Italian Blow Translation

Greetings,

The following is a subject which I have been considering whether writing it would be of any use or not and I have decided that even if I get one person interested, it is worth the effort. For all of my usual Historical European Martial Arts readers I apologise, this one is for the Society for Creative Anachronisms crowd. Well, actually it is so you can both talk to one another in a similar language so it is actually for understanding, so in that way it is for both of you.

Communication is the Aim

The subject which is raised here is one which I proposed quite a while ago and simply just never got around to dealing with. The purpose of this post is to take the standard SCA "heavy" (armoured combatant) blows and translate them into Italian language, or at least that used in many of the period manuals. Why? So then these manuals may be more accessible to these members of this group, also so that there is more understanding between the two sets of martial artists. I have chosen Italian terms because they are more familiar to me.

"Snap" and "Off-Hand"

Ok, so we are going to start simply. Anything which is thrown as a fore-hand blow is known as a mandritta. Anything which is thrown as a back-hand blow is known as a riversa. So a "snap" is a mandritta, and an "off-hand snap" is a riversa. This delineation works for all blows which are thrown in this direction from the combatant (Please note I am using a particular spelling and nomenclature for these words some manuals may use others).

Next, a blow which comes horizontal is called a tondo, so your average "snap" is a tondo, and so is the "off-hand snap". To delineate between the two the former is a mandritta tondo and the latter is a riversa tondo. Remember, this is because one travels in from the combatant from the right and the other from the left, as previously explained. Where the angle changes so will the descriptive word.

A diagonally downward blow is called a squalembrato. So a "snap" to the leg would be a squalembrato, as would be an "off-hand snap". Again, we have the mandritta squalembrato for the "snap" to the leg, and a riversa squalembrato for an "off-hand snap" to the leg. The pattern of side then direction is a format which will give a general idea of the blow followed by more specifics about the blow.

"Wrap"

Even the "wrap" a blow which supposedly has no place in period manuals actually does have a description in Italian. The first word that is used is the word falso, which describes an action using the false, or back, edge of the weapon. The next is to simply describe the blow as it is delivered. A standard "wrap" is simply a falso mandritta tondo as it is a false edge blow which comes from the right at a horizontal angle. The "rising wrap" is a little different it is a diagonally upward blow from the right hand side which is called a falso dritto.

"Slot"

The last blow that will be discussed here is the "Slot" shot. It is a vertical blow designed to pass down between the sword and shield of the opponent to strike them. A vertical blow in Italian is called a fendente. So, in essence, this would be the simplest naming of this particular shot.

Left-Handers

So the question that often gets asked is "What happens to the terms if I am a left-hander?" Nothing. Except that, as per usual, you will drive your average right-handed opponent up the wall, and probably left-handers as well. The terms do not change as the directions originate with the person throwing the blow rather than the person recieving them. In fencing the Lines simply swap over, and it is much the same here, because the weapon is in the opposite hand all of the same names apply to all of the same blows as before.

Blow Effectiveness

One of the questions which always arises with regard to a blow is how effective it is. One of the issues with regard to this is that the average rattan sword is round so it is difficult to see what is edge and what is flat. With an edged sword some of the blows which are called flat would have actually struck with the edge were the weapon shaped in the correct fashion. An example of such a blow is the "rising wrap" to the hip, or a falso dritto as it has been described above.

With the round rattan sword there is the chance due to the nature of the weapon it could be called "flat" whereas in reality the edge would be cutting into the target. To gain the best appreciation of what would actually be flat and what would be edge, a weapon with an edge is the best for simulation, however the rattan sword could be shaped in such a fashion that a clearer edge is present on the weapon (BTW: The best source for a weapon with an edge would be one of your fencing compatriots).

More Blows, More Actions

Really, this has been an introduction to this particular subject in which I have focussed on some of the most basic shots which are delivered by the SCA heavy combatant. There are more shots which can be described using Italian terminology no doubt and definitely actions which can be described using such terminology which have not been included to prevent this from getting too technical. One of the easiest ways to access this information would be to ask a fencer, or me of course.

The Italian terms which have been used above are common in many period manuals and this is one of the reasons why this language has been used to "translate" these blows. It could have just as easily have been German, or Spanish, except I am not so familiar with either of them. Accessing such period manuals will supply infomation about fighting techniques which were used in period combats in the period which are being studied, so what is a good reason that such information should not be accessed?

Added to this, familiarising yourself with the terminology of period manuals will mean it will be much easier to communicate with other Western Martial Artists about what you do and also what they do also. Such communication can only be a benefit to both groups as it will increase the knowledge of both groups. More to the point you will find it easier to communicate with SCA fencers who often access period manuals and can pass on information which they have learnt, which can only be an asset to your group and the SCA as a whole.

Cheers,

Henry.

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.

"Armour" in HEMA

Greetings,

The following discussion will be about armour and "armour" as it stands within the HEMA (Historical European Martial Arts) community. The thing is that there seems to be some funny ideas floating around about what armour is and what it does and how it relates to what we do. Hopefully this discussion will clear up some of these issues and clear up some of the confusing terms which have been used.

The image to the left is the full Titan range which is made by Leon Paul in London (Yes, I have noted the lack of shoes on this model). It is designed for the protection of various parts of the body for people who participate in HEMA. This is not armour.


The image to the right is an armour of 1585 for Lord Clifford. This suit is ostensibly for the sport of tilting due to the helm which is fitted to it, and the decoration which is on it, but it could have also seen battle and protected its owner very well. This is armour.

There are differences which need to be pointed out between the two. Firstly, the one on the left is made for a sport in which blunt weapons are used and the opponent has no desire to actually do the wearer of the armour harm, whereas the one on the right is made for battle in which the opponent wanted to either kill or at least maim the individual wearing it. Secondly, the style of combat used when fighting in the one on the left is different to that which would be used to that which would be used to that when fighting in the one on the right. Finally, while the one on the left has some rigid plates in its construction, the one on the right is primarily made of rigid plates. This results in a different style of combat, but not necessarily movement (a question for a different author).

Most of the combat which is being reconstructed by the HEMA community is based upon combat which is focused on unarmoured combat, thus not dealing with armour. When a person discusses "armour" on a forum when discussing their protective equipment, implications in the word can be made. Implications that they are taking their equipment to being like the picture on the right, which it is not. Does this mean that they are also assuming the same of others? This brings up the question of what level of strikes should be accepted.

The idea of unarmoured combat means that a much lower level should be accepted while "armour" gives the automatic idea of a much higher level of strike. The question of calibration or what level of striking has already been brought up in a previous post. This idea of the use of the word "armour" puts an idea in people's heads about what they are using and what they are using it against, even if it is not true. Somewhere in the back-brain "armour" gives automatic idea a harder hit is required. Simply put armour is not being worn.

If armour is not being worn then the name should change when discussing the subject. Some expression to cause less confusion and to prevent the idea that the harder strike is required so that the opponent can feel it through the "armour". A suggestion is that the name be changed from "armour" to "protective equipment" as this is a description of what it is.

The extra padding and certain rigid materials are designed to protect the individual from damage, not to prevent them from feeling the blow. Examine where the heaviest armour is placed in HEMA protective equipment and you will find that it is designed to prevent the wearer from getting permanently injured. Sundry areas are protected by padding.

A change from the use of the word "armour" to the more accurate "protective equipment" will be better in the long-run as it more accurately reflects the state of play, and will be a reminder as to what the equipment is for.

Cheers,

Henry.

Watch Your Assumptions

Greetings,

We all come to fencing through different paths and from different backgrounds. Some come from sport fencing backgrounds, some come from oriental martial arts. The result of this is that well all carry a certain amount of "baggage" with us. A certain amount where we read something and rather than going off exactly what is read we assume that we know what is being said based on our previous knowledge. This can lead us into issues.

We must remember to read the manuals that we are reading and read them with a similar perspective to the one which the writer wrote them. For example: in the case of an Elizabethan manual, it is important that late Italian knowledge is not read into it, or even later. This can often happen as a result of our history and our background and thus our assumptions. The classical fencer, with his foil and epee has four distinct parries which he remembers. The rapier combatant may use actions which may in part be similar to these but the actions may not be named or used in the same way. If the classical fencer reads these parries into a rapier manual then he can find himself horribly confused. We must ensure that we do not put anachronistic terms, theories and practices into a manual as it will cause problems with the interpretation.

This particular situation became most evident for me when teaching a class on di Grassi, and more to the point his single sword. This would seem to be relatively simple except my own assumptions got the better of me and began to cause issues. Giacomo di Grassi states:

For the defence whereof it is needefull that he ſtand at the lowe warde, and as the thruſt cometh, that he encounter it without, with the edge of the ſword, and increaſe a ſlope pace forward, with the hinder foote at the verie ſame time, by which pace he moueth out of the ...

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.

Italian Blow Translation: A Proposal

Greetings,

What follows is less of a blog entry in the usual sense and more of a proposal for the dissemination of information useful to the community at large. This is designed that two different and yet similar communities may be able to communicate their usage of similar weapons in a fashion where both may learn from one another. This is merely a proposal to be considered by all parties concerned.

In a similar fashion to the masters of old, the heavy combatant members of the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA) have referred to their various blows with their weapons by somewhat arcane names. Examples including the "Scorpion Wrap" and "Barrel Roll" being a perfect example. This makes the intent of the blow easy to communicate to similarly educated individuals, but more difficult to the wider sword-using community. On the other side the civilian, or rapier combatant community of the SCA has begun research into period manuals, using the terms which are present in order to communicate actions, which also allows the to communicate with the wider sword-using community. Admittedly, this is more prevalent in some areas than others but the situation is the same. The result is a lack of communication results in some lack of appreciation, both ways.

What is being proposed here is to translate the named blows of the SCA into first into the Italian nomenclature of the masters of the medieval and Renaissance period, with the possibility of further translation into other languages. This translation of the blows, and giving them their Italian counter-part names, would enable both communities to be able to communicate the blows that they are using along with their techniques and thus both communities could gain an appreciation of what each does, and result in further learning for both. This could be then further expanded to communication with other sword-using groups, such as western martial artists and other recreation groups. Such communication can only enrich the knowledge of the sword for all of the communities concerned.

Needless to say, for this project to work, or even be possible, there needs to be a lot of mutual communication between all communities concerned. This communication needs to be founded on respect for the martial capabilities and knowledge of the communities involved. A lack of communication will result in aspects from both sides being omitted and flaws will then develop in the overall project. This proposal is designed to encourage such communication to start.

Cheers,

Henry.

Lexicon for Swordplay, Or He Did What?

Greetings,

It has been a while since I have made any posts here as I have been busy with other things, and searching for suitable subjects for writing about. This is one which came up sometime ago, but I had not written about it as I thought I would leave it for a while. The blog following is about swordplay and the terminologies associated with such. It will also dig a little into the issues of not having a suitable lexicon of swordplay, or indeed having several in different languages.

Now we have all been at an event where we have seen two people get into a discussion about what happened during the fencing that day and often it will result in fingers being pointed in order for the action used to be expressed accurately. This is the result of not having a common language or suitable terms in which to discuss what they are talking about. On the other end one fencer will use an Italian term and the other will look at him strangely because all his study has been in German. In this particular case it comes out as having suitable terms but not a common language both of these can cause issues when expressing an action performed with a weapon.

To give an example of what is being discussed here. A beat is a simple action designed to remove the opponent's blade with force in order to open a line. In French it is called battement, in German it is called Klingenschlag, in Spanish it is called batimiento, and in Italian it is called battuta. Four different languages which is four different words for the same thing, they just happen to be in a different language. Things only get more confusing for the new person when a discussion of cuts comes in.

In order to avoid such confusions, either deliberately or accidentally, some organisations have developed their own language for the various actions with a sword, one example of this is from the armoured combatants of the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA). Terms have been developed in order to describe the action of delivering a blow against an opponent, for example the snap, and the wrap. To an uninformed audience these would not make particularly much sense, but the same could be said of many early Italian terms such as the Iron Gate Guard. So in some ways the language is 

...

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.