the point they have also gotten confused about where the rapier stops and the smallsword begins, which is understandable considering this line is very blurry.

Baggage  

Added to the confusion of how to identify the rapier itself, there is a lot of "baggage" associated with the weapon. Some of this comes from the curatorial mistakes made by museum curators in the earlier periods when the weapons were mis-identified. Some of this comes from fencing historians who were desperately trying to claim the rapier as the sword of the Renaissance, the beginning of brighter times, but not so nimble as the smallsword which led to the truer art. The last of the baggage comes from more modern times in which reproductions have been used for test cutting to prove that the rapier was could or could not cut, depending on their particular bias.

Where to Go?

With all of these issues with regard to this weapon and the word "rapier" a person has to ask, what are we to do about it? How can a person have a discussion about such a weapon in a relatively intellectual atmosphere when there is so much emotion and confusion about it?

Solution: replace it with "civilian sword".

Civilan Weapon

The primary purpose of the rapier, whatever its form, was for civilian self-defense and duelling. Sure, we occasionally see them on the battlefield, but this was not their primary purpose. Thus to call it a "civilian sword" be it a "rapier" or a "sidesword" is more associated with what it was primarily used for.

Context

"Civilian sword" also more closely associates the weapon with its context. Especially in the Elizabethan treatise His True Art of Defense of Giacomo di Grassi of 1594 he discusses a sword, indeed he uses the word "spada" in the 1570, which was translated sometimes as "rapier" and sometimes as "sword" depending on the context of the weapon and its companion. Thus in the context of thus treatise it is actually more accurate to discuss a "civilian sword" rather than a "rapier" anyway. The same could be said of Saviolo's His Practice in Two Books of 1595, even though it does say "rapier" all the way through. In the case of both this weapon is mentioned all the way through as it was fashionable in England at the time.

Less Prejudgement

Using this newer term moves away from preconceived notions of the weapon, thus the reader will read about the weapon and understand its capabilities by what has been written by the author without pre-judging the actions of the weapon due to what it has been called. Also there will be less chance of bias for or against the weapon due to a lack of pre-judgement based on what the weapon is called. Further to this, the term "sidesword" is for the most part anachronistic in nature, determining a term for a weapon which would have simply been called a sword. Added to this, it has been noted the actions of the one, a sidesword have been noted to work quite well with the other the rapier, and in some instances, especially with earlier manuals, vice versa.

Better Coverage

A weapon which has a blade which is 45" (114.3cm) long and is 0.6" (1.5cm) wide and a 3-ring swept hilt is a rapier, but so is a weapon which has a blade which is 36" (91.4cm) long and 1" (2.5cm) wide and simple two port rings. Both are considered to be rapiers. Both are quite different weapons, the former being a weapon more found in the earlier seventeenth-century, and the later being from the mid-sixteenth-century. One only needs to look at a book or image search for "rapier" to see the many different variations. "Civilian sword" covers these and other weapons which fit into the same usage category much better.

Conclusion

For the most part we find a word and we tend to stick to it, even if it is not the best word. This is because we are lazy and because we get to used to using the word. With regard to the word "rapier" it is about time it had a change for a term which was much better aligned to the weapon which was actually used with the manuals, also better aligned with the weapons which were actually carried.

There is just simply too much baggage associated with the word "rapier". Too much assumption goes along with it when it is used and often those assumptions do not match up between authors and readers and this creates arguments which otherwise need not happen. Examples of these arguments can be found all over the internet. For some reason when the word "rapier" is brought up it brings out the most fervent idealists and the most passionate arguments as well.

The use of this new term "civilian sword" takes away all of the emotion which is associated with the old term and presents a clearer idea. It also presents a clean slate for an author to present their ideas about how to use the weapon without any pre-judgement on the part of the audience. The arguments associated with this new term can be transferred to more intellectual arguments of presenting sides until some sort of consensus is made about what a weapon is able to do, not with the idea of settling it once and for all but just for that weapon.

Using this new term "civilian sword" will enable a much fuller and better understanding of the Elizabethan texts also as it is more suitable to the forms of fence which are presented in these treatises. These treatises are on the cusp of change between a more cutting sword to a more thrusting sword, thus they are perfect for this term. They pin-point a position in time where the action of the cut was almost as effective in combat in a civilian combat with swords as was the thrust. With this new term a greater understanding of the art of the sword is the hope and goal.

My Treatise

Greetings,

The idea of putting your knowledge in words is somewhat of a scary prospect. When it comes to fencing and especially the use of the rapier it becomes a little larger due to all of the previous work which others have done. Some of my readers may know of this particular project. I have indicated toward it once or twice in various posts previously. This particular post is designed to have a bit of an examination of the reasoning behind it and the process that I went through to write it.

A Little History

My real official fencing history starts with my local chapter of the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA) and the use of the sword and shield to become a "heavy" fighter. I would go to practice, loose some arrows at a target to keep my eye in, and then spend an hour or two throwing blows at the pell with a rattan sword. This was to learn how to throw the blows properly, and it felt right.

My parents then moved and I moved with them. Luckily I found a fencing club at the university I was attending at the time and started with the foil. I spent six months doing footwork and trying to learn how to parry. The footwork ended up passable, the parrying was very rudimentary. My lunge on the other hand seemed to be something I was good at. It was long, accurate, and fast. I had to leave the university and lost contact. I came back later and things had changed.

The weapons had changed all of a sudden, they were longer and made out of fibreglass rods glued together and then wrapped in tape. I asked what was going on and was told that they were doing a SCA rapier practice and asked if I would like a go. It looked like fun, sure I said, here is where my love of this weapon truly started. This was some 20-odd years ago.

Treatise Foundation

Since then I have spent the time learning all that I could about the rapier and how it worked. This was sometimes a matter of learning it "on the job" and sometimes learning it from manuals of the period. My two favourite manuals are Giacomo di Grassi's True Arte of Defense (1594) and Vincentio Saviolo's His Practice in Two Bookes (1595). I find myself always going back to these two and always finding something new when I do.

Taking the influence mostly of Saviolo my particular method is a compilation of various elements of various masters compiled into a single work, much the same way he did. I found what made sense and worked for me and developed my own style out of it. This means that while my rapier techniques and method are based on period sources, they are not all from a single source. This means I have the adaptability to change to what is required as presented by my opponent. This is the method which I have developed over the past years and it is this method which appears in my treatise.

Now there will be some who will claim that I am merely butchering what I have researched and then calling it my own. They will also claim that I am not doing "true rapier" of any "style" because of this method. To these people I ask, what is what I have done any different from any master previously? How many times do we hear in manuals a master stating that he does not do a particular technique because he does not like it or does not think it is effective? What is the difference?

The next claim will be that I am plagiarizing and not giving due credit to where I have taken my research. To this I will merely state that fencing theory is very much in the common knowledge arena and anyone who claims a right to it is fooling themselves. To say that I am a plagiarist is to also call most of our previous authors who wrote the manuals the same, and also modern ones to boot. I am taking a series of well-known actions and explaining and assembling them in my own fashion. To claim plagiarism here would be to claim plagiarism on a new piece of music written because none of the notes, times and tempos are different.

(Congratulations dear reader for getting this far.)

Reasons

Why would a person go to the effort of attempting to write all that the know and put it into a book? The challenge of writing a book in the first place would be one. The attempt to codify years of knowledge so that a person can see what they have done is another. To present to others their own ideas about the use of a weapon is another reason. Some of these reasons are mine, but not the main one.

Reading from period sources scares some people because they are unfamiliar with the language and do not understand what's going on. My first reason for writing this treatise was to break down this barrier for some people. This is the reason why it will be presented in Modern English and also a dialect of Elizabethan English. By having the two side by side the language will be less frightening for some people and may encourage them to reach out an begin to read primary sources themselves rather than relying on secondary materials.

The Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA) community now has a history which is at least 20 years old, if not 30. This means that there have been people out there studying period manuals for this extent of time. There have been some wonderful productions of period works made available to the public and I thank those who do this for us. There have been some wonderful interpretations of period manuals made available to the public and I thank those who do this for us also. What I have not seen is anyone grow the gumption to put their name on the line and do what the masters did and write their own treatise. Not a translation. Not an interpretation. A treatise of how the individual fights. In this way I hope that my treatise will stand as a sort of a challenge to these people to put their pens to paper and write their own. It would be better that we write these manuals and have them in print than have these knowledgeable individuals pass on and not leave what they know to the rest of the world, as so many did previously.

Not a "master"? Neither were many of the people who produced manuals in the period in which the weapons were used sharp. If you have at least 10 years start planning, if you have 20 or more, this challenge is aimed at you.

(Almost there reader, really you are.)

Writing

Where do you begin? The beginning you say. Actually no, I didn't. I started with the format of the book. Because I knew I was going to be translating it into Elizabethan English (EE) and having it look as close to the real thing, the modern one needed to be formatted in a similar way so that the various chapters and bits and pieces matched up. This gave me some ideas about parts that I should be writing at least. Most of it is based on a combination of di Grassi and Saviolo, you should not be surprised.

The next bit was to sit down and plan my chapters so I could organise things a bit better. Theory first, practice second, demonstration of the combination of both as a third, with sundry notes as the final bit. This was the process I went through chopping things down into little bits until I had a structure that I could use, then re-organising the structure so it made sense. Then re-organising things again because this bit needs to be before that bit because you haven't mentioned that bit yet. Please note this was only the "first book". The "second book" was going to be just like Saviolo's about duelling and other more social subjects, and only to appear in the EE version.

Once it is organised then I wrote. I started with the theory element. The hardest part about writing a book based on stuff that you know is filtering out stuff which isn't stuff you know. I made the determination on this one that if I could not explain it and give the "why" answer it would be left out. This was made all the harder because of my training as an historian which was saying "Document it!" all the time. It all also applied all the way through the practical bit as well.

Explaining physical actions is not easy, try it sometime and you will see that it is not as easy as you might think. This is further compounded in the earlier sections of the book where you cannot use jargon which you have not introduced which would explain things simply. I spent sometime at my desk waving a stick, and standing up, and sitting down and writing, and standing up again to repeat the action and so forth. Eventually all of the practical stuff got written.

Next was the "second book". This was based much on Saviolo's Second Book "Of Honour and Honourable Quarrels", thus a sort of code book for duelling. Surprisingly it was actually much easier to write this bit than the previous bit once I managed to get my head straight about what I was talking about. Honour is a sticky subject and it can tie you up in knots really easily. Keeping it all straight was rather a challenge and I can tell you that I still think that I missed something.

Done? Nope. Now we go back and write all the introductory bits. Most of this is tooting your horn about how wonderful fencing is and how awesome the book is. Easy, right? Once you get on a roll it can get easier as you go along, but you do feel like that you are saying the same thing over and over again, especially after doing the "second book". This bit was actually easier to do in EE than it was in Modern English.

Speaking of which, then once all of this is done it all needs to be translated into EE. Or at least the bits which you haven't already because it was just easier to write it that way the first time. If you want to have a look at the process of learning EE that I went through and a bit deeper into this process, have a look at my other blog http://oldewordes.blogspot.com.au/. This is where I have documented my delving into the interesting thing that is EE. One thing that I will tell you, after doing this, it makes Shakespeare a breeze.

Finally comes all the "book" stuff. The bits where you assemble the two together, some of which I have started, others which I have not. At the moment I am doing more edits. I was hoping that this was going to be out in 2016, looks like not to be.

Conclusion

There is the process and some information about my treatise. I will keep people updated and posted as things progress, as much as I can remember to. Just know that it is progressing and it will come out at some point in time. This is one of those projects where you just have to keep plodding along, knowing that in the end, it will be worth it all.

Cheers,

Henry.

Virtues Gained From Swordsmanship

Greetings,

Based on some of what I said in a previous post on the ethics of swordsmanship, I had a request from one of my readers to write something about what virtues are gained from studying and performing swordsmanship. For your interest, the original post called "A Question of Ethics" can be found here: http://afencersramblings.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/a-question-of-ethics.html. So, what I am going to do is have a little chat about these virtues gained from swordsmanship. To begin with I will have a look at some primary sources. Then I will have a look at some of the things from my own point of view, some of which will refer back to the post indicated above.

Primary Sources

Call me biased, I am only going to be using manuals and masters which are written in English because I only speak/read English. This makes for much easier translation on my part. First we start with one of my own favourites, di Grassi.

"For this cause I beseech the gentle Reader to show himself such a one in the reading of this my present work, assuring himself by so reading it, to reap profit and honour thereby. And not doubting but that he (who is sufficiently furnished with this knowledge, and has his body proportionally exercised thereunto) shall far surmount any other although he be imbued with equal force and swiftness."

Giacomo di Grassi 1594 His True Arte of Defence

In essence, first thing that Giacomo di Grassi focuses on is profit and honour from following what is written in his book. This is the result of training. Further that the reader will be able to defeat any other opponent who is of equal physical ability. So, in essence, di Grassi claims that his method will give you honour through defeating your opponents if you study hard and this will result in profit of some kind. This is not particularly specific.

"I speak not against Masters of Defence indeed, they are to be honored, nor against the Science, it is noble, and in my opinion to be preferred next to Divinity, for as Divinity preserves the soul from Hell and the Devil, so does this Noble Science defend the body from wounds and slaughter. And moreover, the exercising of weapons puts away aches, griefs, and diseases, it increases strength, and sharpens the wits. It gives a perfect judgement, it expels melancholy, choleric and evil conceits, it keeps a man in breath, perfect health, and long life. It is unto him that has the perfection thereof, a most friendly and comfortable companion when he is alone, having but only his weapon about him. It puts him out of fear, & in the wars and places of most danger, it makes him bold, hardy and valiant.
George Silver 1599 Paradoxes of Defence

George Silver, as I have noted previously, is a character and a half, and his claims about his method are just as characteristic. He claims that the swordsmanship will "defend the body from wounds and slaughter", as one would expect, but then he goes on to list a long list of health benefits of swordsmanship. These health benefits which he lists are not just physical, as one might expect, but they are also mental. The significance of the idea of the benefit to both mind and body is often passed over by many.

“This irresistible power of practice does not only master and overcome the unflexibleness of our bodily members, but also affects and prevails very much, even over our more dull and ignorant judgements.”

Sir William Hope 1707 A New Short, and Easy Method of Fencing: Or the Art of the Broad and Small sword Rectified and Compendiz’d

Sir William Hope, much like Silver also highlights the benefits of swordsmanship to the swordsman as being to both the mind and the body. This idea of swordsmanship being as much a mental pursuit as a physical one is something which must be realised for the greatest benefits of it to be attained.

“[Fencing] which justly forms part of the education of persons of rank; giving them additional strength of body, proper confidence, grace, activity and address; enabling them, likewise, to pursue other exercises with greater facility.”
Domenico Angelo 1787 The School of Fencing With a General Explanation of the Principle Attitudes and Positions Peculiar to the Art

Domenico Angelo, is focusing on an address to a particular clientèle, thus insisting that it is an important part of their education. Further to this he also explains further health benefits much like the previous examples which have been presented. Angelo expands his list to include benefits to the social sphere and interactions with others.

My Stuff

Physical

The first thing that will be easily noted is that fencing does supply health benefits. It does improve ...

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.