fencing

[Cosmo Kramer]

is fencing considered a martial art? one of my friends just started it and i was wondering

[kenpoguy]

Yes, many consider it to be a western martial art, as it is something that can be studied and refined and practiced , similar to traditonal martial arts. There is still a lot of debate out there over it, but despite what people say, by theory it is...

[Omicron]

Remember too that there are lots of different types of fencing. There's the standard sport type fencing, but also the type that teaches from a more practical application-based viewpoint. I have a friend who trains in classical renaissance style rapier fighting, which is much different from the sport fencing you see on TV and such.

[kenpoguy]

very true omicron, as what your freind does is most likely SCA fencing. In that they use traditonal rennoiscance garb such as the periods clothing, and use live blades, along with daggers , shields, and sometimes whips, as well as many more items. Fencing typically is known to be more of an olympic sport though, and few people know about SCA. I also hear of a school in england i believe, that teaches gladioatoral fighting, and has actual gladiator bouts.(Not to the death of course, they are unchoeargraphed however) and they even use nets.

[Omicron]

Indeed my friend is involved in the SCA, though I think the club he studies fighting with is a separate entity in itself.

[kenpoguy]

Indeed my friend is involved in the SCA, though I think the club he studies fighting with is a separate entity in itself.

Yeah, there are all kinds of subdivisions within it. Very fun to do and watch, something I would love to get back into. I always preffered it to regular fencing to be honest.

[Cuchulain82]

You should check out this thread:

http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34299&page=1&pp=15

It goes into good depth about fencing.

[Stolenbjorn]

-And for those of you that don't bother checking out that thread (you really should, by the way, if you're interrested in WMA/european fencing) -I'd like to mention that current weastern fencing roughly can be divided into the following communities:

LARP'ers: Young fellas doing live actual roleplaying, with emphasis on playing a character and safety. If their settings is set in Fantasy-realms or other settings that involve fencing, they fence with foam-swords/latex swords/gaffa-swords and usually have nothing in common with other kinds of fencing.

Re-enacters/SCA: People of all ages trying to reenact historical events/times. Allso here most of them is more focused on safety and setting than the art of performing lethal techniques with swords, but they at least use metal swords, so their fighting is somewhat closer to the real thing than LARP-fencing.

Show-fighters/Movie-fighters/coreographed-fighers: People that tries to make fencing look cool on screen. Sadly most stuff that looks cool on a screen allso is what would get you killed in a real situation, and allthough it looks cool, and many of the people performing this kind of fighting are very skilled at what they do (look at Hector and Achilles in Troy, Maximus in Gladiator and Viggo Mortensen in LoTR), they don't perform anything that could be called traditional weastern fencing (they don't try to either).

Olymic fencers: A style of fencing that has derived from actual, lethal rapierfencing ala "The three musceteers", etc. Since their main focus is to declare winners and safety, many of the original techniques are removed, and -like the ones performing Re-enactment/SCA they, don't train in delivering hard thrusts/stabs/cuts (they don't need to, as touch is sufficient to score)

WMA'ers: Those traditions of weastern martial arts that involve fencing. Luckily many manuals from renissanse and even medieval times have survived in Church-libraries and museums and have been re-discovered. Theese styles are truly martial arts, with techniques meant to put the enemy out of the fight with no regard for the opponents safety or any show-effects for spectators. The sad thing is that most of theese traditions have been ressurected, so that we have nobody that can tell us how the techniques are supposed to be done. The WMA-community therefore consists of people that really don't know wether they're doing stuff right, and there's a continous discussion on what's right and what's not right. (A fun example of this is "my WMA"; Fiore di Liberi's Fior di Battaglia. One of the leading characters in rediscovering this martial art is writing a book that he wants to have as perfect interpetation of the manual as possible. It was supposed to be finished around 2002, but everytime he thinks he's got it right, he disvovers a glithc, get's a new innsight, disovers a deeper thought, etc. and the book still isn't finished!)

[Cudgel]

very true omicron, as what your freind does is most likely SCA fencing. In that they use traditonal rennoiscance garb such as the periods clothing, and use live blades, along with daggers , shields, and sometimes whips, as well as many more items. Fencing typically is known to be more of an olympic sport though, and few people know about SCA. I also hear of a school in england i believe, that teaches gladioatoral fighting, and has actual gladiator bouts.(Not to the death of course, they are unchoeargraphed however) and they even use nets.

ERM NOT REALLY.....
SCA fencers mainly use blunted schlager blades or double wide epees. And even those that do use historically accurate rapiers dont use a live blade. They use blunted rapiers. If they were to use a live blade there wodl a very high atrition rate as the way a SCA match is decided is by a "killing" blow IE a blow to a portion of the anaotmy taht would result win death with a live blade.

[Wynnston]

...snip post.....

Nice summary although the Olympic sabreurs would have to have words with you about it being derived from rapier fencing :D

It seems like WMA as you describe it is combat archeology, find some artefacts and documents and try and re-create a way of life (or fighting at least). Bottom line with any historical stuff is that there will always be more than one interpretation because A. some of the evidence is lost forever, B. There is rarely a single and correct way of doing anything. If there was, MAP wouldn't exist and there would be no debate about well known, current MA's.

Main thing is to enjoy it and come out at the end knowing more than when you went in :D

[Chris Umbs]

It seems like WMA as you describe it is combat archeology, find some artefacts and documents and try and re-create a way of life (or fighting at least). Bottom line with any historical stuff is that there will always be more than one interpretation because A. some of the evidence is lost forever, B. There is rarely a single and correct way of doing anything. If there was, MAP wouldn't exist and there would be no debate about well known, current MA's.

It depends on the Art involved. I study dueling sword, dueling sabre, smallsword, rapier, sidesword, and unarmored longsword as living tradition from a lineage (Me-Martinez-Rohdes-Cabijos) as opposed to treatises.

Chris

[Wynnston]

It depends on the Art involved. I study dueling sword, dueling sabre, smallsword, rapier, sidesword, and unarmored longsword as living tradition from a lineage (Me-Martinez-Rohdes-Cabijos) as opposed to treatises.

Chris


All four of you agree on absolutely every aspect? No disagreements, no evolution of moves, no new moves? Is it possible that how Cabijos taught Rohdes how to lunge might not be exactly the same as how Martinez taught you how to lunge (as an example). I'm not having a go, and you obviously know more about it than me, but I'm just saying that absolutes in any fighting art are hard to come by whether they're historical or new.

[Chris Umbs]

Well that's the entire point of a living tradition. Same thing with any traditional Asian style. On top of the living trad. we ALSO have the treatises to check ourselves against and that stops any teaching branch from going too far off the main path. As for new moves... no, not really. Unless we came up with some kind of new blade - every possible combo has been fully documented throughout the printed works. However, there's often 5 or 6 different responses to any given action - some teachers will emphasize certain moves over other, but a good teacher will tailor the style to the individual student's need.

Chris

[kenpoguy]

forgive the live blades part. I was mainly reffering to when demonstartions and shows are done.

[Ran Pleasant]

It depends on the Art involved. I study dueling sword, dueling sabre, smallsword, rapier, sidesword, and unarmored longsword as living tradition from a lineage (Me-Martinez-Rohdes-Cabijos) as opposed to treatises.

Chris

Are you saying that you are studying a living tradition of longsword, sidesword, and rapier with direct unbroken roots into the Renaissance periods? Given that the martial arts of these weapons completely died out I can only assume that you mean that you are studying a recreation of the use of these weapons by your teacher or one of his teachers. As you might recall, this issue came up on Sword Forum International back in 2002.

Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW

[Chris Umbs]

Chris

Are you saying that you are studying a living tradition of longsword, sidesword, and rapier with direct unbroken roots into the Renaissance periods? Given that the martial arts of these weapons completely died out I can only assume that you mean that you are studying a recreation of the use of these weapons by your teacher or one of his teachers. As you might recall, this issue came up on Sword Forum International back in 2002.

Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW

Well since you brought up the Sword Forum thread, why not just go back and read it? I'll print the final post from that thread, but Ran - you know that thread was locked by Greg for a reason... If you just really can't remember the conversation, that's one thing, but you seem to be trolling.

Chris
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Readers,

I have recently returned from attending a hectic nine days of the third FISAS meeting and the first IMAF-Academy which took place in Italy. Needless to say I am very tired from traveling, teaching and meetings, so I will be very brief in addressing the questions that have surfaced on this thread.

Mr. Keith Myers asks:

----"Now with all due respect to Maestro Martinez, and at great risk of offending people further......does anyone but me find it strange that someone purporting to know enough about a method to teach it openly is unaware of its origins? Again...I mean that as a legitimate question. I am not trying to be inflammatory at all.�


I will repeat here in a condensed statement what I explained to the participants of the seminar in Rochester NY.

I offer the following;

The long sword that I learned from Maitre Rohdes is a collection of techniques and NOT a complete system. I also learned a collection of techniques in single sword, sword & shield, and side sword along with cloak, dagger and buckler. I was also instructed in round shield & sword as well as round shield & axe. I received no instruction in pole weapons but I was instructed in some very elementary quarter staff techniques. There were also other things that I learned such as walking stick self defense and some unarmed self defense techniques based on fencing theory and the experience that Maitre Rohdes had gained during his time in the German Navy.

Maitre Rohdes never told me where he learned these weapons and techniques from the middle (16th century)and early (14th &15th centuries) historical periods. When I asked him where he learned these techniques, he told me he learned it "some where in Europe". Maitre Rohdes instructed me in English for the simple reason that I do not understand a word of German and he felt that I would not understand his terminology. Maitre Rohdes informed me that what he taught me from the early and middle periods was German. There is nothing strange in that I do not know the origins of these techniques. Maitre Rohdes adhered to his professional duty in seeing that the knowledge was transmitted to his disciple. In his capacity as a Master what his objective entailed was that I fully comprehended the instruction that he was imparting to me and that I would be able to teach it. I accepted what he told me as fact. My master always encouraged me to conduct my own research as part of my training and preparation to become a teacher. During many years, I consistently verified that everything he taught me in regard to the French and Italian schools was correct and is thoroughly documented. I have fluency in Spanish, Italian and some French therefore, I am able to read the primary source material in these schools of fencing. My lack of knowledge of the German language was an obstacle for me in researching the German treatises. In regards to these early weapons I have never changed what I was taught. I continue to teach it as it was taught to me. It is only recently that I have been attempting to find the origins of what he taught me from these early periods. In the end it is difficult to know if these methods are from the German revival and reconstruction in the 19th century or if they where learned from some obscure master in Europe.

In many of the fencing academies of the 18th and 19th centuries in Italy, Spain and France, what was termed "ancient fencing" was taught along with the contemporary weapons. For example, even though we have no long sword and dussack treatises in the 18th century that I am aware of, these weapons were still being practiced in the salles as is evidenced in Diderot's Encyclopedia of the late 18th century. These traditions existed well into the 19th century. However, it is difficult to know how these methods were taught and how they may have changed during these later periods. To my knowledge there are no specific treatises written in the 18th and 19th centuries that can document the pedagogy that was utilized to give instruction in the older weapons.

After having taught the seminar in Rochester, it was clear to me and some of the participants that some of the elements of what I teach are indeed German. During my recent time in Italy at the IMAF Academy I discussed this with Stefan Dieke. He feels that there are some German and Italian elements along with some techniques that he has never seen before. The information provided by him was extremely helpful as it gives me a direction for further investigation as to the origins of these techniques.

In regard to the question of lineage, I come from a "Living Tradition" in the weapons and styles of the classical period and the late historical periods because I learned complete systems directly from a master who learned from his master. In fact my linage is in complete systems of fencing that can be traced directly back to the Italian and the French academies of the 19th century. These systems can then be traced back to the 17th century. This linage can be verified by the fact that the systems are documented in the period treatises. The transmission of a traditional line of fencing knowledge (LIVING TRADITION) can only be attained through a master disciple relationship. The master of that lineage must have attained his knowledge through his master, who in turn received the transmission of knowledge from his master. This chain of knowledge cannot be gained through the reading and study of treatises.


My tradition is in the classical weapons and in the historical weapons of the late historical period. I cannot make the same claim for the middle and early historical periods (Medieval and Renaissance) because I did not learn any complete systems in the weapons of those periods but only a collection of techniques as they were passed on to me by my master. I have never claimed otherwise.


As for research and reconstruction, my work with the Spanish School stands on its own. However, long before I began my work with the Spanish School I had conducted intensive research of the Italian and French Schools (and continue to do so) in order to expand my knowledge and further my understanding. As a professional it is incumbent upon me to continue to study and work very hard in order to improve as a Maestro De Armas. It would be a disservice to the art & science as well as disrespect for the legacy that my master left me and to the masters of the past for me to just rest on my laurels. I hope that this brief explication will give clarity to the questions that have emerged on this thread.

Sincerely,
Maestro Ramon Martinez, IMAF
Martinez Academy of Arms

[Matt Anderson]

Well since you brought up the Sword Forum thread, why not just go back and read it? I'll print the final post from that thread, but Ran - you know that thread was locked by Greg for a reason... If you just really can't remember the conversation, that's one thing, but you seem to be trolling.

Chris


OK, so if I'm reading that post from a thread on Swordforum correctly, you claim a lineage of master and students back as far as your teacher's teacher. Beyond that no one really knows the origin of the material? And you're not using old manuals at all? Mr. Martinez's bio on his website says this:

"He has also done extensive research in historical fencing. Many of the most prominent masters of the past centuries left elaborate, highly detailed treatises of the systems and styles which they taught. Maestro Martínez has spent years carefully and thoroughly researching these treatises (see bibliography) in an effort to accurately reconstruct these varied styles. These ancient and historical forms are then taught as authentically as possible to those of his students who are interested."

This would seem to indicate at least some degree of reliance on the written material of the old masters. Perhaps you mean that your teacher worked out material from the manuals and taught it to you, but that you yourself don't use them? FWIW, I'm not trolling, I'm just really trying hard to understand what you mean. I would be very surprised to find that someone could trace a lineage for any style of swordsmanship back to renaissance Europe, especially Longsword.

[Chris Umbs]

Matt,

We can go back one more generation than that to M. Cabijos who came to America in 1922 and that's where the rapier and dagger comes from. At this moment, we don't know who taught Cabijos. In the 20's he defeated the epee champion of his time, Leo Nunes, with just a dagger against Leo's sword.

We don't disdain the treatises.

In my case, my priorities are

1) Learning the French and Italian schools (full system) of foil, sabre, epee, smallsword, and rapier as taught by M. Martinez.
2) Learning the techniques of sidesword, longsword, and cane that Martinez teaches.
3) Learning the styles of knife and cane that M. Loriega teaches.

After that, I'll be glad to hit the books. To my mind, it's more important to preserve what is already being taught than to try to re-invent every wheel on my own. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever come up to us and said "Acording to XYZ treatise, you're doing it wrong." I'm sure for my Provost test I'll have to do some more research - certainly for my Master's test. I'd just rather have the best understanding that I can, before I hit the books. Just my own opinion, but I don't feel that the Martinez re-creation of Destreza would have been as good if he hadn't already been a fencing master who had already inherited a living system of rapier.

I think too many people hear words like rapier and longsword and assume Renaissance. Personally, I'm not that wowed with Ren. rapier styles when compared to the later ones. I'd much rather use the Cabijos style in a tournament than a 'pure' 17th c. style. Since a lot of folks enjoy trying to re-create a hermeticaly sealed system - HES is the way to go if you want to learn a specific system. I'll say that I teach Italian rapier - I won't say that I teach Capo Ferro.

[Cudgel]

forgive the live blades part. I was mainly reffering to when demonstartions and shows are done.
Last tiem I checked the SCA had a no ifs ands or buts about live weapons being used at any SCA event. But I can always recheck with the local SCA rapier fighters to double check.

[Matt Anderson]

Ok Chris, I think I understand now. I was confused because in your first post you said:

"I study dueling sword, dueling sabre, smallsword, rapier, sidesword, and unarmored longsword as living tradition from a lineage (Me-Martinez-Rohdes-Cabijos) as opposed to treatises".

Then you seemed to contradict yourself by saying

"we ALSO have the treatises to check ourselves against"

So you are doing both right? You're practicing what you were taught from your lineage to a modern fencing master, and studying the old manuscripts. Would you say the longsword style you practice comes mostly from your lineage as taught by Rohdes or from a historical source?

[Anomandaris]

I want to know if anyone has studied any of the things that John(?) Silver was going on about?

he seemed to be saying that the perfect fight is one in which either neither party is harmed or only the offending party is and then seemed to go off on a tangent about how Italian masters are imperfect in their methods and how Spanish masters are perfect fighters as long as they can keep their rapier point to your face but if its not then they are imperfect.

its in one of his texts on the smallsword. The Paradox of defence or something.

a final point about the rapier and small sword it birthed. My theory on why the rapier came to replace other weapons like the longsword and similar is due to its obvious efficacy in a real fight, I can only assume that people were still using longswords and broadswords(they are different) and that people armed with rapiers were beating them often enough for these other weapons to be seen as obsolete for unarmoured combat.

I want to know if this idea is supported by anything.

[Matt Anderson]

Chris:

"I think too many people hear words like rapier and longsword and assume Renaissance".

Well yes, that's because that's when these arts were at their zenith, being practiced in deadly earnest as a real means of self defense. Certainly any connection with the effective, lethal, and martially sound practice of renaissaince longsword fencing died out long ago. Anyone doing it today is doing a modern reconstruction IMO.

Chris:

"Personally, I'm not that wowed with Ren. rapier styles when compared to the later ones. I'd much rather use the Cabijos style in a tournament than a 'pure' 17th c. style"

So you really think the system taught by your modern fencing master is superior to that practiced by renaissance masters of defense who used these weapons in deadly combat? Perhaps this is true for tournaments with epee or foil, where scoring points is the goal and the rule set prohibits grappling, striking, use of the off hand, etc., but certainly not for a real duel with the deadly weapons of the period?

[Chris Umbs]

So you are doing both right? You're practicing what you were taught from your lineage to a modern fencing master, and studying the old manuscripts. Would you say the longsword style you practice comes mostly from your lineage as taught by Rohdes or from a historical source?

Right now, most of the treatises I'm looking at are 19th or 20th century - cane, knife, rapier and dagger. I don't do much longsword, most of my interests are later, but I'll need it to pass my IMAF test someday. Right now it's all from M. Martinez and a little bit from M. Macdonald since I haven't hit the books on it aside from Mark Rector's Talhoffer translation.

[Chris Umbs]

George Silver.

Silver disliked rapier for a number of reasons. It can't be used for battle, to defend one's country. It's only good for young nobles to kill each other with and if someone insults you, just insult them back. It's impossible to capture someone with a rapier. If the user of the English short sword can make a cross with the longer rapier - then the time of the hand can beat the time of the hand and the foot (short sword only has to use the hand to make a cut, but the rapier must pull the hand back and step back to re-offend). Again, too early to be my main interest... Ran or Shane can answer this better.

As to the rapier and smallsword over the older weapons... Silver tells of examples where rapier users were defeated by folks using quarterstaves or boat oars as well as by the native English sword and buckler tradition. Silver feel the rapier is an imperfect fight - to a great deal I agree which is why I prefer the later 19th c. rapier styles with shorter blades. The best you can say for the rapier and smallsword is that they are more specialized, they are fine for dueling, OK (IMHO) for civilian self-defence (though I'd say the short sword is better suited for it) and useless for war.

I want to know if anyone has studied any of the things that John(?) Silver was going on about?

he seemed to be saying that the perfect fight is one in which either neither party is harmed or only the offending party is and then seemed to go off on a tangent about how Italian masters are imperfect in their methods and how Spanish masters are perfect fighters as long as they can keep their rapier point to your face but if its not then they are imperfect.

its in one of his texts on the smallsword. The Paradox of defence or something.

a final point about the rapier and small sword it birthed. My theory on why the rapier came to replace other weapons like the longsword and similar is due to its obvious efficacy in a real fight, I can only assume that people were still using longswords and broadswords(they are different) and that people armed with rapiers were beating them often enough for these other weapons to be seen as obsolete for unarmoured combat.

I want to know if this idea is supported by anything.

[Chris Umbs]

Zenith is a matter of opinion. Were the 19th c. rapier and dagger duels in New Orleans or Mexico any less lethal than the 17th c. ones? People have this strange idea that martial practice went out the window at some point.

I'm talking about WMA style rapier tournaments. I've also won Filipino espada y daga tournaments using that styles - off had use allowed in both. I'm not saying tournament victory = practical skill, but winning against different styles of uncooperative opponent's dont hurt none either.... and both 17th and 19th c styles were used in fights to the death.

Chris:

"I think too many people hear words like rapier and longsword and assume Renaissance".

Well yes, that's because that's when these arts were at their zenith, being practiced in deadly earnest as a real means of self defense. Certainly any connection with the effective, lethal, and martially sound practice of renaissaince longsword fencing died out long ago. Anyone doing it today is doing a modern reconstruction IMO.

Chris:

"Personally, I'm not that wowed with Ren. rapier styles when compared to the later ones. I'd much rather use the Cabijos style in a tournament than a 'pure' 17th c. style"

So you really think the system taught by your modern fencing master is superior to that practiced by renaissance masters of defense who used these weapons in deadly combat? Perhaps this is true for tournaments with epee or foil, where scoring points is the goal and the rule set prohibits grappling, striking, use of the off hand, etc., but certainly not for a real duel with the deadly weapons of the period?

[Chris Umbs]

2 good discussion threads on Silver

http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54016
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54620

Chris

[Matt Anderson]

Chris: "I don't do much longsword, most of my interests are later, but I'll need it to pass my IMAF test someday. Right now it's all from M. Martinez and a little bit from M. Macdonald since I haven't hit the books on it aside from Mark Rector's Talhoffer translation".

So you were taught longsword by Martinez, who was taught by Rohdes, and no one knows where Rohdes learned it? Does it seem similar at all to the Talhoffer material in Rector's book? I notice on the Martinez Academy of Arms website, there is no mention of instruction in longsword, does Martinez still teach it?

[blackpuma]

My theory on why the rapier came to replace other weapons like the longsword and similar is due to its obvious efficacy in a real fight

The rapier was a civilian street weapon, not a battlefield weapon. It was a devastating development over the single-handed sword. (Longer swords were rarely encountered as street weapons.)

You could kill or mortally wound me before I'm even in striking range. When the rapier became a common weapon, the dynamics of the fight changed, with the ambush by larger numbers being typical. (We're talking street fighting, not the later courteous bouts in nobles' salons.) Calling the rapier a weapon "only suitable for murder" was not unearned.

Another factor behind the rapid adoption of the rapier on the street was that the rapier was also easier to learn. That statement will probably offend the sensibilities of those of the salon fencing extraction, but rapier really is a straightforward weapon compared to double-edged swords.

Like the battlefield-oriented longsword, rapier gave way as a civilian street weapon to the firearm. Always conscious to do what the rabble wasn't, the nobility picked up the smallsword &c. in a big way when the gun became the preferred street weapon. Here the stylization and rules became normal.

...people were still using longswords...

Yes, the non-foyning longsword sword continued to be the highly effective battlefield weapon. Only a suicide would take a foyning sword to war. :eek:

Do consider that the most common weapon on the battlefield was not the sword but the pole weapon (I mean any long-hafted weapon, including spear). It's hard enough to fight against any pole weapon with a longsword. I personally prefer a solid dagger to a rapier when facing a pole weapon.

If you've not done any fighting against a pole weapon (with various weapons), give it a go. It's a very enlightening experience. It can be frustrating because the end is so nimble and can strike very hard.

Being primarily foying weapons, pole weapons do have one thing in common with the rapier. Once you get past the point, you're pretty much home free. That's the (very tricky) key to defeating rapier with another weapon, including unarmed. Void or deflect the blade, rush in, and your opponent is toast. :)

... people armed with rapiers were beating [longsword] often enough for these other weapons to be seen as obsolete for unarmoured combat.

This statement is over-broad, not distinguishing between civilian and military use. The rapier never replaced the longsword on the battlefield, regardless of whether it was harnischfechten (harness, or armored) or bloessfecthen (unarmored).

As I mentioned above, the rapier was more effective in street fighting than the single-handed sword prevalent at the time of the rapier's advent. In that you are correct.

* * * * * * *

Terminology Note: I'm not trying to create a fight here. You make a distinction between "broadsword" and "longsword" where I don't. "Broadsword" is a later term. Because of the imprecise terminology, using something like Oakeshott's Typology is normally more useful. Like I said, I'm not trying to fight you on terminology, only explaining why I glossed over the term while quoting you.

[blackpuma]

Remember too that there are lots of different types of fencing..

Yes, yes. Good point.

The English word "fence" is an abbreviation for "defence;" it was known as the "Art of Defence." This term also encompases the battlefield swordfighting with longsword, sword and buckler, messer, dagger, and hand-to-hand combat as it integrates into weapon use (e.g. "ringen am schwert" or hand-to-hand from the sword).

In other words, historically it applies to more than just the foyning fence that remains today.

In the "full" sense of the word, "fencing" is a hard-core martial (i.e. war) art... and a boatload of fun. :love:

[Stolenbjorn]

Well that's the entire point of a living tradition. Same thing with any traditional Asian style. On top of the living trad. we ALSO have the treatises to check ourselves against and that stops any teaching branch from going too far off the main path. As for new moves... no, not really. Unless we came up with some kind of new blade - every possible combo has been fully documented throughout the printed works. However, there's often 5 or 6 different responses to any given action - some teachers will emphasize certain moves over other, but a good teacher will tailor the style to the individual student's need.

I've learned Fiore di Liberi, Talhoffer, Ringek, Mendoza(boxing) and I'33 from Colin Richards, and currently I learn it to others, but I don't call that a living tradition in my definition of the term. The way I see the WMA(fencing) community of Europe, I see a lot of more or less MA-trained/studied fellas that have an open mind and that are willing to learn from eachother, so I definately would say that the weastern fencing-community is alive today, BUT IMHO; IT'S BEEN RESSURECTED.

My tradition is in the classical weapons and in the historical weapons of the late historical period. I cannot make the same claim for the middle and early historical periods (Medieval and Renaissance) because I did not learn any complete systems in the weapons of those periods but only a collection of techniques as they were passed on to me by my master. I have never claimed otherwise. We seem to agree, then; I have no problems seeing that some WMA's have traditions that are unbroken from the 1700's and upwards (Boxing and Epee/rapier for instance)
But my initial statement that the WMA's that we find from renissanse/medieval times have been Ressurected -that they at some point have been dead -unknown -not practiced, but that they now enjoy a ...renissanse :rolleyes:

Now this has both good and bad sides. The bad side is that you have no "Maestro" that can kick your butt if you do somthing crucially wrong, and who knows the intent of the manuals and can explain what is just bad drawing in the manual and what is proper technique. The good side is that you have no "Maestro" that will tell you that "you're not ready for this yet", etc. The lack of herarchy in (most) of the weastern fencing communities, lack of conformity and (silly) rules is what I like the most about it :Angel:

[Matt Anderson]

so I definately would say that the weastern fencing-community is alive today, BUT IMHO; IT'S BEEN RESSURECTED.

I agree completely. I don't think anyone can trace a "living lineage" to earlier weapons such as long sword as practiced in the 15th century. Anyone doing it today is either working it out from old manuscripts or learning from someone else who did.



Now this has both good and bad sides. The bad side is that you have no "Maestro" that can kick your butt if you do somthing crucially wrong, and who knows the intent of the manuals and can explain what is just bad drawing in the manual and what is proper technique. The good side is that you have no "Maestro" that will tell you that "you're not ready for this yet", etc. The lack of herarchy in (most) of the weastern fencing communities, lack of conformity and (silly) rules is what I like the most about it :Angel:

Agreed on all counts here as well. I am learning longsword and other old weapons from the material that Talhoffer, Ringeck, and Meyer left behind and of course, learning from other historical fencers who have been doing the same thing.

[Chris Umbs]

Rohdes was also a ballet teacher as well as a fencing master and toured Europe, working with different fencing masters. In addition to Cabijos, we know he worked with Barbasetti and Greco. Barbasetti, certainly had an interest in older weapons.

Now before someone complains about Barbasetti's level of scholarship - read this first
http://www.swordhistory.com/reviews/foil.html

The relevent quote is "It has become fashionable among those who prefer the "martial" approach to swordplay to the arduous life-long process of working toward a status of mastery that can only be bestowed on by other masters to discount or patronize the masters of the foil...and their take on fencing history.

Barbasetti, trained in the military and civilian uses of foils, duelling sword, and saber, was steeped in the rigid traditions of honor and satisfaction as practiced by Austro-German bluebloods. (In fact, his expertise was accepted so widely, that his 1898 Ehrencodex (Code of Honor) was the leading guide through matters of honor until World War I.) He probably attended more saber Mensuren, saber and pistol duels than any other non-German fencing master. And his observation as to what kind of cut typically terminated a cut-and-thrust duel indicates that he had a pretty good idea about the psychological mechanisms that come to bear in a life-and-death encounter. Which, in my opinion, elevates him and his judgment far above those Johnny-Come-Latelies who so loudly proclaim to be practicing The Killing Arts with Padded Steel."

[Chris Umbs]

I've learned Fiore di Liberi, Talhoffer, Ringek, Mendoza(boxing) and I'33 from Colin Richards, and currently I learn it to others, but I don't call that a living tradition in my definition of the term. The way I see the WMA(fencing) community of Europe, I see a lot of more or less MA-trained/studied fellas that have an open mind and that are willing to learn from eachother, so I definately would say that the weastern fencing-community is alive today, BUT IMHO; IT'S BEEN RESSURECTED.:

You can divide WMA between HES and LT. Since WMA covers everything from Roman combat to modern gun-fu, some are made up, some are re-created and some are living systems. Because of the net and the availibility of treatises, you see a lot more self teaching study groups. If you want to do 'the longsword of Fiore', you can go that direction. If you just want to learn 'Italian Longsword' you could study with M. Sinclair who learned from his teacher.

Now let's say that you learn from Colin and begin teaching - at what point do you consider it a LT? How many generations does it take. It's silly to think that Cabijos made up his historical fencing out of scratch or even directly from the treatises with no teacher - but even if he had, that would mean that I'd be inheriting the study of 3 masters for over 80 years. I'm not interested in re-inventing wheels until I understand what my lineage is trying to teach me.

We seem to agree, then; I have no problems seeing that some WMA's have traditions that are unbroken from the 1700's and upwards (Boxing and Epee/rapier for instance)
But my initial statement that the WMA's that we find from renissanse/medieval times have been Ressurected -that they at some point have been dead -unknown -not practiced, but that they now enjoy a ...renissanse :rolleyes:

Now this has both good and bad sides. The bad side is that you have no "Maestro" that can kick your butt if you do somthing crucially wrong, and who knows the intent of the manuals and can explain what is just bad drawing in the manual and what is proper technique. The good side is that you have no "Maestro" that will tell you that "you're not ready for this yet", etc. The lack of herarchy in (most) of the weastern fencing communities, lack of conformity and (silly) rules is what I like the most about it :Angel:

Well I do have a Maestro who can kick my butt in all weapons... I'd be willing to learn from any teacher who is a good teacher. The fact that he can mop the floor with me - and I'm no tournament push-over - is a real added bonus. I feel his understanding of the treatises for the weapons he teaches is at least as good as any HES teacher (and I haven't heard anyone outside of ARMA members claim otherwise and not even them for years).

Just about all WMA groups have some kind of hierarchy. Even ARMA has Scholar, Free Scholar, Provost and Master (even though they aren't currently using the last) with testing done for those ranks. Hierarchy is impossible to avoid in any facet of life. Groups that claim to have none, usually just have an informal sometimes hidden one. It's like Catholics and Protestants - Catholics have one Pope who can guide them. Protestants claim to have none so instead end up having dozens of people who all claim to be the final word. Some HES groups turn out just fine, but there's obviously a lot of slag out there as well. We'll never agree to any kind of standards and there is no vast conspiracy where any group is trying to force their rankings on others. By the same token, groups like the IMAF that do have very formal rankings and testings should be respected as well.

In a slightly more ideal world we could all get together at an event and have some good tournaments except we can't agree on rules or even agree on the value of tournaments. A lot of us are looking for different things from WMA as well - street level defense with modern value, the enjoyment of re-creating a specific Master's style, the continuation of a lineage, gaining renown in tourney. We aren't even all going to the same big seminars anymore - some folks go to WMAW, some to ISMAC and others boycott those events because they don't like the tournament rules or the teachers and organizations involved. So I'm not sure we are ever going to solve these problems, but I'm damn sure they won't be solved on-line.

[Matt Anderson]

Chris, that's an interesting post but I'm still really fascinated by this idea of a "living lineage" of longsword fencing that is "not from treatises" and you didn't answer my questions (maybe you missed them).

Does Martinez still teach longsword? I don't see any mention of it on his website although he says he actually does study old manuscripts and teach his interpretations of them:

" He has also done extensive research in historical fencing. Many of the most prominent masters of the past centuries left elaborate, highly detailed treatises of the systems and styles which they taught. Maestro Martínez has spent years carefully and thoroughly researching these treatises (see bibliography) in an effort to accurately reconstruct these varied styles. These ancient and historical forms are then taught as authentically as possible to those of his students who are interested. Maestro Martínez' goal is to teach, promote, and preserve this rare martial art".

This makes it sound like he is doing pretty much what the rest of us in historical fencing are doing. Can you clarify?

[Matt Anderson]

Rohdes was also a ballet teacher as well as a fencing master and toured Europe, working with different fencing masters. In addition to Cabijos, we know he worked with Barbasetti and Greco. Barbasetti, certainly had an interest in older weapons.

Now before someone complains about Barbasetti's level of scholarship - read this first
http://www.swordhistory.com/reviews/foil.html

And here's a slightly different take on Barbasetti for anyone who is interested:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/barbasetti.htm

Which, in my opinion, elevates him and his judgment far above those Johnny-Come-Latelies who so loudly proclaim to be practicing The Killing Arts with Padded Steel."

Not sure who you're talking about here, but out of curiosity, do you do any longsword bouting? What type of weapon or simulator do you use? What type of rules do you have regarding target areas and contact force?

[Ran Pleasant]

Rohdes was also a ballet teacher as well as a fencing master and toured Europe, working with different fencing masters. In addition to Cabijos, we know he worked with Barbasetti and Greco. Barbasetti, certainly had an interest in older weapons.
Chris

I have not read Barbasetti writings. However, an article on the ARMA site, The Art of Well Meaning Error (http://www.thearma.org/essays/barbasetti.htm) gives the following quote from Barbasetti:

"We have almost no evidence concerning their weapons; and that which we do have is so vague that it is difficult even for one in the profession to decide from their structure and form how they were manipulated".

It appears very clear from the above quote that Barbasetti did not believe there were any living traditions of the older weapons. Was Barbasetti completely in the dark compared to Rohdes?

[blackpuma]

I'm not trying to be facetious here, just trying to understand.

... If you just want to learn 'Italian Longsword' you could study with M. Sinclair who learned from his teacher. ...

So what you're saying is that (for example) the name "Italian Longsword" along with the teachings and mythos of the system is more branding than any descriptive nomenclature. It may borrow liberally from various ideas and sources, but I'm not necessarily buying anything beyond the culture, padigms, and traditions of the organization.

Like I say of SCA heavy fighting, whatever your goals are... go for it, have a lot of fun, and make it your passion. Just don't confuse the martially-inspired sport with historic battlefield fighting. (Hey, I'm not knocking SCA heavy fighting. I've done it, and it is one hell of a sport. :) )

Now let's say that you learn from Colin and begin teaching - at what point do you consider it a LT?

Again, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I still don't get the answer to "who cares?" :confused: But I'm having a tough time buying into the aura of living traditions...

On the other hand, maybe I do. I used to be heavy into SCA. When we really got into the role play it was a lot of fun, and until I started to dig into my own independent research I have to admit buying into it for quite some time. I have a lot of really pleasant memories, and get testy when people mock the SCA unjustly. It simply lights my fire no longer and I've moved on to other endeavours.

I guess the master to student "living tradition" shtick, whether EMA or WMA, could be equally pleasant if that's one's passion.

(My reservations regarding the value of such tradition is not really relevant here.)

[blackpuma]

Not trying to be offensive. I have no idea who your or your instructors are.

...I haven't heard anyone outside of ARMA members claim otherwise and not even them for years). ...

Is that because it's a tired subject or because of newfound respect? It's a fair question since you're putting it out there as supporting evidence.

I stopped criticizing the living traditions of an old group I belonged to just because I was just repeating myself, not because they reformed anything, got better, or were able to address my questions. We're still friends and I go back once in a great while to say hello, and invariably join in a few bouts for old times' sake.

[demivolte]

When I first started fencing I never thought of it as a martial art. I also never thought of it as being classical, historical or sport either. My teacher simply taught fencing. He started in the thirties when fencing was still taught with form. Not being hit was more important than scoring more touches than the other fencer. I've recently given in to calling my club a "classical" fencing club as I think my ideas lie more in that direction that what is called sport or Olympic fencing. I don't judge. I just enjoy what I do and appreciate other forms and styles.

I also have been told by many other martial artists that fencing certainly is a martial art. I feel now that it probably is although if I wanted to find the nearest fencing club in a given town that I'd turn first to the sports section of the phone book first.

A very thought provoking conversation though.

Andrew
Classical Blade Society
http://classicalbladesociety.com/

[Chris Umbs]

Sorry, been away for a few days.

Just about all of these questions have already been talked about to death elsewhere, often leading to locked threads. Since I really don’t like re-inventing wheels, I’m just going to direct y’all to a few threads so you can see both sides of the debates.

Martinez Longsword
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3375
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3501

Legitimacy
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5127

A lot of these questions are being asked by ARMA members which is kind of odd, since they all know these arguments by heart. Just so the rest of y’all can understand the background this is coming from
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15526
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3494

Chris



Chris, that's an interesting post but I'm still really fascinated by this idea of a "living lineage" of longsword fencing that is "not from treatises" and you didn't answer my questions (maybe you missed them).

Does Martinez still teach longsword? I don't see any mention of it on his website although he says he actually does study old manuscripts and teach his interpretations of them:

" He has also done extensive research in historical fencing. Many of the most prominent masters of the past centuries left elaborate, highly detailed treatises of the systems and styles which they taught. Maestro Martínez has spent years carefully and thoroughly researching these treatises (see bibliography) in an effort to accurately reconstruct these varied styles. These ancient and historical forms are then taught as authentically as possible to those of his students who are interested. Maestro Martínez' goal is to teach, promote, and preserve this rare martial art".

This makes it sound like he is doing pretty much what the rest of us in historical fencing are doing. Can you clarify?

[Ran Pleasant]

Chris

This topic has indeed been discussed many time in the past, including the threads you listed from SFI. The members of ARMA do know the topic by heart and we take it to heart with the passion with which we study these lost arts. The only reason the topic came up again is because you made a claim of a living tradition of longsword in a manner that implied that it is an unbroken tradition with roots in the Renaissance. It seems we were mis-understand your statement. I thank you for posting the links to the threads on SFI and for discussing your longsword tradition. Your discussion and the threads makes clear to all of us that your living tradition of longsword only extends back to a fairly recent re-creation in either the early 20th century or the late 19th century and is not an unbroken living tradition back to the actual longsword combat martial arts of the Renaissance. Hopefully this issue is settled for all of us. But many of us in ARMA are always ready, willing, and able to discusss this topic when it comes up.

Again, I thank you for clearing up this mis-understanding.

[Chris Umbs]

Ran,

Sorry, I don't want to have thin skin either. I guess we both know how much we all care about these things. Let me know if you're coming out to any ARMA-NJ events. I'm shot for events this year, but next year is looking better for things like ISMAC and WMAW.

Chris