A Response to: "Can you wear medieval armour to a longsword tournament?"

 Greetings,

The following article is a response to an article posted by Keith Farrell, Can you wear medieval armour to a longsword tournament? The reason being that I have found quite a few assumptions regarding the wearing of armour, and the SCA...

I have previously written about the difference between armour and PPE. So, I am not going to go over that old ground. I will summarise, the gear that people wear during HEMA is PPE it is not armour.  There is a distinct difference between the two sets of gear, and that is the point that Keith Farrell is making in his article, unfortunately he has also made some assumptions, and inadvertently pointed out some issues. My statements for this article...

1. It isn't about what a person wears, it is about how the person acts.

2. Take a better look at the SCA, at least it has standards; standards which do not exist in HEMA,  standards which HEMA groups are only just realising they need.

Beginning "Reasons"

"However, the vast majority of events would not. It could be for safety reasons (such as making sure there are no gaps through which a thrust could slip), for aesthetic reasons (at this tournament, we want everyone to look like modern sportspeople), for liability reasons (our insurers require that we mandate that every piece of equipment is CEN rated), or for whatever reason the organisers deem relevant."

The majority of HEMA events will not let a person wear armour to them, he states and then he gives reasons...

Safety, making sure there are no gaps; if the armour is fitted to the individual, and they are wearing the appropriate material underneath, there are no gaps. Considering there are no universal safety standards for HEMA, no established conventions, only rules established for each tournament, I disagree. Unlike the SCA which has such universal standards and conventions.

For aesthetic reasons "we want everyone to look like modern sportspeople"; where I say has the "Historical" gone from HEMA, let alone the "Martial Arts"? How HEMA has lots its way is another long subject which has certainly been highlighted by this statement, which I discussed in a previous article. This is a discussion which is controversial and ironically contrary. If people wanted to look so "modern" why is there such a popular line in medieval and Renaissance period looking equipment?

For liability reasons, equipment must be CEN rated; certainly a piece of steel has more resistance than any piece of cloth. Further, I refer forward and back to the SCA's standards, and it has insurance for each of its groups and its activities, which have a history going back to the 1960s. Again, this will be discussed in more detail below as it is a subject which requires further discussion.

The final one is the classic, "or for whatever reason the organisers deem relevant" autocratic rule at its best, a way for a person in charge simply to ignore the stated or printed rules and exclude by saying, "I don't like it." for whatever prejudices they might have. So much for being Inclusive (one of the reasons I went back to the SCA,), again discussed below.

Gear Inspection

"Without knowing the provenance of any given piece of equipment, it is probably easier just to mandate that people wear HEMA gear from recognised HEMA manufacturers, so that there is the best chance that everyone’s equipment is going to be fit for purpose with no nasty surprises."

What you need is experienced Safety Marshals, and to look at the equipment. If we want to play the like with like, let's look at Red Dragon gloves, or their old "gorgets", both by recognised HEMA manufacturers, both neither allowed in tournaments anymore. "Recognised HEMA manufacturers" do not guarantee against a) old gear, or b) gear in disrepair. A person still needs to inspect the gear to ensure there are "no nasty surprises." HEMA needs to train people to be Safety Marshals (Hey, like the SCA does, an idea which I tried to transfer locally, it lasted survived briefly until people realised a) they couldn't fight as much, b) it required them to do some extra work, and c) HEMA might have to look at standardising their rules. I keep saying that for some reason).

Armour and Assumption

"For example, the people who tend to wear steel helmets for sword sports tend to be reenactors, SCA people, and HMB people. The SCA and HMB people are certainly in the habit of hitting hard when they fight – the whole purpose of wearing the steel armour is so that they can do so."

Big assumptions made here, an assumption that SCA is like HMB, clearly Keith has not had a good look at the SCA. We don't all fight armoured combat. Yes, armoured combat, big difference. There is also period fencing, combat archery, and equestrian to play with. If you hit too hard in fencing, you get censured, and potentially removed from play, the same applies in armoured combat too. So you need to be specific. Apples and oranges, both fruit, but different. In period fencing, in cut-and-thrust we use longswords in much the same manner as HEMA (with many fewer injuries), so maybe armour works after all.

Wearing armour is not a sign of hard hitting, it is a sign of wishing to protect yourself. Nothing more to make assumptions about wearing armour and the calibration of the individual based on their kit, is the same as making an assumption about the skill of the opponent based on the value of their sword, or its condition. Such things are prejudices against the individual who is wearing or using the item, simply based on what they are wearing or using.

The SCA is a nice, easy, big target, that many people in HEMA will agree with. However the SCA at least has internationally-recognised and nationally-recognised safety standards. They don't change from group to group, or from tournament to tournament. I know that I can use the same kit anywhere around Australia, and with little modification, anywhere around the world. Further we have authorised safety officers, the system has checks and balances, that HEMA does not have. Issues that I have seen. Issues that I have witnessed  as a safety officer at more than one HEMA tournament. No, it may be a bigger target but it is also a safer target for those who play within its rules.

Pre-Judgement

How would it feel if a person decided that:

"You shouldn't fence with those people because they do German longsword and that's all about wrestling and multiple strikes to the head?" OR "You shouldn't fence with that person because they are wearing pants from Leon Paul, so they will just whip their sabre about and flick your forearms?" OR "You shouldn't fence with that person because they are using a feder, because they are so light it will whip around and hit you too fast?" OR "You shouldn't fence against that one because his weapon is too heavy and so it will hit too hard?"

All of these arguments are false. All of these arguments are prejudices. They all pre-judge an individual based on what they study, what they are wearing or what piece of equipment they are using, and not by how they actually fence, not by how the individual acts. The same as judging person by the fact they are wearing armour.

If a person wearing armour was to scare people off, then why would the SCA be the largest organisation which participates in three different form of combats in the world? Hard hitting does not come from a person wearing a particular type of gear or using a particular type of weapon, it comes from the way the individual is trained, the individual's mind-set, and the individual's actions. Anything else is blatant prejudice, which a person needs to examine within themselves.

Signs and Symbols

I will state quite clearly that I have no idea about any other recreational group in the world, however I will state that the SCA has policies regarding anti-discrimination and Inclusivity which are stated in their organisational documents. The swastika is banned from display in the SCA, it has quite strict rules about Heraldry, which would be the symbols that are being spoken about here. So, there would be none of the stated issues from members of the SCA, at least.

"It is all a bit of a sliding scale. Does all of that apply if someone turns up with steel gauntlets because they want to keep their hands safe? What about steel knee or elbow cops, or a gorget with steel plates? There is clearly a reasonable end of the scale, and with some items the most reasonable explanation is that people want to wear them because they believe these items to be more protective than the more modern alternative."

Properly made and fitted gauntlet of steel protect properly and work better, why else would they have persisted with them for hundreds of years? Examine most of the gorgets available today and you will find that they are made of steel, as they were hundreds of years ago when they were used for real, little surprise. There are new ones made of hardened plastic, but their designs are the same as the steel ones. Previously there were no elbow or knee protectors for HEMA so people used skateboard pads. Later ones covered the front of the knees and a little of the side. Compare the modern ones and you will find they are copies of armour. So why wouldn't a person wear the steel ones instead? It would seem that the only unreasonable part is that people have assumptions or have double standards about aesthetics. I know the history, I watched it change.

Conclusion

"And of course, it is always worth revisiting some of our base assumptions every so often, to consider if the way that we are doing things or if the decisions we have made are still sensible and working well for us. It is always good to let people ask “why” or “why not”, and it is also important that if we feel strongly about the issue, we have a good explanation to offer in our answer!"

Yes, assumptions, there have been quite a few made in this article. I would have expected a little more research done about the SCA before making such grand statements about it. I would have expected there to be more interest taken in investigating the subject of what the SCA actually does rather than assuming that the SCA's armoured combat is all that they do. This is a big assumption. 

Go have a look at some actual armour. Go have a look at what is actually being offered. Go have a look at what people are actually wearing for armour in the SCA and outside. Make your statements based on some actual research done by some investigation of the topic at hand.

The aesthetic question is a double-standard. Make a choice. Either wear modern sporting gear or wear period gear. Admit that you are doing a modern sport version or perform it as a martial art. Pick which one you are doing. Plunder-hose for all those German enthusiasts belong to the sixteenth-century, many of the wonderful jacket designs which are coming out, likewise belong to the same period. The aesthetic question is an excuse, it is a lie. It might as well come under the autocratic organiser's "I don't like it."

I wear steel armour because I know it is not affected by heat. I know that it is not going to crack or degrade unless I allow it to rust. I know the state of the material. I know where my armour comes from, I know what it is based upon, the reason it was used. I know its history. More to the point it was made for me, so it fits me. This is my "why." More to the point I am doing an Historical martial art, so it is appropriate that I wear historical equipment or a reasonable approximation thereof, at least within my means.

If you're wondering about whether our art was practiced in full armour historically, examine Maximilian I tournament book, Freydal of 1515. These two combat with different weapons in armour, for sport, in much the same way we do, the armour is for protection, nothing more. Well not quite "nothing" there was a certain element of fashion involved, but that's another question.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Freydal#/media/File:Freydal_Repro1882_Tafel_031.jpg 

Cheers,

Henry

In Response to Criticisms of "Just Another Fencer"

 Greetings,

I don't usually release a second article before the next month but the previous article Just Another Fencer seems to have caused some contention, at least among some circles. To wit, and in answer to those particular contentions, I present the following:

There is no editor who goes through and reads my posts before I post them. They are all my writings, there is no one else who writes them, just me. I also rarely edit them once they have been posted. I also tend to write about subjects that I feel passionate about, and so write straight from the heart, meaning that there will occasionally be some passionate language which will be present, but also means that they are subjects that I believe in. These are my fencer's ramblings, so my opinions.

Some of my statements in my articles have been accused of being provocative, indeed some of my entire articles have been provocative, I find this to be a good thing. I do not want some passive reader just mulling through my words, I want them to be engaged, I want them to think. Sometimes this requires a little provocation.

Where there is some sort of statement made, there will be an argument and conclusion to back it up. You only need to read further along. To find these arguments and conclusions, you need to read the entire thing, not just skim over the article or you will miss something.

In certain circles, the previous article was claimed, by some parties, to be "mansplaining" and "condescending." This was not my intent. I have the greatest appreciation for the female fencer, indeed of any fencer. It is not an easy skill to use, and that you have chosen to take this up and follow it through, this instantly gains my respect, regardless of your skill level. 

I use personal anecdotes, because these blogs are personal to me. They come from my personal experiences. I write because I have been inspired from some part of my life, something has happened which has resulted in me having a think about something long enough to write it as a blog. They don't happen over-night, I tend to think about these things for extended periods of time, however they remain personal.

I teach my students as individuals. Yes, there is a certain core set of skills, but even those are modified to suit the individual should they be required. Short, tall, long armed, short armed, slim, not so slim, even with certain disabilities, each one of these will make a difference, and will require some sort of modification to their fencing style. This is how I teach. I have been teaching this way for at least two decades.

There was a claim made that what I meant when talking about the opponent was "just another MALE fencer." It was not what I wrote, so it was not what I meant. I do not take gender characteristics into account. I do not fence female fencers any different than I fight male fencers. Let me be clear. I do not fence female fencers any different than I fight male fencers. 

The only thing that makes any difference is their skill level, and how they fence. I will be cautious with all opponents at first until I have had time to read my opponent, and see what they do. Then I will make the decision how I will play my game, but it will have nothing to do with their gender. The game that I play against my opponent is directly in response to the actions the actions that they choose to give me. Again, nothing to do with their gender.

Cheers,

Henry.

Just Another Fencer

Greetings,

With the title of "just another fencer," it could be thought that I would be speaking about a person being left behind or forgotten. This is not the purpose of this article, but it is one of recognition. If you feel that you are "just another fencer" this is something that you need to look at, a problem that you need to solve and ask yourself why you are thinking this way. Some of this article will approach the fencer as an individual and will recognize the individual characteristics of the individual, but this article discusses the question of approach.

The following touches on gender issues in fencing, and somewhat of a personal approach to it, actually it is a different approach in two different circumstances. One of the things that a person will find is that they get treated differently depending on the situation. This will also be dependent on the attitude the pair of individuals take to the situation, as the situation is always two-way street because it is communication. For the moment, at least at the beginning, I will be assuming that both parties are taking a positive attitude to the situation, I may get to different attitudes, who knows, we will see how it goes.

The Female Student

Do I treat my female students differently to my male students? Yes, yes I do. They are different from male students, just as a short student is different from a tall student, from a purely physiological point of view and they also have a different psychological make-up, which means they think differently as well. So, of course, I treat my female students differently to my male students. I did a series of articles about how the female fencer is different. (This is the first one, the second one, and the third one), more to the point, how the female student is different, and how to approach training from that different point of view. If you are a female and a fencer, I humbly recommend you read these. I also recommend that you read these if you are teaching female fencers.

You should not, as a female, try and mold yourself around male patterns of movement. You will find difficulty doing so, it is not going to work for you. You will move differently, you should use these aspects to your advantage. To begin with, your hips are a different shape, so the standard position for the male's hips is likely not going to work, rather than being so angled, you are likely going to want to be more sqaure-on to your opponent. This is just the beginning. Read the articles, and if your trainer/coach/teacher is not modifying things to suit your body-shape, ask them why. The Art is for human beings and so the Art should be molded for the humans not the other way around.

Do I treat my female students differently? Yes, I do. I train them in a way so the skills that I teach them suit their bodies and their make-up, rather than getting them to suit the skills. Where a student is having difficulty with a skill, the cause of the issue needs to be examined. If the student cannot physically perform the action in the prescribed manner then the skill needs to be modified; you don't break something so it will fit in a container, don't do the same to your students. 

When it comes to opponents, this is where things change. 

The Female Opponent

Now I am going to tell you something that shocked an ex-girlfriend of mine. I do not treat female opponents any different to male opponents. If they step out on to the field and present themselves on guard against me then they should be ready to give me their all, and not expect any different treatment from me, just because they are female.

As soon as the opponent has their mask on and they are standing across from me on a tournament field I consider them "anonymous" just another fencer, completely gender-less. Their status as one of my students, or known as a beginner, may hold some sway; this may give me a reason to give them some time, use essential skills, tone down my usual approach, and give them a chance to fence for a while. But it is never because of their gender.

Likewise, I will fence against an opponent as they fence against me. If they decide that all they want to do is go straight to business and move to the rougher end of the stick, so to speak, then they will receive the same response. If they would rather play a longer game to learn more about one another through senso di ferro then I will happily engage with them in kind. We will certainly keep one another honest, but it will be a different engagement to the other. I will play such games with an opponent regardless of their gender.

"The male has superior strength to the female, and the contest can never be equal." 

I fence primarily with a rapier and the individual who has to resolve every encounter through the use of strength does not know how to use a rapier properly. I would rather use the blade of my weapon to decide the encounter. I am here to fence, not wrestle. I give the same response to those who think there should be weight categories for rapier combat. Yes, the actions of closes and grips occur during rapier combat, but they should not be the combatant's focus. 

Much of the encounter, and whether or not the two enjoy the encounter, starts with the attitude that the pair take to the match or bout to begin with. If the attitude is positive from both, then it is likely that they will both have a good time and learn something from the encounter. If it is negative from both, then it is likely that there are going to be issues during the encounter, and likely that neither is going to walk away happy with what has occurred. The problem is that if even one of the combatants is negative it can draw the other into a negative space. 

Stay positive about your encounters, enjoy your fencing. Learn something from every encounter you have with every opponent. Treat every opponent with equal respect and courtesy. You will find that if you follow these simple things you will have a much better time. If everyone did, the community would be much improved.

Cheers,

Henry.

There have been some criticisms of this post so I have made a response.

Read the Whole Thing

 Greetings,

I posted a document in October of last year, which I had been working on for a couple of months. It was a recreation of an Elizabethan political pamphlet, which I spoke about on my blog about Elizabethan English you can find that post here. Now, I did this because I wanted to try writing my own Elizabethan political pamphlet and it gave me the chance to have a play with the language, so it was a bit of fun. The reception was not what I expected.

It was thought that I was decrying the use of rubber-band guns (RBGs) on the rapier melee field in the SCA, complaining about their use. I merely used the subject of firearms and their impact upon  swordsmanship, a very Elizabethan political topic as my focus. I however focused the argument primarily on the unreliability of the weapons and their primary source of ignition, black powder. The issue was that most read the first part of the argument, where the initial complaint was made, and did not bother to read the rest where the argument unfolded. This, unfortunately happens with a lot of texts, and I have not been immune.

When I first was introduced to the rapier and all things about it, I went madly searching about for treatises about their use. Well, back in the late 1990s there was the choice of three manuals: Saviolo, di Grassi and Silver. For my initial starting I started with George Silver. I started to read his Paradoxes of Defence, only to find that the man was decrying the use of rapiers and telling the reader how useless they were and other such opinions. I did not finish reading the treatise in that sitting feeling that there was nothing of use that I could find in his treatise, indeed I almost avoided anything to do with the author. 

Some almost ten years later I circled back to his treatises. Had I read further than I did, in among his complaints about the Italians and their practices, there are actually some gems which are quite useful and I have been using in my training ever since. So for ten years I missed out on useful information because I did not bother reading the whole thing because I thought I knew what he was on about from the first part of his treatise.

Don't fall into the same trap that I did and others often do, don't assume that you know what the author is talking about just by what they have said in their introductory comments. This goes once for modern documents, double for any document which is either not originally written in our language, and triple for any which is not in our time. Arguments were formed differently in different periods. In the pursuit of arms of different periods, or indeed the pursuit of scholarship of anything from a different period this needs to be taken into account. Read the entire thing before you make your opinions about what the author is trying to say, and their evidence.

Scholarly articles in the modern world, have an abstract which give the reader a precis of what the writer will be writing about, describing in very general terms the ideas which will be presented and a very basic idea of the argument. This is not sufficient to know the argument presented. 

Scholarly articles are usually set out with an introduction, body and conclusion. Sometimes these are even given headings so that they are easy to find. When a person is skimming through lots of documents it may be sufficient to read just the introduction and the conclusion, but this only scrapes the surface of what the author is speaking about and what evidence they use to support it. Only the basic idea of the argument is then known.

Only through reading the entire document will the reader understand where the reader is coming from, what data they are using as evidence, and how they are forming their argument. This is the only way that the reader can understand whether the argument is strong enough to be supported or not. The paper may be well-written but the data may be rubbish, and you won't know unless you read the whole thing.

In terms of a novel, would you only read the beginning and the end? No, you want to see what trials the character went through and how they got to the end. This is the same with anything else that you read. If you want to make a decent argument about something you need to read the whole thing. If you don't you will make assumptions about what is in there and your argument will be poor, and it will become obvious that you haven't actually read it.

You never know, you might actually find something of real interest in something that you read that you thought at the beginning was not going to interest you.

Cheers,

Henry.

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 "Stupid" Questions

Greetings,

"Carl Sagan, in his work The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark said: "There are naive questions, tedious questions, ill-phrased questions, questions put after inadequate self-criticism. But every question is a cry to understand the world. There is no such thing as a dumb question"." (Wikipedia (2020) “No such thing as a stupid question” in Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_such_thing_as_a_stupid_question, [accessed 31/5/2020])

In training there will be elements which we do not know. There will be questions which arise from training which we need answered for us to go on with our training. There are different options available: ask another student, ask the trainer, or go see if you can find the information yourself.  In many situations people will opt for the last one until there is no other avenue, for fear of having to ask a question in the group. This fear can cripple not only the individual's learning but also the group's learning. This is primarily caused by the nemesis of the "stupid" question.

When a so-called "stupid" question is asked, the group usually responds with derision, and sometimes the trainer does too. This does not encourage the asking of any question within the group at all. It creates fear that the same sort of social rejection will occur. As a trainer it is something that we should fight against, it is something we should fight against even as fellow students. Each question should be treated with respect.

Some will claim that a question about something that has already been answered or explained should not be asked and is a "stupid" question. Is it really? What if the individual did not understand the explanation? If the information is useful, what is the harm of hearing it again? Is it not better that they hear the information again than make a mistake later and have to re-learn?

Some will claim that questions about things which are obvious should not be asked and are "stupid" questions. If the question is being asked, clearly it is not obvious to the individual who is asking the question. Such approaches do not take into account different paths to the same situation, different cultural or social situations, or people who may be new to the group.

The concept of the "stupid" question closes the mind off to chances for learning. The simple question seeks to the heart of a matter and can open new ways and new ideas about things. It can even give simple solutions to complex problems which people who are too embedded may not see. Questions in every group need to be encouraged.

Questions allow people to learn about their environment. We ask questions all of the time without realising it. Questions should be encouraged so members of a group, or school, can all become familiar with its operations. A person who is new to a group or school is not going to know how things operate and through questions, they can learn. We should always be encouraging questions from our students and our classmates.

For a much more in-depth discussion of the subject of "stupid" questions, their effect and how questions should be encouraged see one of my other blogs https://historicalsocialpolitical.blogspot.com/2020/07/on-stupid-questions.html. If you are interested in a pdf of this discussion, please contact me via e-mail.

Cheers,

Henry.

"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.

Of the Use of the Foil

Greetings,

The foil is a much misunderstood weapon. From the point of view of many historical fencers it is much maligned, and even from modern fencers it is misunderstood due to the rules which are associated with it. The following discussion attempts to shed some light on the use of the foil not only to the modern fencer, but to fencers in general as it can be a most useful tool when it is approached from the correct perspective.

The original purpose of the foil was as a training weapon for the smallsword. It was a lighter version created so that the weapon could be held for an extended period of time so more training could be done. Clearly it was blunted so that it could be used in training. The "right of way" rules which are associated and also its target area, limited to the torso, were both designed to protect the individuals who were practicing with it to prevent injury to them.

When the foil was first introduced, masks were not being used so removing the head from target was an effort to prevent damage to the vulnerable face. The "right of way" rules encouraged fencers to ensure that they had a defence presented before they launched an attack at their opponent, thus preventing two fencers from impaling one another and losing control of where the points of the weapons went. This training tool encouraged the fencer to prepare a proper defence, and penalised the fencer who did not defend themselves before attacking.

The foil's prime current use is in modern fencing where it is recognised as one of the three weapons used. This is the weapon which every beginner should start with as it teaches all of the basic fencing actions with the point and teaches the fencer form in these actions. Further, with the "right of way" rule, as it was previously stated, teaches the fencer to defend themselves before attacking. The foundation of a good modern fencing career starts with the foil. All of the actions of the foil transfer to the epee, and the "right of way" rules are used in sabre, with the addition of cuts.

The historical fencer can use the foil for its original purpose, as indicated, for practicing smallsword, but this is not the only purpose that the foil can serve. The nature of the weapon means that actions need to be performed with precision for them to work, so it encourages the individual who practices with the foil to increase their accuracy in their technique. This weapon has utility in practicing for rapier actions as well.

If the foil is used for practicing rapier actions one will find that accuracy in technique is required. There is no weight in the weapon to compensate for sloppy technique. Blade engagement actions need to be made accurately and so do actions on the blade. This is only accentuated where the foil is used for practice against a partner using a rapier, but if the actions are accurate in their performance then the actions will succeed. It is not recommended that the foil be taken against the rapier in any sort of antagonistic scenario as the foil is simply much too light physically to stand against the rapier and has a higher chance of breaking dangerously in this sort of scenario.

The foil is especially useful for those times when a person is restricted due to some illness or injury. The foil is much lighter than most other weapons and thus can still be carried and used for practice. I have done this myself when I was not able to use a rapier due to an injury and found that using the foil, I was able to participate in training exercises. I further found that such participation was useful because it made me perform the actions properly, due to the nature of the weapon that was being used.

To understand the use of a weapon means that a person must understand the weapon. This requires looking into the purpose of the weapon. The foil is a practice weapon and should be used as such. It is an often forgotten, and often maligned weapon that can be most useful to all sorts of fencers, should it be examined from the correct perspective. Take another look, have another go, the foil is more useful than you realise.

Cheers,

Henry.

Those Who Can't, Teach?

Greetings,

There is this idea going around that if a person is an instructor or trainer or master of a particular school then they should also be some sort of high-level competitor, able to dish out the hard stuff to others in competitions.  On the other hand there is this idea that those who cannot dish it out in competitions allow others to do so, and thus teach instead, hence "those who can't, teach". Both of these notions are fallacious in their own ways. Both need to be addressed so that we do not get the wrong idea and wrong expectations of our teachers.

Trainers cannot, in general, maintain the position as high-level competitors for a simple reason. A competitor's focus is on themselves: making sure that their skills are honed, making sure that their timing is in focus; and making sure that they are fit enough to compete in competitions. A person who truly takes on the position of the trainer does not have this focus. Their focus is on the individuals that they are training; focusing to make sure that the skills that they are teaching are up to date with the latest research; making sure that the method of delivery is understood by the students; making sure that the students can excel; the trainer's focus is outward rather than inward. Usually on more than one student.

Trainers spend much more time on others than they do on themselves. This is the reason why their skills may not be as sharp as the high-level competitors, because they have someone to think about other than themselves. Their students are their focus, not the next tournament win, not making themselves better through improving their fighting skills, but making themselves better through their teaching skills. This is another place where this idea of "those who can't, teach" is a misnomer.

A person who competes demonstrates their skill by performing it against an opponent. They can even sometimes give you all the technical information about the skills that they were using. Often, they cannot teach those skills. The trainer can. Not only does the trainer need to know how to perform the actions that the competitor does, but the trainer also needs to know how to teach those skills to others.

There are some great competitors who have striven to the height of their particular chosen pursuit, but they cannot teach. Just because you know the skills does not mean that you automatically know how to teach the skills. This is an additional level of learning which is involved. It is a process which the trainer goes through to learn how to teach, often the students learn through this process.

To teach a skill. The teacher has to know how the skill works. The teacher also needs to know why the skill works. For fencing, the teacher also needs to know when and where to apply the skill to a situation for it to work. These must be real understandings of how the skill works not just surface/physical understanding, but intellectual understanding of how the skill works. It is only through this level of knowledge that the teacher can explain to the student how to perform the skill properly.

If you see a trainer or teacher, and you see them fencing, examine what they are doing. You will notice that their fencing is more technical than athletic, because they are focused on getting things right. They may not keep up with the high-level competitors but fencing them will always be worth your while. They have a different focus, a focus which is toward the education of others in swordsmanship rather than seeking the heights of fame. It is an extremely important role as if there were no person willing to teach, there would be a lot less people to compete with.

"Those who cant, teach" is a misnomer.

Those who are teaching are doing, all of the time.

They may not be representative on the tournament honour's list. They may not be present on the world rankings. They are present in the school every week teaching people from beginners all the way up, spending their time on others. Without their technical knowledge and technical skill swordplay would not be what it is today. It is these people who do most of the study to ensure that what is being taught and thus what is being learnt makes sense, and works. Thank your teachers and trainers, they are a great asset.

Cheers,

Henry.

Studying the Sources

Greetings,

The following article is the result of a discussion that I had with Lois Spangler about studying the sources. There are various questions that we all have to ask ourselves when we are studying the sources so that we can understand what we are actually doing. Many of them are just a really good read, and this is great, but there is often a further motive behind the study and this what will be discussed here.

Single or Multiple?

In some cases a source will be found which appeals to us on a very basic level. Maybe it is one which is different from what everyone else is studying, maybe it just suits the way that we move, or maybe due to a talent for a particular language we have an advantage because no one else can read it completely. This results in the focused study of a single source. In my case, I picked up Saviolo's (1595) His Practice in Two Books some 20-odd years ago and have been studying it on and off ever since, because it appeals to me. Why on and off? Is a focused study not the best way to do things? Yes, and no.

There are also new manuals which are being scanned, translated and being made available all of the time. This is a great boon to the swordsmanship community at large. A person may be studying a single manual but another may come out which draws their attention, what should they do? This would depend on the individual. I have read various manuals in various forms, in many instances it is to keep up with what students are studying, and also to keep up with what others are also studying. This does not detract from the primary manual that a person studies, in fact it enhances it. A greater appreciation of swordsmanship can be gained from examining multiple manuals than from just focusing on a single one.

Reasons and Justice

What this all comes down to is the reason for studying a treatise. There are many different reasons for studying a treatise. The prime reason is to recreate what is written in the treatise, but this is not the only reason. Another reason is to find the foundation elements so that they can be examined to compare to another treatise for similarities and differences, this way elements can be traced through lineages and also across continents. In some instances a manual may be picked up just for "tips and tricks" i.e. just to add an extra couple of techniques to a person's repertoire. A teacher may also examine a manual to understand what their student is studying. Each one is a different reason.

How do we do a source justice? What doe this even mean? For some, the only way to do a source justice is to go through the entire manual and use every element. For others, this is not even a concern. This all goes back to the reason for studying the manual in the first place. If a person is studying a treatise to examine social elements within it, the technical elements to not even play a part in the examination, therefore there is no need to consider recreating these technical elements. If the study is for comparison of a single technical element, then the other elements are not really required. For example, a cross-manual examination of rapier and dagger, then only the rapier and dagger parts are really pertinent. The reason for examining the manual must be taken into account in all instances.

De-focusing and Re-focusing

There are reasons why in the study of a single treatise a person should be looking elsewhere to get a better perspective of what they are studying, sometimes it is even a necessity. This allows a better perspective of the work which is being studied and often a greater understanding of what is being studied. I will take as an example Saviolo's (1595) His Practice in Two Books because it is the one which I have been studying.

To begin with this is not simply a fencing treatise, it also includes a discussion of duelling, which the author actually spends more pages on. From this part of the treatise alone it can lead to the reading of other treatises in discussions of duelling, honour and other similar concepts to gain a greater understanding of what the author was discussing. Focusing more on his more practical elements, Saviolo's treatise is not of a "pure" school. It is a combination of Italian and Spanish for sure, with suggestions of German as well.

To understand this treatise in all of its detail the reader really should have a grasp of the foundation elements of the Italian and Spanish schools for sure, with some of the German as well. This grasp can only be gained by looking elsewhere, not at the treatise itself. This means following a tangent to examine something which is not the primary source which is being examined. This investigation will further enhance the reading of the primary source as a greater understanding will be had. In the case of Saviolo, I can assure you that following the tangent to gain an understanding of the foundations of these schools will grant a better understanding of his treatise.

The same "de-focusing" or following a tangent can be useful to the study of other treatises. A study of Renaissance mathematics of philosophy, for example can give the individual a greater understanding of the mind of the writer. An examination of treatises of a similar period, or tradition can establish trends and elements which are common, or changes, all of which lead to a greater understanding of the original text that was being studied. In this case the broader understanding does have great advantages, when this understanding is re-applied to the original text.

Re-focusing is the other side of the same coin. This is focusing on a single treatise to the exclusion of all others. There are times that this is what is required to get a clear and consistent reading of a treatise without the words being muddied by external sources. In this particular case it is where external sources can be an issue because they do influence how we interpret what is being read. Our history influences how we interpret what we read, what we have learnt influences it also, as does our cultural background and many other different factors.

If the treatise is read in accompaniment with another's interpretation of it, then our own interpretation can be swayed by that interpretation. Likewise if the treatise is read in accompaniment with other secondary sources about a similar subject, this will also colour the interpretation. This can be an issue as these influences are not always positive. Often it is best to focus on what the author of the treatise is talking about and what they are saying, without any interpretation. This is difficult when the treatise is translated from a different language as there is inherently an element of interpretation present.

How can this fit with "de-focusing" then? In this other process, resources are selected which are designed to enhance the understanding of the treatise. An enhanced overall understanding is what the aim is. Thus, in reading another treatise it is the foundation elements which are important rather than particular techniques. In reading philosophy it is to understand the mind-set of the author, rather than the philosophy in detail. The broader topics are read so re-focusing is easier later on, so greater understanding is possible.

What Now?

When a primary source is taken to study there are certain elements which must be in play for the person studying it to achieve their end. There must be some sort of connection between the person studying the treatise and the treatise, this has to be something which is going to keep them going through the hard parts of its examination. Studying treatises is not an easy task if it is going to be done properly. There also has to be a real reason for the individual to want to take the time to read and study the treatise. It will take a lot of time, and often a lot of re-reading. This form of reading and interpretation is not a direct nor simple process.

The elements which have been raised here are for information but also for discussion. My position is only one, others may have a different point of view, and they should share it. The more people we have talking about period sources the better. The more people we can encourage to study period sources and come up with their own interpretations the better. Some will be the same, and some will be different. Just because they are different, doesn't mean it is wrong. They might have a different point of view which is worth investigating.

Let your investigations take you different places. Follow the tangents in your investigations, it can only lead to a greater understanding of what you are studying. Found something which you do not understand? Go research it. Found something different or interesting? Go research it. Examine the different pathways and backgrounds to the people who wrote the treatises, figure out some of what they would have read, and go and read some of it, you will gain a greater understanding of them and their treatises. Sticking assiduously to the treatise without looking side to side is not necessarily the best approach, you have to occasionally lift your head up and look around as well.

Cheers,

Henry.

A Sword is a Sword

Greetings,

With no surprise, especially considering the title of the article and the blog, this article is about swords. But it is not just about them as objects alone, singularly, or pointing out one type of sword. It is an examination of swords in general. People, when they discuss sword, especially if they have anything to do with them in hobbies or study, are quick to separate and isolate them by function, culture and type. This discussion is designed to break down some of those barriers, to look at swords as swords.

The discussion which follows is more curatorial than social or practical, though both social and practical elements will come into the discussion. It is difficult to discuss swords without swordsmanship. To attempt such would be like attempting to discuss cars and their performance without discussing driving. There will not be a history of the sword, nor will there be any discussion of any particular type of sword, in fact this is exactly what this discussion is trying to get away from. The purpose of this discussion is to present the similarities between swords, rather than their differences so that they can all be appreciated with equal worth.

Definition

The Oxford dictionary defines a sword as a noun, "A weapon with a long metal blade and a hilt with a hand guard, used for thrusting or striking and now typically worn as part of ceremonial dress." (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sword). The Cambridge dictionary defines it as "a weapon with a long, sharp metal blade and a handle, used especially in the past" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sword). Finally, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as "a weapon (such as a cutlass or rapier) with a long blade for cutting or thrusting that is often used as a symbol of honor or authority" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sword).

All define the sword as a weapon, all define it as having a long blade. Interestingly, in two of them they specify a metal blade. Two relegate the weapon to the past, while the other attributes symbolic meaning to the weapon, thus giving it some use in the present. What will be noted in all of the definitions is that they are very rudimentary, though they do have some specificity to them. Depending if one or another of these definitions is chosen, some types of sword may actually be not included in their definition. The most extreme examples would be the non-metalic swords used by some islanders and also pre-colonial peoples. Care must be taken in a definition.

A sword, could be described as a weapon with long blade designed for cutting and/or thrusting, which has a hand grip of some fashion. However specificity in length of blade could create questions as to where a weapon crosses the line between a knife and a sword. Then there is the question of weapons such as the "messer" which was a large knife, but was the length of a short sword. It needs to be noted that the definition of the sword is not as easy as it might sound.

Sword is a Sword

All swords are swords, regardless whether it is a sabre or a rapier, katana or a schiavona, it is a sword. We are the individuals who divide them up and show them to be different in shape, or nationality, or use, or period, or whatever. In all cases all of the weapons which have been named, all six of them are swords. Obviously we divide them up so that it is easier to understand what we are talking about, but sometimes this creates confusion if a person does not understand what the other person is talking about. The most important point that needs to be made is that they are all swords. Regardless of which period of history, or from which culture, they are swords.

Similarities

"The difficulty of treating the Sword is enhanced by the peculiar individuality which characterises it, evidenced by an immense variety of physique, and resulting as much from unconscious selection as from deep design. One of the characteristics of indigenous art is that no two articles, especially no two weapons, are exactly alike; yet they vary only within narrow and measurable limits." (Burton, 1987:xxi)

Burton (1987) is describing how swords are both complex articles in which no two are exactly the same, but at the same time all fall within a certain level of variation. It is this second point which needs to be noted. There are similarities across swords which cannot be denied. They all have blades and hilts, obviously, but a person can get even deeper in the examination of the similarities. The cross-guard is also a similar item. In some cases it may be a part of the handle, but it is still present, if in a reduced form. In the case of the katana it is the tsuba, thus a circular cross-guard, which would seem somewhat contradictory. The pommel is also present, it is the part of the sword which holds the rest of it together, and in the western versions adds counter-weight. In the katana this is the kashira.

These similarities which have been pointed out, only are those in the hilts of the weapons, the blades also have similar characteristics as well. All have a strong, weak and a middle portion of the blade; these are all relative strengths in comparison to one another. The strong is most used for defending, the weak is most used for offending, and the middle is most used for controlling actions of the opponent's weapon. When it comes to the question of edges, the weapons do have at least two edges, even though one of them may be blunt. Even this blunt edge can be used for actions against the opponent, such as parrying and actions of control. These similarities in physical form need to be noted and appreciated.

Shape, Use or Culture?

Swords have been classified and organised into groups often by specific shape, function or culture. The question is what is the best method of classifying them, is it one or a combination of these methods. Burton (1987) suggests two which are common among collections being Topical and Geographical or Material and Formal, the former considers the culture, location, place and date, the latter which only considers the objects themselves (Burton, 1987:xxii). Obviously both have their advantages and disadvantages. Coe et. al. (1996) use a more combination system taking into account both the artefacts themselves along with the cultural situation in which they were found in, thus taking advantage of both approaches described by Burton (Coe et.al., 1996:6).

The combination of classification of weapons has the advantage of not only examining the objects themselves and examining them for construction, shape and manufacture, but can also look at the culture in which they were found and look at their use, which is often sorely missing in curatorial approaches to weapons. This missing approach leads these curatorial approaches to divide swords down definitive lines which are not actually there, due to misinterpretations as to how the weapons were used.

Some weapons were more specialised in a single area of use than others, this is undoubted. A perfect example of this is the estoque, or tuck, which was designed to be used by an armoured combatant against another for a thrusting attack designed to pierce through gaps in armour. The weapon had no edge, so there was no chance that there was any chance of cutting ability. Often this is claimed to be the origin of the rapier, however that it is a weapon designed for armoured combatants makes this a somewhat spurious claim.

The rapier is a classic weapon for the abuse of weapon historians about its use. For some it was a purely point-orientated weapon which could not cut at all. For others it could cut just as easily as more military-styled weapons which were its contemporaries. Neither of these is accurate. The rapier was a point-orientated weapon, meaning that it was designed more for the thrust than the cut, but it could still cut, just not as well as a military sword of the same period, it was designed for civilian duelling and self-defence.

On the other end of the scale some would attempt to have us believe that the longsword was purely designed for cutting and that it did not thrust at all. Longswords came in several different forms indeed Oakeshott numbers twenty-two different types of sword in the medieval period (Oakeshott, 1998:24), thirteen of which could be claimed to be longswords. Some of these were predominantly cutting weapons, but that is not to say they did not have a tip to thrust with, and some of them were more designed to thrust with also. So, needless to say, it depends on which form of the longsword is being spoken about.

The sabre is in a similar situation, it can also thrust as well. No doubt Oriental weapons have the same spurious claims been made about them. These arguments will not be discussed here as I do not have the expertise in this field. Needless to say, weapons need to be examined carefully before claims on their use are made, especially when it comes to specialisation.

Conclusion

Each person has their preferences. Some people prefer chocolate ice-cream over vanilla, some people just don't like ice-cream at all. Preferences for swords are much the same, just because you prefer the longsword, does not mean that you cannot appreciate the jian, katana, gladius or rapier. Each sword has something to say about it and of its use. There are many similarities between weapons which can be appreciated.

Each sword was a tool designed for its time and place, to take it out of this time and compare it to something else, to deride it is not useful. Placing a sword on a modern battlefield and trying to compare it to modern weapon systems is like trying to take an apple and compare it to an orange among other oranges. Sure, both of them are fruit, but they are simply not a good match for comparison unless the question is for preference about fruit, not the best orange.

The greatest challenge we face is to get out of our comfort zones, and in some cases these comfort zones are quite small. Have a look at some others swords and appreciate them for what they are and what they can do. Make comparisons of them with swords that you are familiar with, but not for the purposes of derision, but for the purposes of noting similarities and other positive notes. This way you will come to appreciate more weapons and also the skills that go along with these weapons. Remember that the two deciding principles of time and distance exist for all martial arts armed and unarmed, you can learn something from all different places if you really put your mind to it.

Bibliography

Burton, R. F. (1987) The Book of the Sword, Dover Publications Inc., New York, USA

Cambridge Dictionary (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/)

Coe, M. et. al. (1996) Swords and Hilt Weapons, Prion Books Limited, London

Oakeshott, E. (1998) The Sword in the Age of Chivalry, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge

Oxford Dictionary (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/)

Merriam-Webster Dictionary (https://www.merriam-webster.com/)