Of (School/Guild) Ranks

 Greetings,

Some schools have a formal ranking structure, some don't. All schools have ranking structures whether they realise it or not. This post talks about both formal ranking structures and also less formal ranking structures which result from the relationships that inevitably occur. It compares and contrasts these relationships and demonstrates how one gives people a step-by-step method of attaining a particular position, whereas the other is more fluid. Neither structure is better than the other, they simply just are. One may suit some better than others, it is just the way things are.

I will be examining a structure used by the London Masters of Defence which formally operated in England in at least the sixteenth-century, and possibly further. This structure has been adopted by various schools of Historical European Martial Arts (HEMA) around the world as it provides a structure by which a student can observe their increase in learning and skill. Others have modified this structure to add steps within it, or previous steps to it to ease students into it. I will address the ranks in general terms, examining the meaning of the ranks, some of the meaning of the words and how this affects the ranks themselves.

Formal Ranks

The London Masters of Defence had four ranks: Scholar, Free Scholar, Provost and Master. Some schools in our current era have sandwiched in a rank between Free Scholar and Provost, others have added ranks before Free Scholar, but the essential structure has remained the same. Then, of course there is the contention, which I have mentioned previously about the word "Master". You can find my discussion on that topic here. In the discussion of these ranks, I will be examining what these words mean, and some of the implications of their meaning based on their position in the learning process.

Scholar

The Scholar is the lowest rank on the tree, and is the one where the individual, like the indicated "scholar" is learning about the Art of Defence. At this stage, the individual is likely being taught by another, being given information, and direction for their study. At this rank, the individual learns the proper form and theory of the Art which they have chosen to practice. The fundamentals should be present at their weapon in any individual who wishes to examine for this rank, should there be an examination for such. 

The individual really is at the "monkey see, monkey do" stage of development. Those who teach a student at this rank need to be especially careful as what they teach can decide the difference between the student progressing with an understanding of the true foundations of the Art, or floundering in ignorance. It is not only the practical aspects of the Art which are taught, but also respect for the Art, and respect for their fellow individuals who are progressing along the same path. The actions of the teacher will be reflected in the student, especially if actions of a negative fashion are not caught early. It is at this stage that the seeds of the swordsman or duellist are established.

Free Scholar

In some schools this rank is an entry-level, or beginning stage. By the nature of the two words put together, this should not be the case. The Scholar who was under the tutelage of some individual, making the decisions for them, deciding what they should learn, should be now freed. Free to do what though? Free to make decisions as to where they want to go. Free to learn what they want to learn. Free to study the texts that they want to study. The teacher now becomes a person who guides the Free Scholar in particular directions in their study and attempts to keep them focused on the task at hand. The Free Scholar should even be encouraged to take their first (supervised) steps in teaching, especially if their goal is to go further.

Provost

In every case where I have written about the Provost I have at some stage referred to them as an assistant teacher. They are there to pick up the slack where the Master cannot handle the numbers or needs another teacher to handle another aspect. In other cases, it is at this rank that an individual is given permission by the Master to open their own school. It means that the Provost must have skills as a teacher an not just be skilled with their weapons. They must also be well-read and have presented evidence of such reading to demonstrate their reading. Their must be some foundation upon which a school could be based. The Provost must demonstrate clear knowledge of the principles and theories of the Art of Defence and be able to demonstrate these. Becoming a Provost is no easy task, nor is it an easy path to follow, especially if the same individual aspires to the rank of Master.

Master

What is a Master? If nothing else a Master is a skilled teacher. The Master is well-read in the Art of Defence and has internalised the knowledge they have discovered over their time teaching and practicing. The Master demonstrates clear skill, not only in regard to the practical aspects of the sword, but also concerning the teaching of students, and the theories and concepts which surround the Art of Defence. The Master has the skills to teach and open a school, should they wish, and produce students of a respectable calibre. The rank of Master is one not easily attained and may take a lifetime's worth of work. Most continue to work, discovering new information that the Art presents as their life progresses. 

These formal ranks are not the only ones that can exist in schools and not the only ones that do exist in schools. Indeed, informal ranks can, and do, exist side-by-side the formal ranks. The Japanese call it the senpai - kohai relationship, the more experienced to the lesser experienced student. Each person is a student in the path of swordsmanship, it is just a matter of experience in particular aspects.

Informal Ranks

There are also informal ranks which result when one begins to learn from another. Here there is the teacher and the student. Often, this relationship and these ranks are disregarded. Anyone who teaches is a teacher, and anyone who learns is a student. This is regardless of what other rank they might hold. In this way, where the lowly Scholar discovers some interesting aspect, even the Master can be the student again (and this is a good thing as you should always be learning). These are the two essential ranks that all schools, or teaching situations of any kind have.

Teacher

The teacher is a person who teaches. They are the person who imparts knowledge to another person. In most formal situations the teacher will have more knowledge than the student on the particular subject that is being taught. This is really a role that a person plays rather than a kind of rank, though it is often assumed to be, hence it was placed under the heading of such. Teachers can be found in all sorts of places. In the case of those who have formal positions in schools there are some more specific things that need to be said.

I have previously discussed the difference between a teacher and an instructor, you can find that discussion here. There is a preference for a teacher because there is a two-way flow of information. Questions can be asked, and answered. A teacher should always be willing to answer any question a student may have, regardless of how "stupid" it might seem. There are no "stupid" questions. If the teacher does not know the answer, not only should they admit it, they should go and find the answer and come back to the student with it, and not expect the student to go find it. The teacher should always be expanding their knowledge. Even better would be if both teacher and student went and investigated  the question so they could compare their findings, then both get to share their learning experience when they make their comparison.

The teacher should always have a regard for the health and future of the student, this not only includes their safety, but also how the student will be perceived. Lessons on etiquette and other social concerns should be part of standard training practices. In the same way the teacher should be aware that the student will learn everything from them, even things you do not expect.

Student

The student is the one who learns (this means that a really good teacher is also a student). They are the one who receives knowledge from another person. In a formal situation, the student will likely have less knowledge than the teacher on the particular subject that is being taught. Again, this is a role that is being played rather than a rank. The role of the student and teacher can be swapped in certain circumstances where the student has knowledge about their movement or their perspective. The student has their role to play.

The student has a role to play to be a good student. The prime job is to learn what the teacher is teaching. This means being attentive in class. Listening to what the teacher has to say, and even if you disagree with it, taking it in to see where it has value. All information has some sort of value to it. The student should not be disruptive as it distracts other students. They should also follow drills as they are laid out, there is a reason that the drill is presented in this fashion. If you do not understand what that is, ask. They should also ask questions in a respectful manner and at an appropriate time. The role of the student is as important as that of the teacher as without them there would be no teacher, but likewise the reverse is true. A student can leave a class, but a teacher can also do the same.

Why is it important?

It is important to acknowledge that the ranks exist whether we realise that they are present or not. Some have formal ranks, some do not. In any case, there is always the presence of the informal ranks, the teacher and the student. The formal ranks are easier to define, so they were. Then some information about the each rank and what it means was presented. This information was designed to elucidate what it means to be at these ranks, and some of what is required to attain them as well. Regardless of how a particular school, guild or other structure uses the terms and ranks it is useful to address each one of them and understand what they mean. These are my interpretations of their meanings.

For the informal ranks there was some information about how to get the best out of the situation and what the role of each person was. There can be good teachers and bad teachers, but there can also be good students and bad students. Both can make for a good or poor learning environment. Both must do their part.

Who is important? Each student and each teacher is as important as the other as they exist in a symbiotic relationship. The one does not exist without the other. Sure there will be teachers who are not so good, likewise there will be students who are not so good. We will experience both in our path and through our travels. The vital thing for our personal growth is that we strive, as individuals, to be good students and teachers, to ensure that we are doing the best we can to make the best learning environment that we can. This is not only for our benefit, but for the benefit of others.

Cheers,

Henry.

In Response to Criticisms of "Just Another Fencer"

 Greetings,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,

Henry.

Just Another Fencer

Greetings,

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

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

The Female Student

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

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

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

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

The Female Opponent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,

Henry.

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

Learn Your Lessons Well

 Greetings,

The idea for this post was sparked by a student of mine, Helen Gilbert. I am writing the post, but the idea and the foundation is all hers. It is something that we should all consider, especially in approaching those parts of lessons, and techniques which we may not enjoy or prefer. The well-rounded fencer always has the advantage.

There are fencers who fight with a quick pace, fast thrusts, moving quickly all of the time.
There are fencers who fight with a slow pace, slow thrusts, moving slowly all of the time.
There are fencers who fight with variable pace, who vary the speed of their thrusts and the speed of their movement.

There are fencers who prefer to fight at distance, preferring to use long thrusts and lunges.
There are fencers who prefer to fight up close, preferring to close with the opponent and cut.
There are fencers who can fight both at distance and up close depending on what the situation requires and what is to their advantage.

In both of the cases which have been described above, the fencer who can vary their speed has the advantage because they can out-pace the slower fencer, and use Time and slowness to defeat the faster fencer. This concerns using Time, and Timing, against the opponent to put them where they are uncomfortable, likewise it does not matter what speed the opponent fences at the same fencer is comfortable at the variable speeds demonstrated. The same can be said for the use of Distance. A fencer who can just as easily fight at distance and close has the advantage over the fencer who prefers one, as they can close on the one who prefers distance and remain at distance from the one who prefers to close.

The same situation can be found with blade engagement where there are those who do not like to use blade engagement, thus prefer Absence of Blade, likewise there are those who rely on the contact of blades in blade engagement. The true advantage lies with the fencer who can use both sets of techniques and can use them to their advantage in the situation that they find themselves in.

Everyone has favourite and favoured techniques and they will use them more often than other techniques. This does not mean they should not be conversant with the other techniques which they do not prefer. The fencer should always learn all of their lessons to the same degree so they can pick and choose, using the technique which is most suitable to the situation at hand, and where they can find an advantage.

There is a rather hefty quote that you can find in Thibault's Academy of the Sword at the beginning of "Chapter Eighteen: On Cuts to the Right Arm" that I will paraphrase, in which he discusses a garden and the diversity of herbs, flowers and other plants in it. He eventually comes to the point, how one must enjoy all the different techniques that fencing has to offer and not focus on particular techniques.

The true fencer is the one who has studied all parts of their art and practised them, so they are familiar with all of their techniques. This way they can use whatever technique is required at the time. A fencer who achieves this can deal with whatever problem the opponent presents to them, and especially whatever preference the opponent presents. This fencer is marked as the most difficult and challenging fencer to face.

Cheers,

Henry.

Read the Whole Thing

 Greetings,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,

Henry.

Rotella: Considerations of Form and Size

 Greetings, 

Considerations of the form and size of our companion items tends to be relegated to secondary discussions. In this discussion there will be a short investigation of the rotella, with these considerations in mind, it will be one of my more formal posts.

Cheers,

Henry.

Abstract

          A fencer needs to consider the size of their companion item as much as their primary weapon. The discussion that follows addresses the size and form of the rotella directing the investigation toward the proportion of the rotella in reference to the individual who uses it. This investigation is derived from extant images from different sources including martial art treatises, to found these ideas in the period in which the rotella was used, and to give the discussion some practical consideration.

Introduction

          When the rotella is considered by many, there is the consideration of a ubiquitous round shield which is used by the combatant to perform various actions. There is rarely any consideration of the form of the rotella or its size. When the form is considered, small things such as its strap configuration and how the combatant holds the rotella make a difference. When size is considered the size of the rotella can determine whether or not the rotella is effective in protecting the combatant who is using it or is too cumbersome for the combatant to use it as effectively as it could be. For the examination of the rotella there will be an examination of images from period eight period pieces, including five treatises from Renaissance martial art treatises. From this it is hoped that a greater understanding of the rotella in its form will be gained.

Historiography

          The first is an image by Bernat Martorell Sant Celoni, from 1452, an altarpiece of Saint Vincent, referred to as MNAC 15797.[1] This piece depicts several armoured individuals, but the one in the foreground is armed with a round shield, so is of great interest to this study. This is the earliest piece and gives a preview of the rotella, rather than its final product.

Chronologically, the next two images come from Marozzo’s treatise of 1536[2] and represent the rotella in its more usual situation, in a civilian context, or the context in which many know it from. What is most interesting is this form is actually more a military than a civilian form intended for use in pike formations, adopted for civilian use. This depicts the rotella as it is more commonly known.

Next are three images which come from Agrippa’s treatise of 1553[3] and present three situations with pairs of combatants in civilian attire combating with sword and rotella. The images are quite clear about the actions and the form of the rotella is quite established by this time. Again it is the civilian use of this form.

Following after this is the first of the images from Giacomo di Grassi’s treatise. First there is the image from his original treatise of 1570.[4] This is from the original treatise. This should not be confused with the later treatise by the same author as this is the translated treatise of 1594.[5] Both depict an individual with arm extended holding a sword in one hand and a rotella in the other, strapped to the arm.

Lovino published his treatise in 1580[6] however the images which were used for this discussion were sourced from a different location.[7] This was to get better images so the detail could be seen more clearly. The rotella which are present in these images are somewhat different to the others which are present in the others which make an interesting difference, even if it is only slight.

An image from the British Museum of an individual standing with a sword and a large round shield was used, the original image made by Jacques de Gheyn II in 1587.[8] This is clearly a military figure with the line of soldiers marching past behind him. It demonstrates that the shield, and sword, had not been completely outmoded on the battlefield, it also gives a good example of a shield of the period.

Next are two images from Capo Ferro’s treatise of 1610,[9] which depict two civilian combatants fighting with rapier and rotella. The rotella are very plain having only the essential details that are required of them for the image to make sense and for their effect to be known. It gives the reader enough of an impression to know what’s going on but not so much to be distracted.

Finally there is a portrait of Alessandro Farnese from 1611.[10] This depicts an interesting round shield with a very large spike on the front of it. The shield is one of the ones which will be made note of in the discussion as it has features which stick out as different from the more standard format, more discussion will be made of its distinct features. The portrait depicts the individual in a military situation, which places the rotella firmly at the cross-roads of civilian and military use as is known of it.

The Form of the Rotella

          The two prime elements of the rotella which have been presented through the examination of the images which have been presented are that the rotella has two straps on the back of it and that it is primarily convex in shape. The first strap is held by the hand and the second strap goes about the arm. The convex shape is important, it is not merely a round, flat shield, the convex shape is important as this shape serves to deflect the incoming blade of the opponent.

          While the face of the shield in MNAC 15797 cannot be seen, from the back of the shield and the shape present, it is likely that this shield is flat. This makes it more likely that it is in fact merely a round shield rather than an actual rotella. It can be seen as the precursor to the rotella as it possesses the other elements found in the later forms of the rotella.

          Later additions such as the shoulder strap seen in the Jacques de Gheyn II example and the portrait of Alessandro Farnese are examples of how the weight of the shield was taken up to relieve the individual who may be carrying the shield for an extended period of time or to move it out of the way, but again, do not appear to be a standard form of the rotella, likewise the spikes seen on both of these examples can likewise be seen as additions to the form rather than standards of the form.

          There is also noted in the di Grassi 1570 and Lovino 1580 examples where the straps seem to be mounted rather than in the middle of the rotella, but slightly lower on the rotella. This may enable the fencer who is using the rotella to more easily be able to protect their head, again this is not a standard form found in all examples. Further on the di Grassi 1594 example the straps seem to be mounted more toward the “back” of the rotella, giving more distance from the hand at the front, pushing the rotella forward. This could be to give the fencer an additional advantage, or it could merely be a mistake in this woodcut example in copying the 1570 during translation to the 1594 edition.

          Further on the location of the straps, some have the strap for the arm located on the forearm, while others have it located in the crook of the elbow. This may be from the artists’ impression or, it may be deliberate to change the effect of using the rotella. All seem to have a similar location for the strap, however which makes this location more likely dependent on the individual who is using the rotella rather than the make of the rotella itself, or by design. Such considerations are important when considering the size of the rotella, especially in proportion to the user.

Size and Proportion of the Rotella

          The size of the rotella, especially in proportion to the user is significant as this determines the best size of rotella for the individual, and will determine such things as how much room there is between the hand and the edge, and also where the second strap sits across the arm. Further the proportion of the rotella to the individual in regard to its size will also determine how effectively an individual will be able to use the rotella, especially considering specific rotella actions. Too large and the combatant will not move it effectively, too small and the rotella will not sufficiently cover the combatant.

          In regard to the size in proportion to the individuals depicted some interesting results have been gained. Five results where the rotella measures from shoulder to the middle of the thigh, six results where the rotella measures from a fist in front of the hand to the mid-bicep, two results where the rotella measures from shoulder to waist, or a little in front of the hand to mid-bicep, and a single result where the rotella measures from the shoulder to the top of the thigh.

          In the images supplied by Agrippa 1553, there is an equivalence gained where the rotella is determined as above the shoulder to mid-thigh, or one fist in front of the hand to about half the bicep, or one fist behind the elbow strap. This could mean that the two highest results could be combined together to form a single result due to the equivalent measurement presented.

          The proportion of the rotella to the fencer is important as it will determine how the fencer can use the rotella. A rotella which is smaller in proportion to the user will move more freely, while a larger one will cover more easily. The fencer has to make a decision about what approach they will be taking, indeed which treatise they are studying and whether the rotella is appropriate in size and proportion to themselves for the actions described.

Conclusion

          The rotella is a most interesting a useful device when used properly. To use it properly the rotella itself has to be of the correct form, strapped correctly, and of the correct proportion to the user. The consideration of what proportion to use will depend on the approach taken, thus the particular treatise which is chosen. Particular attention should be paid to the form and proportion of the rotella which is depicted in the treatise as this will make a difference.

          There have been examples presented of various round shields from the simple round shield in the earliest example to later military examples of shields with extra additions made to them to create different effects in their use. The attempt has been made to cover various different forms so that examples are present of the widest range and the greatest variety. This was to find the proper form and proportion of the rotella. The result was that there was a general idea of what the rotella form was, and a couple of ideas about the proportion, but these are dependent on the use of the rotella as determined by the particular treatise which is being followed.

 

Bibliography

Agrippa, Camillo (1553) Trattato di Scientia d'Arme, con vn Dialogo di Filosofia, https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Trattato_di_Scientia_d%27Arme,_con_vn_Dialogo_di_Filosofia_(Camillo_Agrippa)

 

Capo Ferro (1610) Gran Simulacro dell'Arte e dell'Uso della Scherma, https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Ridolfo_Capo_Ferro_da_Cagli

 

de Gheyn II, Jacques (1587) British Museum No: 1864,1114.465, https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1864-1114-465

 

di Grassi, Giacomo (1570) Ragione di adoprar sicuramente l'Arme, https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Ragione_di_adoprar_sicuramente_l%27Arme_(Giacomo_di_Grassi)

 

di Grassi, Giacomo (1594) His True Arte of Defense, http://www.umass.edu/renaissance/sites/default/files/assets/renaissance/lord/DiGrassi_1594.pdf

 

Kirby, Jared (ed.) (2004) Italian Rapier Combat: Ridolfo Capo Ferro's 'Gran Simulacro', Greenhill Books, London

 

Lovino, G. A. (1580) Traite d’Escrime http://www.umass.edu/renaissance/sites/default/files/assets/renaissance/lord/Lovino_1580.pdf and https://elegant-weapon.blogspot.com/2016/03/episode-57-rotella.html

 

Marozzo, Achille (1568) Opera Nova, https://www.wiktenauer.com/wiki/Opera_Nova_(Achille_Marozzo)

 

Martorell Sant Celoni, Bernat (1452) Altarpiece of Saint Vincent, Museo Nazionale di Arte della Catalogna - MNAC, Barcellona, MNAC 15797 (Photo by Andrea Carloni (Rimini)), https://www.museunacional.cat/en/colleccio/altarpiece-saint-vincent/bernat-martorell/015797-cjt

 

Mondschein, Ken (ed.) (2009) Fencing: A Renaissance Treatise, Italica Press, New York

 

van Sichem, Christoffel (1611) Portrait of Alessandro Farnese, Duke of Parma, https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/collection/RP-P-OB-15.608

---

[1] Bernat Martorell Sant Celoni, 1452 Altarpiece of Saint Vincent, Tempera and gold on wood with gold leaf. Museo Nazionale di Arte della Catalogna - MNAC, Barcellona, MNAC 15797 Photo by Andrea Carloni (Rimini), https://www.museunacional.cat/en/colleccio/altarpiece-saint-vincent/bernat-martorell/015797-cjt

[2] Opera Nova, images are from the coverplates of the 1568 edition, https://www.wiktenauer.com/wiki/Opera_Nova_(Achille_Marozzo)

[3] Trattato di Scientia d'Arme, con vn Dialogo di Filosofia, the modern version is available translated:  Agrippa, Camillo (2009) Fencing: A Renaissance Treatise, Italica Press, New York (Edited by Ken Mondschein)

[4] Ragione di adoprar sicuramente l'Arme, https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Ragione_di_adoprar_sicuramente_l%27Arme_(Giacomo_di_Grassi)

[5] His True Arte of Defense, http://www.umass.edu/renaissance/sites/default/files/assets/renaissance/lord/DiGrassi_1594.pdf

[6] Traite d’Escrime http://www.umass.edu/renaissance/sites/default/files/assets/renaissance/lord/Lovino_1580.pdf

[7] https://elegant-weapon.blogspot.com/2016/03/episode-57-rotella.html

[8] British Museum No: 1864,1114.465; Date: 1587; By: Jacques de Gheyn II, https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1864-1114-465

[9] Gran Simulacro dell'Arte e dell'Uso della Scherma, a translated version is available Capo Ferro, Ridolfo (2004) Italian Rapier Combat: Ridolfo Capo Ferro's 'Gran Simulacro', Greenhill Books, London (Edited by Jared Kirby), or https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Ridolfo_Capo_Ferro_da_Cagli

[10] Portrait of Alessandro Farnese, Duke of Parma, by Christoffel van Sichem, before 1611, https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/collection/RP-P-OB-15.608

Against Strength

Greetings,

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

Reasons

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

1. Compensation

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

2. Improper Grip

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

3. Size/Strength Advantage

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

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

Against Strength

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

1. Avoidance

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

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

2. Use the Strength

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

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

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

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

Recommendations

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

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

Cheers,

Henry.