Old Learning for Old Treatises

Greetings,

The following article examines the question of what background reading the fencer should do to put themselves in the mind-set of the individual who wrote the Medieval or Renaissance treatise. It will also discuss how it is important that this older mind-set be applied when reading these texts rather than applying things from a more modern point of view. These questions, while background to the reading and interpretation of period treatises are important when reading these documents.

In recent months I have been reading and trying to wrap my head around Aristotle's Physics. This has been no mean feat coming from a lay person who is not particularly familiar with the field. Little did I know that not only would I be confronted with various theories about how objects moved but also Aristotle's theories about the universe and how it is constructed as this is all a part of the older idea of what "physics" means, an addressing of the physical world and all that lies in it. Of course, the question must be raised, why would I read this anyway?

Firstly, it is undoubtedly one of the more significant historical texts available to read, and this appeals to me from the point of expanding my own education. Further it is applicable to the reading of Medieval and Renaissance treatises. This is the physics these treatises would have been based upon, not Newtonian physics. So, reading this allows for a greater understanding of the treatises.

The people who wrote the treatises would have based their ideas on Aristotelian physics and not Newtonian physics simply because that is what would have been available to them. It is not until we read much later smallsword texts that Newtonian physics could possibly have been applied. So in this case Aristotelian physics is the most appropriate when reading these treatises. This is simply because most of these treatises that are being studied were written before Sir Issac Newton was even born!

The same sort of approach can be taken when reading these texts in regard to geometry, in this case Euclid would be the prime source for knowledge, thus the so-called "classical" authors is where most of the knowledge of science and mathematics was drawn for this period. These are the texts that a person should be reading to gain an understanding of what the authors knew when they wrote the treatises. As a result, by reading these books a person will gain an insight into the mind-set of the author as well and a greater understanding of what has been written.

Of vital importance is that we do not colour our reading of these historical texts with our modern knowledge or mind-set when we are attempting to understand them. This is vital from the point of view of understanding the actions presented in the treatises, but also applies toward other elements such as the social elements which are presented in the documents. It is only through an understanding of the social elements of the time that the treatises were written that the reason these treatises were written, and thus some of the social background to them will be understood. This will explain some of the approach of the author to particular subjects of importance.

Do not take the treatise out of its historical context and attempt to understand it. Leave it in its historical context and understand the history which surrounds it. This way you will gain a greater understanding and appreciation of the treatises that you read.

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.

Myth Debunking: Female Combat Training

Greetings,

One of the great joys that I take as a trained historian is debunking myths. One of the reasons for this is that there is nothing like a good historical argument, backed by evidence. The other real reason is that I like seeing the correct information going out into the public sphere for people to access. This would be the reason why I wrote one of the recent posts about curatorial elements of the sword. It also irritates me a little when people continue to spread myths around because they are just too lazy to get off their butts and do the research.

When we see ladies in reenactment we often see them dressed in dresses playing the part of the lady, as the public expects. Less often we see them in armour, but it is spectacular when they are dressed in armour and are fighting. Something which I support completely. There is a modern myth that ladies in the medieval period did not engage in combat and were not trained to do so. Yes, it is a myth.

The question of the shield maiden is something which has been brought up again ever since the series "Vikings" has become popular and there are arguments for and against their existence. There is some archaeological evidence for their existence and quite a bit of folklore to go along with it. For your convenience, if you click on "shield maiden" (above) you will find the Wikipedia site for it and I would use this as a launch-pad for future research.

The Elizabethan Era is one of the most well-known for swordplay due to the duel occurring and of course the plays of Shakespeare and the London Masters of Defense. What has also been documented is that Elizabeth watched the playing of several Prizes of the London Masters of Defense. A candidate would play a "Prize" to gain his next rank in the organization. A list of prizes which were played can be found here. If nothing else this shows Elizabeth's interest in swordplay. What's more, it is rumoured that she also encouraged her ladies to be trained with the sword as a sort of "last defence" bodyguard and also for their own virtue.

We live in a pictorial age and many people are driven by what they can see. So often we hear "Pictures or it didn't happen." Well, supporting this particular contention which is being presented is pictorial evidence from some French manuscripts. The first is from Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève  MS.1126 "Roman de la Rose"

This image clearly depicts two women crossing swords while dressed in civilian outfits. This would mean that it is most likely that they are in training rather than actually fighting. It is, however, a clear demonstration of a training scene of females being trained in combat. An image which points more toward them being engaged in actual combat follows below.

The women in this image on the left seem to be defending themselves from the group on the right. While these individuals are wearing civilian clothes, it looks less like a training scene and more like that they are defending themselves from a group of bandits. This image is also from a French manuscript of the fourteenth-century. While this image could be mistaken form some sort of training or game, the following image is less likely to.

The original manuscript in this case is from another fourteenth-century French manuscript, but can be found along with several other images of women in armour on the page Babes in Armor, which is a celebration of women in armour. That this image shows the individual in armour leaves no doubt that the individual is in a situation where she may come to harm. This would seem to break the myth that women did not put on armour and did not use weapons. The final image which I have will give those who do not think that the medieval female had training some real pause for thought.

This image is from "De Mulieribus Claris" (BNF Français 598), and clearly depicts a woman in armour and involved in the combat. That she is present on the field of combat should give one pause for thought. That she is using the weapon she is armed with and doing harm means that she is at least trained with the weapon.

We should all be careful about making large sweeping statements about things which did or did not happen in the past. It goes especially much where there is evidence for both sides of the argument present. We must all ask ourselves what influences would be making us take either side of an argument and why this is. Is the answer we are giving going to benefit or detract?

Just from the evidence presented here, I would think that some would at least consider re-evaluating their positions with regards to women in history and their positions. The female in the medieval period was obviously not barred from training in weapons, but may not have chosen to do so. Thus we must consider what position the individual was in to make this choice, if they had one at all. We should all do our best not to perpetrate, and perpetuate myths from any period of time as they muddy the history and give misdirection to our future researchers.

Cheers,

Henry.

You can view the Second Part of this discussion, with more detail and research here.

Update: 15 January 2023

There are comments below claiming that the above images are allegorical or of mythological content and that because of this possibility that this means that the women in these images were not trained in combat, and did not see combat, or were not involved, and consequently women would not and could not have been trained in combat. This I dispute quite strongly.

I am adding this here because most of the readers have not bothered to read the second part as indicated in the link above, but have decided to ignore the historical evidence and focus on the possibility that these images are allegorical or mythological. Such ideas are based in fact, allegorical or mythological as they might be. There is historical evidence, as presented in the second part and this list https://www.rejectedprincesses.com/women-in-combat for women in combat from pre-1st century all the way up to the 20th century.

It is evident from the historical record that women were trained in weapons and they did see combat. This is evident from the list presented in the link above and also the list of individuals who are presented in the second part of this discussion. So both aspects of this discussion, and argument are covered. That the images may be allegorical or mythological is beside the point, the fact is that women were trained in combat and did see combat as indicated, as is argued in this and the second part of the discussion. The foundation for such images had to come from somewhere, further, it could be claimed that some who did see combat could be inspired by such images as Oscar Wilde states, "Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life".

Further, the argument that Jeanne d'Arc did not see combat because she did not fight, is false logic. Or the same logic could be used that none of the generals of 18th century battles, including Napoleon or Wellington to name two, saw combat because they did not fight; or that medics such as Medal of Honour recipient Corporal Desmond Doss did not see combat, because he did not fight, or even carry a weapon. 

I will not be responding to such false arguments anymore, or those directed against such simplistic ideas, negating the idea of women in combat, due to the presented source material, when there is further evidence presented in another article indicated. That women saw combat in the Medieval and Renaissance period is an historical fact, and one that is evident across many cultures. I see no reason to respond to such false arguments, which grasp desperately at straws, and deny historical truth.

Book Review: Henry V as Warlord

Greetings,

The following will be a review of the book Henry V as Warlord by Desmond Seward. This will be a less formal review than most are accustomed to but it will be striking most of the same points which will be found in reviews of a similar nature. While not exactly related to swordplay, it is related to medieval history and is thus of interest.

Seward, D. (2001) Henry V as Warlord, Penguin Books Ltd, London.

Seward opens his discussion of Henry V with a discussion of how the Lancasters attained the throne of England, claiming them to be "usurpers" to the throne. In this it can be claimed that they attained the throne of England in much the same way as many rulers did. Indeed one of the most famous families in English history, the Tudors, claimed the English throne in the same way.

The discussion of Henry V's invasions of France are made very much as single-sided accounts, with barely passing references to the Norman invasion of England, which in effect was the same in reverse, but with longer-lasting effects. Thus he focusses on the ways in which Henry V had an impact upon the French and the actions of the army of Henry V.  Many of the same actions which were committed by Henry V were the same as those which were committed by William the Conqueror when he invaded England.

In the way of many historians of the modern period he compares actions of the past with modern ideas of normality, making references to actions made by modern armies in World War II on both sides, but particularly the German army. This sort of revisionist angle of history is foolish as it does not take into account the mind-set of the day and thus the normalities which were experienced in the period. One aspect in particular which seems prevalent is the use of terror in war.

Terror was often used as a weapon in war in the medieval period. This was designed for a purpose. A city which held out against a besieging force for an extended period of time could expect a much harsher response once it finally fell than one which capitulated earlier. It is an element which can be seen as "normal" for this kind of warfare throughout the period and beforehand.

Further in certain cases commanders of armies would allow atrocities to be committed in the earlier parts of their campaigns to reduce the later body cound and civilian deaths in later sieges and battles. Henry V was not the only one who used this particular aspect of terror in warfare. Charles VIII of France in his invasion of Italy used the same method in his campaign. A city early in the campaign would be sacked to let all the others know what would happen if they resisted, and it would result in many others afterward capitulating early or not resisting at all thus reducing the body count. Such actions need to be examined from the overall point of view.

Seward also vociferously complains about Henry V's army "living off the population". Again this was normal practice during the period, and it was a practice which was continued, and was previously used. Again it can be cited that Charles VIII's army also used the same tact when travelling through Italy, expecting the various cities to pay for his campaign, feed and billet his soldiers as he passed through. These aspects were normal for this period. Thus the historian needs to understand and look at it from their perspective.

While Seward seems to be on a purposeful aim to reduce the status of one of England's favourite heroes, and present him rather as a warlord than a great king, his book does present a great deal of useful information. The detail which is supplied of his campaigns and how he managed to pay for them along with the alliances made, and plots he managed to avoid against his life are truly interesting. This makes the book well worth the read even for these elements.

The book is a most interesting discussion of the life of Henry V and covers many different aspects of his rise to the throne and also his life as king. It uses many different sources which have often not been heard from before, which are in themselves most useful. The only detraction in the whole situation is that the author seems to have had an aim from the beginning to cut down this famed figure by presenting as much information to the contrary of what has been presented before. Read from the point of view of an pure interest in both sides of the story, it is a good read and supplies very good detail, but tends to compare too much of what was normal then with what is considered normal now. I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in early fifteenth-century English and French history and particularly in Henry V and his campaigns, even for a different point of view.

Cheers,

Henry.

Book Review: Fencing Through the Ages

Greetings,
What? Another book review? Yes, it is. This one is of a similar nature to my last in that I bought this book at Swordplay last year and have been horribly slack about getting around to doing a book review on it. This is one that I am actually going to really enjoy telling you about as it will reveal a book and an author who, for the most part had been pushed aside for others.

Corthey, Adolphe (2015) Fencing Through the Ages, LongEdge Press, Brisbane, First Edition 1898, Translated by Chris Slee

So, the bibliographical details have been presented above, and should provide everything you should need to search for this book online for you to buy it. Why would you buy it? Well the book presents some very interesting material which has otherwise been shoved aside by the English-speaking world.

This book was translated into English from French by Chris Slee in a literal fashion. In this he attempted to stay as true to the language as possible. The advantage of this, while meaning that the result is less smooth than it could be, means that it is closer to the original as possible for the English-speaking reader. Slee supplies notes with regard to his translation of particular words throughout the book to inform the reader of his choices.

Adolphe Corthey is the French equivalent to Captain Alfred Hutton and Egerton Castle and is of as much importance to the revival of Historical European Martial Arts. His book Fencing Through the Ages presents an account of various masters of fencing, much as Castle's Schools and Masters of Defence. While it was Hutton and Castle on one side of the English Channel, it was Corthey on the other side.

The book presents an interesting discussion of the history of fencing from the very beginning all the way up to the eighteenth century. His discussion of the very early periods is, of course, very brief whereas his discussion of Renaissance and later period weaponry is much longer. The first weapon he discusses in detail is the two-handed sword, and the last is the smallsword. In this discussion he mentions the works of various masters in the same sort of fashion as is found in Castle's. This is the primary part of the book, and the actual book written by Corthey. As expected, of course, there are present many of the historical biases of the period with the "development" toward the dominance of the point and so forth, but as an historical document, this makes it still useful.

The fact that the above is the primary part of the book does not mean that the sundry materials should be skipped over in any way whatsoever. There is the presentation of contemporary media information also included demonstrates significance of author and work. Thus the presentation of such work was placed in the public eye, much as HEMA practitioners are attempting to do now.

One of the most interesting documents contained within this volume actually resides in the back pages. It is entitled "On the Subject of the Transformation of the Combat Sword" and discusses the transformation from combat weapon to weapon usable for practice. This is a document which should be of great interest to all practitioners of revivalist martial arts, but especially HEMA with regard to examining how to get weapons at least resembling their historical counter-parts.

In the end I found that this book, understated by its size and weight, was a most interesting read from cover to cover and I would recommend it for all with an interest in history and HEMA. The wide areas of knowledge which Corthey points toward should at least indicate to the reader other areas in which research may be made, and other areas in which maybe they had not thought to cover.

Cheers,

Henry.

Of Wasters

Greetings,

The subject of wasters is something which I have been meaning to write about for a while. I have certain opinions which I believe I need to share with regard to them and the change in attitude with regard to them. What needs to be noted throughout this discussion is that I am not decrying the use of wasters completely and utterly at all, merely that they are being used incorrectly in their current form.

Wasters have been a part of Western Martial Arts for many years, indeed their use can be documented as far back as the Roman period where wooden swords (rudius) were used by both legionaries and gladiators for practice. These weapons were used both against the Palus or pell, a standing stake and also in mock combats. Wooden weapons were used in these instances to ensure that no permanent injuries came to the combatants. This idea of using wooden weapons flowed through to the medieval and Renaissance periods and has been adopted in our modern period.

In the first instances the waster in the modern period was only available in wood, this made for a hard, not very forgiving item meaning that they were best designed for practice with another with control exercised on both sides, and of course use at the pell. The SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) took this one step further and used weapons made out of rattan in their melee combatants as a standard weapon for fighting in armour and so it has continued to this day.

More recently nylon and other forms of plastic waster have been introduced, these were, in the beginning, much more forgiving and thus allowed more free-play between the combatants so long as a level of control was shown. Indeed with regard to nylon wasters, back in 2011, I participated in some combats using nylon waster longswords in very minimal armour, and thanks to the control of my opponents and myself the worst the combatants walked away with was a welt here and there. You can follow the following link to have a look at some of those combats: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9PoU_i--20

Due to this particular outing it gave me the idea that if you needed lots of armour to use wasters with an opponent you're doing something wrong. This idea is quite contrary to what I have seen most recently where combatants fighting with wasters are having to armour up to the point where they might as well be using steel, as there is not much difference in the armour requirements. Further, in stark contrast to ...

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.

Reasons Why I Do Not Do Sport Fencing

Greetings,

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

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

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

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

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

In manuals we see pictures of fencers upright and standing with arms extended. In lessons we see the ...

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.