Armour is Hot

 Greetings,

There is a certain amount of assumption that is made in regard to gear that is worn, especially when it is made of fabric that it will not affect a person particularly much; only rigid protective equipment, "real" armour is considered when the issue of heat and restriction is considered. This may not be a conscious thing, it may be a sub-conscious thing, I have found myself doing the same thing. Sometimes, especially during the hotter months of the year, we don't bother with the protective equipment during practice, for heat reasons. We get used to not wearing our protective gear and then when we do this is a problem. 

Armour is Hot

Our protective gear (PPE/Armour) needs to be taken into account.

Now, I've already had a discussion about the difference between protective gear or Personal Protective Equipment and armour. I am going to be lazy and bounce between "PPE" and "Armour" knowing the difference between the two. I will use both and "protective gear" assuming that my reader will understand what I am aiming at. 

Back to the subject at hand. This PPE adds extra layers of material and extra weight to what we are used to carrying when we are usually walking around, even usually clothed. It is heavier and warmer than the clothes that we usually wear, thus "armour is hot." We need to get used to this "heat" and the presence of this armour and get to a situation where our movements are not distracted by the presence of this gear, what's called "Armour Fit."

The military gets its trainees used to carrying a pack and their weapons by getting them to run obstacle courses while wearing the gear and carrying the weapons, so the soldiers are used to carrying the gear and using the weapon under all circumstances. This approach to armour fitness has been present in military training since the Romans indeed the tactician Flavius Vegetius Renatus, known more commonly as Vegetius wrote about this in his Concerning Military Matters. Part of it was even plagiarized as the "Poem of the Pel" in the Middle Ages. I am not suggesting that we should do such extreme training, however some of it might be of use to us, especially if we want to get really "Armour Fit".

If nothing else, we need to get used to the heat of the armour. We need to get used to simply wearing the armour as a part of our normal practice. This way, when we have it on for when we are bouting or competing in competitions, there will be substantially less restriction.

Training in Armour

So, am I suggesting that we should do all of our training in our PPE? Yes, mostly. Am I suggesting that we should do the training in all of our PPE? Well, maybe not all of it, all of the time. There will be times when masks are not required and maybe gorgets, however the more armour that you wear during the training, the more that you will get used to it, the quicker you will become used to wearing it.

"But that will tire me out quickly." Really? That certainly says something about your armour fitness if you can't go through a training session wearing the gear that you are supposed to be bouting or competing in, maybe this sort of training is exactly what you need to build up your endurance.

"But the armour is hot and uncomfortable." Then maybe this is your chance to get used to the heat that it supplies, and find the areas where it is uncomfortable so you can make some modifications. This equipment like any form of clothing should be made to fit the wearer, not just taken off the shelf and assumed it is going to fit.

During your first couple of times training in armour as described above you will have to pay close attention to your heat tolerance. Be very aware of any heat stress that you may be suffering and attend to it immediately. If you feel that you are beginning to suffer from heat stress, go sit down, drink water, remove some layers and rest for a while. Do NOT push it until you drop or dehydrate yourself. This will take some time to get used to and build up your tolerance. Besides if you do push until you drop, you are likely going to have to start at all over again as you recover and then build up again.

You will notice some quite interesting differences between being in armour and being out of armour. Maybe this might require re-learning some skills, or modifying them to suit while you are in armour. The armour will change your movements.

Armoured vs Unarmoured

You will notice that movements while wearing armour is different to not wearing it. This will change your actions. Likely one of the reasons you do not perform particular actions during your bouts is simply because you can't, because your PPE will not allow you to execute such actions. There is a significant amount of weight present and it is more bulky in different places this needs to be taken into account. While Musashi was talking about "real" armour, the same, in part, applies.

"You cannot profit from small techniques particularly when full armour is worn." 

Miyamoto Musashi Go Rin No Sho

Certain techniques may not work for you because of the PPE that you are wearing. You need to take this into consideration. What is even more interesting about this situation is that we are supposed to be performing an unarmoured art, yet we are doing it while wearing armour, in a lot of cases. This is going to make a lot of difference to the way that we can and cannot move.

This is especially the case when we look at a lot of HEMA combatants. They can't perform the correct actions because they can't move in the way that they need to because of their protective gear. Questions could be raised as to the reason that they need all the protective gear. It does not take all that much effort to damage an individual, so what is the reason for the hard blows? I think this is a matter for another article, or maybe one I have already discussed previously.

All a learning process...

This is all a learning process, but one that will be well worth your while. You have to learn what it is like to move in your protective gear, and your body has to learn to get used to the heat of the armour that is being worn. This is not a slow process and there will be some times, especially in the beginning, where you will need to slow down, not that this is a bad thing in training, so you can learn to cope with the increased stress.

If the armour gets too hot: stop, take a breather; even take the gear off if it is not required. The point being that the gear is there to protect you from harm, but if it is harming you then there is something that needs to be adjusted. The PPE has been proven to protect the individual, so it is really the individual that needs to change not the gear. The individual needs to get used to the heat and weight of the armour. Practice in the armour, get used to the heat and movement of the gear that you are fighting in so it presents less stress to your body and you will be a lot more comfortable when you fight, and you will be able to fight for longer.

Cheers,

Henry.

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

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

A Fencer's Responsibility

 Greetings,

There is lots of discussion about individuals' rights and what a person is or is not allowed to do, say, wear, or practice. People forget that along with rights come responsibilities. Responsibilities begin with the simple responsibilities we have to our fellow human beings which allow the rights to exist in the first place, but this post is not to discuss such subjects. If you want my discussion of this subject you can read it HERE. The subject at hand is the responsibilities that each fencer has to each other fencer. These responsibilities are intrinsic with the picking up of a weapon, of any kind, simulated or not.

Every time that you fence, or even pick up your weapon you are representing every other fencer as a member of an unofficial, but present worldwide membership, that goes back into history, and crosses national and cultural boundaries. It does not matter if you are a member of the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronisms), a kendoka, a sport fencer or a member of one of the many Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA) groups around the world, you have a connection ALL of them, simply because you participate in the art of the sword. You have a responsibility to all of them to represent the art in its best light. This is the first responsibility that you have. Every time a person takes up a sword and strikes another human being in anger or with the intent to injure or kill, it sheds a negative light on everyone else. 

Safety: It's All in Your Hands

Safety in regard to any weapon, it primarily concerns control over that weapon. For a firearm it involves ensuring that the weapon is unloaded whenever it is away from the range; ensuring that it only points toward the target when it is loaded; your finger only goes anywhere near the trigger when you are ready to fire; and ensuring the weapon is again unloaded before leaving the firing area. All of these points are about controlling the mechanical processes which are involved in the operation of the weapon.

It's Still a Weapon

The firearm is obviously a weapon capable of doing damage, but in all cases the swords which are used in fencing should always be treated as weapons. They may be simulated weapons in most cases, except those used for test-cutting, but they are weapons nonetheless, and should be treated with the respect due a weapon as they still have the potential to do damage. This is something that you must appreciate, and thus observe all of the rules in regard to safety.

Rules and Conventions

Some groups, and most of the officially established groups have formalised rules and conventions for the way they perform their combats. If the situation is a more informal situation then some of the rules and conventions may be unwritten and there may be some negotiation required before the combat starts. In either case, ensure that you always stay within the rules and conventions which have been established for the combat. They are there for your safety and the safety of your opponents. If you are unsure about any of these, ask before you start.

There are many reasons to fight within the established rules and conventions. In many instances if you do not  there will be consequences for not doing so. These can be up to and including removing and banning you from participation. There is a better reason to fight within these standards, it will result in a more pleasant fight, and people will more likely want to fight you again. This will give you a better reputation, and this spreads to other groups with which they will have contact. I have already discussed the subject of notoriety and renown in another article previously.

The Excessive Blow

There will be instances where a combatant will be struck too hard. This is inevitable as fencing is, after all, a contact sport. The purpose is to strike the opponent after all. There is an acceptable standard set in groups as to what blow is hard enough and what is too much, the latter being an "excessive blow." This may waver between groups and even within a group.

You should always attempt to strike with sufficient force to transmit your intent, but never to injure your opponent, if there is no standard set. Discuss the standard in a group where you are visiting to ensure that you do not strike too hard. It is your responsibility to ensure that you do not strike too hard.

Now incidents will happen where such blows are unavoidable, colloquially it could be called the, "sh*t happens" situation, but this is the exception more than the rule. Such an incident could occur where both fencers attack simultaneously, mutually striking one another, or even simply one striking the other. One miscalculates what the other is about to do, expecting them to go back instead of forward, and they are struck, the result is an "excessive blow." 

In each instance the responsibility falls to the person holding the weapon which struck the person who received the "excessive blow" not the person who was struck. The blame should not fall on the person who is struck as the individual should have control of their weapon. Again, there will be instances where the individual has thrown themselves on to the weapon, but it is up to them to accept the blame rather than receive it. This is a fine line, but it must be noted.

Know the Rules

Some will state part of safety and what has been said previously is knowing the rules, and in part they are correct. It is important to know the rules, but the following discussion focuses on the rules of the game that is being played, rather than the game and how it is played. There are often long sets of rules which are presented and many participants read part of them, leaving much of them to marshals or referees, depending on what the appointed safety personnel are called. For convenience, I will be calling them "marshals" and the combatants as "fencers".

Fencer's Rules

Many feel it is sufficient for a fencer only to know those rules which particularly pertain to the fencer. In this they feel it is only necessary that the fencer know: the conventions of combat, armour and weapon standards, and how to fight safely. The result is they focus on only those rules which pertain to them as a fencer which either get them on the field or involve them actually fencing. This, unfortunately, leaves a rather large hole in their knowledge, and can cause issues for them, should certain incidents arise.

Know All the Rules

In actual fact, even for fencers it is better to know all of the rules. This is because they give explanation to things in the fencer's rules which are often described in detail in the later parts. A fencer may be involved in an incident on the field of combat. If they have only read the bare minimum, they do not know how to handle the incident, aside from talking with their opponent, and maybe the marshal on the field.

Knowing all the rules allows the fencer to know procedures for following up on incidents which occur on the field, should they occur. On the more positive side, should a fencer find a weapon combination that is not yet covered in the rules, they will, however give direction how they might be able to experiment with permission, rather than simply turning up and simply being not allowed to use it. Other procedures which are presented in the rules include what to do about another fencer if they break a rule, or if the fencer has concerns about the rules.

If the fencer only knows their part of the rules. How do they know when a marshal is acting within the bounds of the rules? How do they know how to do anything about this? All such information is, no doubt, found somewhere within the rules and procedures, beyond the simple rules for fencers. Likewise the reporting procedures, so any of the incidents mentioned above, can be reported correctly is likely present. This way something can be done about the incidents, the first time, rather than a lot of backward and forward as the fencer talks trying to find the right person to talk to.

Rules and Safety

It would be nice to think that every combatant had the safety of every other combatant in mind every time they took the field. It is simply not the case. Once the adrenaline begins to flow, and the desire for victory is present, often concerns for safety tend to blend into the background and things get missed. It is at these times the individual needs to stand firm and be the representative of safety, even if it is only doing their part to keep them and their opponent safe.

One way of keeping people safe is to know the rules under which you are fighting, and knowing all the procedures so you can follow them, should it be required. If you are involved in an incident, it is your responsibility to report it as you were involved. If you expect something to be done about it, then it is likely that you will have to follow it up using the correct procedures. This is your responsibility.

You have a responsibility as a fencer, one that is linked to every other fencer around the world. The safer you can make what you do the more likely that what you do will last for years to come. The greatest threat that fencing of all kinds faces is not from a lack of participants, but from safety issues and thus legal and insurance issues. It is your responsibility to do your part to keep it safe.

Cheers,

Henry.

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

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

Nietzsche and the Art of Fence

Greetings,

There is much discussion about the philosophical approach to fencing, mostly from the perspective of how a person should train and approach their "game". Questions are asked about whether fencing is a series of touches against an opponent or a series of questions and answers between two fencers having a conversation, and such like questions. What follows does not discuss these philosophical approaches, it discusses what happens when the fencer becomes broken, or old, and how and why the old and/or broken fencer can and should continue on with a long-term injury or injuries, or chronic illness.

Of Nietzsche

For the Nazi implications in regard to Nietzsche and Nietzsche's work, which are sometimes made, I will simply say that, a person writes, or creates a thing, it is often up to others how they use the thing. This is the same case with Nietzsche's ideas and what the Nazis did with them. The Nazis took Nietzsche's ideas, and like they did with many ideas at the time, perverted them to suit their own ideals. Nietzsche was not even alive at the time of the foundation of the Nazi Party, he had been dead for 20 years. 

With that distasteful piece of discussion out of the way we can talk more about the man and how he could relate to being broken. He suffered through bouts of physical and mental illness throughout his life and it was during these times that he wrote some of his most significant works. He managed himself around these times of illness, something we can learn from.

Nietzchean Philosophy is more common than you might think, “Out of life's school of war: What does not destroy me, makes me stronger.”[1] Yes, that oft-used quote comes from Nietzsche, and forms the foundation of much of the philosophy which I have found most useful, especially in this discussion of its relation to fencing. For the Stoics in the audience, it was Nietzsche who arrived at the concept of "Amor Fati" - love your fate. By this, he meant if you truly embrace the life that you have and you will find power in it. This is a concept which the modern Stoics have embraced.

Of Fencing and Philosophy

On the one hand, while readers of these articles are likely relatively familiar with fencing and fencing terms, because this is their area of interest, there are distinctively fewer who are familiar with philosophers and philosophy. So when it comes to philosophical terms and individuals concerned with philosophy, somewhat of an introduction is required. Assumptions, especially those broadcast in the main by media or rumour, like the Nazi connections, mentioned above, need to be exposed and removed.

Of all the important concepts which are found within Nietzsche's work, for the fencer with an injury, especially a long-term one, or a chronic illness, the most important one is the "will to power" a concept in which the power is found within the individual so long as they have the will to find it. This concerns not only living life but living life well. Nietzsche states that life gives will, but not just to live, but to power, thus to live well. He extols the reader to live well not just live. This living well is found through defeating the challenges which are put before them. Further, then surmounting the greater challenges that are put before them after those.

Merely the Beginning

This discussion is merely the beginning; a bare scraping of the surface of my thoughts on the subject and the research I have performed on the subject. If you are interested and feel that you have a need to read the document in its complete form, and it is quite long and in-depth, it can be found attached to this Dropbox link, or by contacting the author, the same as this blog, i.e. me.

Cheers,

Henry.

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

---

[1] Nietzsche, F (1895) Twilight of the Idols, http://www.handprint.com/SC/NIE/GotDamer.html, para. 8

Of Guard and Ward

 Greetings,

The following came out of a discussion with one of my students, Adam Kaye, who has made a translation of Lovino's treatise into English, by the way. The discussion concerns the differences and similarities between guards and wards. The discussion will examine the concept of the ward and the concept of the guard, then compare and contrast the two. This leads to a discussion finding out where they mean the same thing and where they mean two different things. Within this discussion, there will be an historical consideration of these terms, in the sense of the treatises, as well as actual use of the terms as they have been used throughout the history of the sword, sometimes to mean the same thing, sometimes to mean different things.

Actual versus Potential

The difference as it is taken in the modern sense between the guard and the ward concerning their defensive positions. In simplest terms one, the guard is an actual defensive position while the ward is a potential defensive position. The guard by its nature closes a Line so it provides the fencer with an actual defensive position. The ward does not typically do this, so the fencer must make an action for defence so is a potential defensive position. Of course, there are exceptions to this, as always, which will be discussed below.

Historical Considerations

Historically, we must examine the concepts of "ward" and "guard" to understand how they were used in the periods in which they were used. Earlier on, they were used pretty much indiscriminately, the were used as synonyms, used to mean and describe the same thing. This was much the case for most of the medieval and Renaissance period. 

“lying calm and settled in some form with arms, either in order to offend or defend, that settlement, and that position, and that composition of the body in that guise, in that form, I call “guard”." (Viggiani, A. (1575) Lo Schermo, Translated by W. Jherek Swanger 2002)

  
It was only in the later Renaissance period that the ward, began to turn more toward the guard, where the weapon was used to close areas of the combatant off. This was most presently demonstrated by Fabris' concept of contra-postura in which the fencer adopted a position which was closed to the opponent.

“According to Fabris, a counterguard (or counterposture) is a subtle adjustment of any of the main guards made to ensure that the line between the opponent’s tip and one’s body is completely covered by the forte of the sword.  Counterpostures are to be formed outside the measure in order to ensure good defense once the “danger zone” is entered.” (Leoni, T. (2002) “A Brief Glossary of Italian Rapier Concepts”, The Association for Renaissance Martial Arts, http://www.thearma.org/rapierglossary.htm)

While this was a process made against an opponent and the later forms of rapier positions began to take into account the position of the opponent and began to close off areas to the opponent's attack. This was only the beginnings of what we could call a "true" guard. The guard which is familiar today would have to wait until the advent of the smallsword.

The guards of the smallsword and later modern sport fencing weapons were designed to close off a Line. These were guards in the truest sense. Any attack down the Line of the guard that was closed could be ignored and this forced the opponent to attack a Line that was open. Here we see the conception of what is understood by a guard in the modern sense. But the discussion does not end there.

One is the Other

There are instances where a ward is a guard, where a Line is closed to the opponent because of the position of the weapon or the body, or the combination of the weapon and the body, this article does not claim that this is absent. Indeed these instances are recognised and are notable. One of the prime instances that this occurs, is when a person deliberately adopts a contra-postura to the opponent's position. Other instances occur when the individual is in a such a position in which the weapon is in such an position that the opponent's weapon must be closed out of the Line such as in the hanging guard. These positions are made easier by the addition of an off-hand device which can serve to assist in the closing of a Line. In these cases there are more wards that are like guards. 

Most guards are also wards; they are also positions from which attacks and defences are easily launched. They simply have the added advantage of having one Line which is closed to the opponent so that Line the fencer does not have to worry about during the initial part of the encounter. The guard is a position from which it is also comfortable to launch attacks from, and also defend the other Lines which are not defended by the position of the guard in that position. It is a guard in the sense of one Line, but a ward in the sense of the other Lines which are not already covered.

What is the Purpose?

The necessary thing is that the purpose needs to be examined, the purpose behind the two different types of stances which are present in fencing. The ward starts the fencer relatively open, but expects the fencer to act against all the actions of the opponent, making choices to attack or defend. The guard closes a Line automatically defending a position against the opponent and driving their attacks toward another direction. This, primarily, prepares the fencer to respond to attacks in that other direction. The guard is intended to limit the opponent's options, and also the required actions of the fencer.

Once you can understand the purpose of a thing, like the ward and the guard it is relatively easy to sort out which is which. Further you can sort out how to turn one to the other, how to close a Line that may be open or create an opportunity for an active action, depending what your desire is. Some will prefer to sit and wait for their opponent to make the first action, others will prefer to make the first action themselves. In part this should be a consideration as to whether you choose a ward or a guard, and which one you take against which opponent. While relatively simple, these questions can get quite complex the further you look into them.

Cheers,

Henry.

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

All a Matter of Attitude

 Greetings,

The following discussion is about attitude, about the philosophical approach you take to your fencing. Now, I will admit that in my early years that I was a "tourney-bunny" which meant that all that was important to me was the next tournament, defeating my next opponent, securing my next position in that tournament, and I did quite well at it. Time has gone by, I have found that there is more to be found in the Art of Swordsmanship, there is more to be found than just defeating my opponent. 

There is a philosophical approach that a person can take that will enable a person to find personal growth, but it has to be embraced, and it is necessary to focus on more than just how to defeat an opponent, as this is rather limiting in the scope of things. Questions will be asked in the following discussion, questions that we must all answer in all seriousness. If you want to change your approach you have to be serious about it, and work on it every time that you fence.

Are you focused on the win or swordsmanship?

The first dividing line is the biggest one of them. It is a rather generic approach which people will then claim that a person can use swordsmanship to win, this is true, but the focus is still on winning not on swordsmanship. A person who is concerned about the win over swordsmanship will compromise their swordsmanship for the win.

A person who is focused on swordsmanship will not be concerned about winning, they will be concerned about improving their skills in swordsmanship. A bout or tournament is merely a way to test what they have learned outside of the cooperative situation of the drill. To put their skills to the test against an opponent, who may not give them the "textbook" attacks or responses, to see what they have truly learned in their training. This leads on to the next question that needs to be asked.

Are you concerned about the hit, or the way you got the hit?

A fencer who is concerned about winning will only be concerned that they struck their opponent. A fencer who is concerned about swordsmanship will be concerned about the way they struck their opponent. There are all sorts of gimmicks and tricks that can be used to strike the opponent, not restricted to, using the flexibility of the blade to bend it around the opponent's weapon, or simple blind speed.

The fencer who is concerned about swordsmanship will be concerned that they struck their opponent in a fashion which would result in the sword, acting like a real weapon, striking the opponent and doing sufficient damage to incapacitate or wound them, while maintaining the principles of fencing theory i.e. such things as engagement, time and distance. A clean cut, not one that bounces. A clean thrust, not one that skips off the opponent. A clean action, one following the other that results in the opponent being struck and the fencer not being struck. Actions which conform to what the fencer has learned and practised in drills. When the fencer is struck by such an attack, they complement their opponent.

Can you complement your opponent on a good hit, or is it simply a failure on your part, an assault on your ego?

The fencer who is focused on the win will not understand how a fencer can complement an opponent on a good hit. They will not understand how the fencer can appreciate the good action of an opponent, because in their mind the strike against them is a failure on their part; it means that they have not won the bout. This is because they are focused on the win, and anything that is not a win is to be disregarded. This truncates their learning, because they never get to learn from their opponent.

The fencer who is focused on swordsmanship, who complements their opponent on a good hit, who appreciates the action of the opponent, has the advantage because they can learn from their experience. They can always see the strike against them as a chance to learn from an encounter, not as a failure because they did not win. They also have the advantage that their opponent will often have a better feeling fighting them and enjoy their encounters with them more, because of such appreciation.

Do you understand the difference between notoriety and renown and how they are achieved?

I have already written about the difference between renown and notoriety in a previous article on this blog, because it is a significant subject. They are something which the fencer should always have in the back of their mind when they fence, regardless of whether they are fencing in bouting, or in a tournament. These are achieved through the view of the individual's peers, through the actions of the individual. It is the public's impression of the individual, and they do go ahead of the individual.

The fencer who wins and is focused on the win, especially if it is regardless of the cost, will earn themselves notoriety. Notoriety is a difficult mark to get rid of, and the respect that goes with it only last so long as the individual is an effective (that is to say, can win) fencer, after that, often the notoriety remains and the respect goes. The fencer who is focused on swordsmanship, who complements their opponent, who fights with courtesy, will more likely earn themselves renown. The fencer with renown, will keep renown so long as they continue to treat their opponents with respect, regardless of the results they have in bout or tournament. The issue being that once notoriety is earned it is difficult to get rid of, in the period when swords were sharp it would've earned the fencer the name of "duellist."

Do you understand what would gain you the reputation of a duellist, and that of a gentleman, or lady?

Some will claim that there is little point in knowing the history or the culture of the period in which the weapons were used, even when they are studying the same weapons. Some will claim that there is little point in studying the manuals on duelling and etiquette from the period, as they do not apply to what is being studied in our contemporary era. This is because the weapons that we are using now are blunt, and there is little chance that someone is going to be challenged to a duel.

Once again it highlights the difference in attitude, it approach to the art of the sword, that people study. Many of the explanations for the actions are found in the culture and history of the period. The manuals on duelling and etiquette give the cultural foundations for what is found in the fencing treatises of the period for the weapons which are being used. If you were an individual who was just interested in furthering yourself through finding fights and winning them, you would've quickly earned your name as a duellist, however if you studied the art as a part of the requirements should you require it, that would earn you the name of lady, or gentleman, or swordsman. 

The one could likely get you in trouble, decrease your reputation, impact other areas of your social life, determine who would associate with you, and not. The other title would assist you into negotiations and further you life, increase your reputation and so forth. The interesting thing is that the same thing can be seen even today in contrast between the two different groups highlighted in this discussion. For the most part, the latter, the ones who are interested in swordsmanship, and are courteous to their opponents, find more people to fence, simply because people like to fence them more. 

Consider your approach to your fencing, don't just consider what you're getting out of it, but what are you giving back, especially to your opponents.

Cheers,

Henry.

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

Fencing is Choices and Consequences

 Greetings,

The title of this article makes it look like it's about social choices we make in our fencing career. I have spoken about this long and in-depth previously; this time it isn't. Those choices will determine the length and depth of your fencing career, often will result in what sort of people you will associate with, and your overall worldview of fencing. For this article I am wanting to look more at the fencing itself, though it is likely the discussion will venture into some those areas again as they are all related. 

When we fence there is a set of choices to be made. These result in consequences in our fencing, and sometimes, even broader than that. For the purposes of this article, I want to focus on the choices and consequences that are made in regard to the act of fencing, and some of the physical details attached to it. There are some simple things that we do not take into consideration which will affect our fencing, choices which we make, either consciously or subconsciously which will affect the result of the bout/s that we have.

The interplay of choices and consequences in the act of fencing one of the reasons I really enjoy fencing (there are others). A fencer makes a choice in the actions that they take; then they must face the consequences of those actions. Sometimes the consequences of those actions are immediate, sometimes they take a little longer to take effect, but they always have an effect. There is no avoiding this situation. There is always some effect.

If an opponent makes an attack, there is a choice to make in the response. Even the timing of this response is a choice. If the fencer making this choice gets the choice right, they don't get hit; if they make an incorrect choice, it is likely that they will be hit, unless they have redundancy built into their choice, and the redundancy is a choice too. This is the immediate result, the immediate consequence.

Even where there is a redundancy built into the response, there will still be a consequence for the primary response failing. This may cost the fencer Time, Distance, or both. Both of these are essential to fencing, and any action that loses the fencer either one of these will affect the actions that follow.

Each time a fencer makes a choice, there are consequences. Those consequences are not necessarily immediate, such as being struck, but they will have an effect on the encounter. Each action affects the position of the fencers in time and space, an action which takes the fencer out of the correct time or space is going to affect where they should be for the following actions. This is especially important for compound actions. The effect of half a foot-length (even less) over two actions can be amazing, as will be the effect of an action which is even slightly out of tempo.

Fencing with an opponent is a series of choices and consequences made. Successful fencing is simply making the right choices, for your fencing at the right time. Of course, this is made easier by training and practising so you have more options available and so more correct choices to make. 

Cheers,

Henry.

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

Special Fencing Fest Edition: Walking Sticks and Their Use

 Greetings,

The following is an additional article primarily for those who attended Fencing Fest XVIII this year. It serves as a follow-up and some documentation for some of the things that were discussed during one of my lessons. For all my other good readers, it's an extra article for the month, lucky you.

There has been some long discussions over the past couple of months on some forums about the use of sword and walking stick as a combination, especially as form which existed in the period pre-1600. For many of my readers this dating won't matter so much as the existence of the practice itself. With some digging done by a good friend Lois Spangler, there has been evidence found that the combination was used and is evident in at least one treatise, actually three.

I will give the reader fair warning, this article is going to be a little long and a little heavy reading.

An Iberian Method

de la Torre

Pedro de la Torre discusses the use of the walking stick as a replacement for the sword when facing an opponent who is fighting with two swords, also known as case of rapier.

“Fighting with two swords isn't an old method, and he invented his method while having a four-palm stick in his left hand with which to defend himself – parry with the left sword and wound the opponent's left arm with the right sword”

So de la Torre states that the stick should be used to parry the opponent’s weapon while the sword is used to strike the opponent’s arm. It is simple enough instruction to follow, and flows simply enough on to the use of case of rapier.

Pacheco

Luis Pacheco de Narváez, (Nueva Ciencia, p. 499) discusses a similar method in which the sword is parried with the stick and the opponent's sword arm is attacked, much like de la Torre.

“he was found with a stick of four palms, more or less, in the left hand, and as he lacked a defensive weapon for it, thought to parry with it, and that in effect he was defended, and thus with this easy and chance experience, with it was established this science, or whatever it is; and the most substantial doctrine that was left written, is that his diestro waits for what the opponent throws, and with the left sword he parries the blow of the right, and with his right he wounds in the left arm”

Both of these writers discuss a stick which is four palms in length which makes it quite a decent length object, well in the vicinity of a decent walking stick. This establishes the foundation of the walking stick sufficiently, if with rudimentary instruction. For mere documentation of the stick itself, Carranza mentions the item as one which is used as a defensive device in his discussions, making three Iberian theorists who mention the use of the stick with the sword. 

The most interesting thing is that this method is one which had already been being taught for a little while previous to the discovery of this information, at least within the SCA. Most other HEMA groups thought that the use of the sword and stick was just something the SCA did, something which they did but was not actually provable and until more recently, the documentation was a little lacking.

Two Methods

Within the SCA there was two methods, one which held the stick by the blunt end as described above, using the stick like another sword; the other method held the stick a little further down and used the curved part of a walking stick to capture an opponent's weapon, and there was arguments against it. Here I present the counter-argument.

Argument:

There is a misconception that only the straight walking stick was used in pre-1600, so the action of using the hook in the form of sword and cane, more accurately bastón, as the Spanish would call it, is a non-period method. Whereas, there is evidence present in period documents demonstrating the existence of walking sticks which have angled heads from at least the 15^th-century, if not before. This would, as a result, indicate that a stick with such an angled head could be used in such a fashion as indicated.

Previous Evidence

Evidence has already presented with the assistance of Lois Spangler from Carranza, Pacheco and de la Torre as evidence for use of sword and cane as a method evident in recognised extant treatises. So there is no doubt that this method of combat is a form which was used pre-1600. There is even a rough description of the bastón in the material; at least its length is given.

 Another method which uses the sword and walking stick, utilising the hook on the cane was taught to me by the Paul Sawtell many years ago, and I have taught the same method to various students over the years as an effective method of utilising this combination. Some would dispute the method as one which is not to their particular liking, but preference is not a matter for historical debate, or scientific enquiry, or George Silver would have had the Italians run out of England at the first chance. So, we must put such preferences aside and examine the evidence which is presented.

Assumed Evidence

The “Classic” Walking  Cane

When the subject of the “walking cane” is brought up as a subject of discussion there is an image which forms in the mind of the individual of a stick which is used to assist an individual to walk. This may be of wood or metal construction, but to save some confusion and to point things toward our discussion we will discard the evidently-modern metal versions and examine the wooden version.

This form of the cane does not belong to the period of swordsmanship that we study. Indeed it does not belong to most periods of swordsmanship, unless you count modern swordsmanship as this form of cane belongs to the 19^th-century.

From a more practical point of view, the turn on the cane the curve which is presented, is actually too pronounced for effective use in the method which is described and presented where this part of the cane is used. It tends to bind on the opponent’s weapon too much, which is ironic of itself. This is not the walking stick that is the focus of this discussion, or the one which is advocated for use in the indicated method.

The “Known” Walking Stick

When it comes to the walking stick of the pre-1600 period it has been argued that this item is straight, and different examples have been presented. For clarity, and honesty, an example of the straight walking stick will be presented.

This image, as noted in the caption is Saint James Major, also known as Saint James the Greater and Saint James of Compostela, it is a German woodcut of 1519, by Hans Baldung Grien.

What will be noted is the straight form of the walking stick as is known of the “typical” walking stick of this period. In this case the walking stick has some round carvings on it to give it some texture and by the way it’s being held at the top a round top as well. It is quite long, as will be noted. It comes almost up to the individual’s armpit.

The walking stick is quite a bit longer than the “four palmo” stick which is described by de la Torre. The mere length of this stick, let alone the weight of the stick would necessitate a different approach to its use. It would not be as balanced as a sword of the same length as well. One must take these things into consideration when looking at such a strict interpretation.

Evidence from Period Sources

The following pictorial evidence will present images of walking sticks in pre-1600 manuscripts and other media to demonstrate that walking sticks other than the straight form were present. Further it will present that there were forms of walking stick which did indeed have cross-pieces at the top quite present in the period. This is to demonstrate that the straight walking stick, as presented previously, was not the only form used.

1260 Rutland Psalter

The Rutland Psalter which bears the shelf mark in the British Library MS 62925 was written in Latin, and is dated c.1260. The image which is presented shows a beggar with a walking stick. While it is mostly straight, it will be noted that there is evidently a curved element present near the individual’s hand.

This element in the stick is likely because the walking stick that the beggar is using was actually a stick which was broken off a branch and then fashioned to be used as a walking stick, the curved part being the remains of a smaller branch. This is the simplest reason, and the flimsiest evidence of a walking stick which is not simply straight as has been previously presented.

1381 German Missal

The image, which originates from the Morgan Library, with the shelf mark MS M.892.3 fol 001r, and is from a Missal from Hamburg, Germany, presented is of particular interest to me as it presents a fox in one of its many incarnations of “Reynard the Fox” a warning against itinerant monks and other holy men. For our present discussion, while it is not a human being, which is presented in the image, there is evidently a walking stick being used. This walking stick has an evident curve at the top of it.

The argument against this will be that it is a simplified version of a bishop’s rod, or similar religious iconography; however the mode in which it is being used, means that it could be argued in either direction. This will be made further evident as the following images will present not only walking sticks with a similar curve at the top, but also held in a similar fashion.

1432 From Ghent's "Hermits"

The image is a small piece of the piece entitled The Hermits: Adoration of the Mystic Lamb which was painted by Jan and Hubert van Eyck in 1432. The focus of this piece is evident. In the hand of this individual is a walking stick which has a distinct bend in the top of it. It is certainly not straight, and it certainly does not come up to the armpit like the Grien example. This is a piece of wood which has been fashioned into a walking stick.

This is a walking stick which has been measured to the height of the hip as can be seen by the height of the hand and the clear angle of the handle demonstrates that such angled walking sticks were evident in this period is evident in this image.

15^th-century Italian

The image is from Bastia Mondovi, Church of San Fiorenzo, “Episodes from the Life of St Anthony Abbot”. What will be noted from this image is the walking stick which is being used by the abbot to ward off the advances of the female in the image. If a close examination of the hand is made, it will be noted that the hand is holding the cane by the handle. The shaft comes out between the fingers. The bottom of the handle is seen coming out at the bottom of the hand, while the thumb sits on top of the other end of the handle.

This means that not only is the handle of the cane have a piece which comes out one end as in the previous example, but there is also a part which comes out the other, meaning that this has a “T” shaped handle, if short on one end. This is certainly not the simple straight stick which is claimed that all walking sticks of the period are claimed to be. It would be difficult to hold the cane in this manner if the handle were not of this shape and certainly more difficult to hold someone off.

1470 Book of Hours

The image is from the m366.050r a Book of Hours from France dated c.1470. In the image will be seen the older male individual on the right holding a walking stick which is fashioned out of a piece of wood, which is likely a branch or root. It has a clearly angled piece at the top which forms its handle. This is similar in nature to the one found in the Ghents Hermits example presented previously. It should not be surprising that such natural examples of walking sticks with angled handles existed in the medieval and Renaissance period.

These wooden walking sticks which are created from naturally formed pieces of wood are still being created in the same fashion to this day, often using the same methods. These images of such items should be sufficient to demonstrate that such walking sticks with angled handles did exist in the period appropriate, and thus would be of use to the combatant.

1470 Italy

The image presented is from a Book of Hours, having the shelf mark, MS M.454 fol. 217r from Italy, and was probably created in Milan, c.1470. The cane in this image is different from most of the previous examples in that the shaft is not mostly straight, indeed, it is quite bent.

For the current discussion, it will be noted that the handle on the walking stick which is in the image is of a distinct “T” shape. The walking stick comes up to about the height of the hip of the individual. The handle shape alone should demonstrate that the simple straight walking stick which has been proposed as the only period form of the item is definitively not the only form and a broader perspective of the subject should be taken.

1480 France

The image which is presented is entitled “Cas des nobles hommes et femmes malheureux”. It is from France, probably Tours, and is dated c. 1480. It is sourced from the Morgan Library with the shelf marker MS G.35 fol.1r.

Of particular note is the male individual, dressed in red toward the middle foreground, who is bent over and using a walking stick. For convenience this section, with the walking stick in question, has been presented separately so it can be examined more closely (below).

What will be noted is that the handle of the stick has a distinct angle to it. It could even be accused as being square to the shaft of the stick which is below. Indeed, slightly in the background is another individual using another walking stick, and again there is a distinct angle in the stick which is being used. Here are two representations of walking sticks in this image, both of which are presented with angled handles, both of which have the sticks as closer to hip height rather than longer.

1538 Dance of Death

The image presented is “Dance of Death” and was published in 1538. This section’s name is “Death and the Old Man”. It is a French woodcut, from 1547 by Hans Holbein the Younger.

Like the previous instance of the walking stick, the handle his square to the shaft. It is not a straight shaft, and it is also about the same height as the hip or waist of the individual. What will be further noted is that the walking stick has been forms from a naturally occurring piece of wood as is indicated by the knots in the wood.

Here is another example of a walking stick with a handle which is at an angle to the shaft rather than it being a simple straight shaft as is assumed of the walking stick by some. It is evident by this example, and the previous examples that the straight walking stick was not the only kind of walking stick which was in existence pre-1600.

Conclusions from Sources

The walking stick which was presented for the straight and thus “known” walking stick was dated as 1519, the date for the last source used was 1538, this should prevent any argument stating that there was a sudden change at the end of the 15^th-century toward the straight walking stick, because all of the evidence that was presented was before the “known” example.

The Rutland Psalter example of the walking stick was presented to demonstrate that the walking stick, especially for the lower classes was most often any stick that a person could get their hands on. This was most likely fashioned from some branch which was broken to the most suitable height and maybe had some sort of wrap around it to make it more comfortable. Some of the examples embraced this idea of using the natural examples and simply used such wood and modified it to suit. Such investigations are more suited to individuals who have experience in this field.

The focus of this investigation was the handle and shape of the walking stick to demonstrate that the straight walking stick was not the only form of walking stick that was present pre-1600. For such investigation primary sources were used, and multiple examples were sourced to ensure that conclusions could be supported by sufficient evidence. To this point, images from pre-1600 of walking sticks were sourced and presented.

The sources that were presented in the “Evidence from Period Sources,” certainly from the Ghent's Hermits onward, presented clear examples of walking sticks with angled heads on them to some greater or lesser degree. Mostly these angled heads were a deliberate result of construction to enable a hand hold for the individual using the walking stick, which was usually measured to hip or waist height. This is quite a contrast to the straight walking stick indicated earlier. Such examples of walking sticks present clear evidence for the presence pre-1600, of wooden walking sticks with angled heads.

Drawn Conclusions

Evidence has been presented and accepted for the existence and use of the combination of sword and walking stick as a weapon form pre-1600. This is now beyond doubt, as it has been present as evident in the treatises of de la Torre, Carranza, and Pacheco. This describes, while rudimentary, a method which employs the stick in the predominantly left hand of the combatant as a defensive item to be used, especially when defending against an opponent who has case of rapiers, the stick standing for a sword that the combatant does not possess.

From the presented evidence, it is clear that the walking stick, both of a length which came up to the hip or waist, and which had an angled head on it was present pre-1600. This walking stick existed contemporaneously with other forms of walking stick, crutch and other walking aid, as will be found in other extant manuscripts of the period. The same item existed over a long period of time, from at least the 1430’s, considering how long it took to commission and paint a piece of art, further that the same style of walking stick, a bent piece of natural wood, is found some hundred years later, means that such a style was well-founded and present in at least Western Europe, from where the manuscripts, originate. This should give sufficient evidence that the notion that walking sticks with angled heads were an invention of the post-1600 period is simply false.

A method has been in practice, with some effect, for multiple decades using the walking stick, utilising the angled handle of the walking stick against the opponent’s blade to sometimes gain extra control, which has proven to be effective in those trained in this method. The most important thing with any method of any weapon combination is that an individual must be trained in the method and have practise using the method. A person who uses “tips and tricks” of various methods will never be as effective as one who has trained in a method.

One of the greatest arguments against the above method was that the walking stick with the hook in the end was not a pre-1600 item, so it could not be used in such fashion. It will be noted that a walking stick with an angled head, is quite sufficient to achieve the actions which are described in the method, should a person have sufficient practise. Indeed a walking stick with too much hook is actually detrimental to the use of this method. The evidence has already been presented that the angled-head walking stick is pre-1600, putting such arguments in the realm of disagreements of technique. The method by which, is arguably, while not documented in an extant treatise of the period pre-1600, quite period in nature and not to be discarded due to the walking stick used or indeed its method.

I would encourage the reader to source these images from their original sources, or at least look them up on Pintrest or some other media search engine as I did when looking for images of walking sticks. Indeed, you can click on the previous link to go straight to my Pintrest board where I have collected other images of walking sticks and other devices for assisting walking, most of which are of a pre-1600 nature. 

I was supposed to present all of this as a formal class at Fencing Fest in August this year, however COVID-19 reared its ugly head and Brisbane went into lockdown and quashed that chance. I hope that by the time this has gone out that I have had a chance to present the evidence and taught some more people the other way of using the walking stick, if not, hopefully there will be other opportunities.

Cheers,

Henry.