"I always thought that fencing only focused on games and not traditional weapons"

Dude, under no circumstances should you flee back to another subforum. Your input is very interesting (I'm still mulling it over) and very appreciated.

 

Seconded. The more the more interesting.

 

Many of the early renaissance manuals agree with this also. Interesting that it coincides with the Spanish influence in FMA.

A foil can't be used as leverage but that doesn't stop grappling. However in a sport the point is to determine who is the better fencer not the better fighter.

Two excellent points BTW.

The Bear.

 

Cool, check me and my Eastern ways hanging out with the kids in the WMA forum!

Yes, I was thinking the same thing while work was trying to distract me. My knowledge of fencing/duelling is limited but presumably by the time the Spanish were in PI, swordfighting was highly stylised but not yet competition-based. By that I mean competition as in points.
I know first blood duelling was certainly around by the Napoleonic era (as long as Sharpe is accurate), but much before then?

Of course this then gets into the always dangerous territory of which art was influenced by what. Since the PI resisted Spaniards for so long, they were clearlyfearsome warriors as a people by then, but there is little record of any MA from the Philipino side, save for word of mouth, much more than 150 years ago.

Certainly someone earlier in this thread (might have been you Bear) referred to using the handle to smash at close quarters. Again, probably something that was discovered independently all around the world where anyone picked up a weapon, but the FMA make use of the 'punyo' butt of the stick. Inosanto's kali makes particular use of 'hubud' as a training tool, (a pattern of strike with the butt, whick is blocked with the empty hand, stick parried with stick, strike back with the butt). However, it is the use of the stick for leverage e.g. improving the leverage on a choke from further away that makes it seem worthwhile when you are holding a weapon. Otherwise I suspect you would really just want distance again.

Is there a way to drag Ap Oweyn in here? He's a more experienced FMAist and a fencer I believe, so his view might be handy at this point.

 

It's commonly said that spanish rapier fighting influenced FMAs however this is unlikely due to the fact that destreza (spanish rapier style) was restricted to the nobility and was totally civilian. Soldiers and sailers would have had some form of cut and thrust style, but unfortunately we have no knowledge of what this style looked like. So while it is likely there was some influence between the two peoples swordsmanship, there is no way of knowing what it is.

 

Two of the world's greatest Kyokushin karateka are from Switzerland and Brazil, and a Chinese gentleman took gold in saber at the 2008 Olympics. "East" and "West" are becoming increasingly meaningless in my opinion. I think the nature of a blade (stabbing versus thrusting, light versus heavy, duels versus battlefield combat) has a whole lot more to do with how it's used than where it came from.

Just my two cents, of course.

 

Ah some of this had been gone over before here at MAP. If I recall the Philippines was administered out of Mexico. So there might be something to glean in terms of what the composition of the Mexican based Spanish troops were at that point and time. There was also a bit of conjecture on whether or not any of the sailors on board the Spanish ships were of Aztec descent and would have taken indigenous fighting styles with them when working under the Spaniards.

All of it a long shot but fun to throw around.

 

There is more and more evidence coming out on Portugese styles. It is likely that there was some crossover between them and the Spanish. It may be a a way to see what commoners were doing.

Though that being said there are definite differences in style within the same period in the same country (Silver vs Swentam anyone?) so maybe it's not helpful after all...

 

...wow, gone for years, but much stays the same...

I'm not going to wade too deep into this topic, but I noticed some errant generalizations (that have been around for years), as well as thought introducing another term into the lexicon might bridge the gap for you folks.

The best phrase I ever stumbled upon to describe Modern Fencing was as a "Sportive Combat" (or conversely, a "Combative Sport"). It is not, in my belief, a "Martial Art", and here is a simple explanation why:

Main Entry: mar·tial
Pronunciation: \ˈmär-shəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin martialis of Mars, from Mart-, Mars
Date: 14th century
1 : of, relating to, or suited for war or a warrior
2 : relating to an army or to military life
3 : experienced in or inclined to war


Modern Fencing is a Civilian activity. It's initial tools (foil and epee, not sabre, I'll address that later) are only used within that activity, and they are modeled on their contemporary weapon analogues, the Smallsword, a purely Civilian weapon.

That's my .02, take it for what it's worth, but I think you'll find "Sportive Combat" a sensible and easy to define separation from other Martial Arts that ARE ostensibly related directly to lethal weapons outside the Civilian purview.


As far as Foil, Epee and Sabre go, when discussing technique, lethality, origin and intent, we covered a lot of this ground a long time ago (see http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22378 ) but in brief remind yourself first and foremost they were TRAINING TOOLS. Not only that, but they were training tools for a very finite weapon, the 18th century Smallsword (Sabre only came on later in the game, and as a parallel with the reintroduction of Cavalry after the Lancers ceded the field, Napoleonic war-era.)

Fencing is at this point a purely Civilian activity, it is a training aid for the aspiring Gentleman who will invariably get called upon to defend some dishonor, some wrong, and the tools of the trade were smallsword and pistol. If he never utilized these skills in an honest duel, it was also a great way to impress your pals, and pick up chicks... As dueling fades, leave it to some roughhousing Germans to invent a sport whose sheer purpose seems to consist of facing a similarly liquor-fueled, must-establish-myself-with-the-boys young buck and giving each other a lifelong facial scar (the Mensuren), but I digress.

Ditch the first blood vs. lethal, Epee duals, Rapier vs. Smallsword, and all of that, as it is nonsense.

Foil is the first step when you begin Fencing, and it's pure Training aid. It's focus is on precise targeting, the least targets available, the most rigid of rules regarding Right of Way (partly a training aid to avoid double-kills, a useless expression in an actual duel, partly a reflection of modern Chivalry, Sportsmanship, and Gentlemanly conduct.) Liken it to the Shinai. It stings, but is mostly harmless. Use it to learn to hit well. Go play with your buddies.

Epee is the non-lethal "Combative Sport" tool that two men use in order to have a friendly bout. It is a direct nod to the Smallsword, but it is NOT a weapon, it is merely reminiscent of a weapon. It's targeting is broader than the Foil, it is the upright side-turned Torso of a Smallsword weilding opponent, Right of Way ceases to exist, Double kills can happen, but if you trained well with the foil, they won't. Liken it to the Bo-Ken, it hurts, a lot, but will not kill you. Use it to learn not to get hit along the way, and not to step up to the line without being committed to a fight.

Sabre is much later, and is the analogue for a 18th/19th Century Cavalry Sabre, much as the Epee is to the 18th century Smallsword. It presents the target one encounters on Horseback, the upper Torso, and is similarly free of constraint.


I think you guys have a great discussion overall, but I just kept seeing the same misunderstood and misused definitions appearing as a wall between your theories. If you can agree on the syntax, line up the like vs. like, and keep the apples and oranges in separate bins, you'll have a greater appreciation for the other's input...

Thank you for hauling me back from a 6 year hiatus...

 

If civilian disciplines can't be "martial arts," 99% of the martial arts represented on this site aren't really "martial arts." The only true "martial arts" would be aviation and MCMAP and the like. I think "Arts that ARE ostensibly related directly to lethal weapons outside the Civilian purview" is an unreasonably narrow reading of the term "martial art."

Forgive me for not finding a six-year-old thread about FMAs and whether they have any origins in Spanish fencing that had a tangent about this issue

And as for modern fencing saber, this IS where it's from:

And this ISN'T:

Common error, but nevertheless erroneous. The analogue for military saber is singlestick, not the modern fencing saber.

 

I agree. Civilian arts can definitely be classed as martial arts. The small sword is ostensibly a civilian weapon but I would definitely class training in this weapon a martial art.

The Bear.

 

Right, and right, and right again. I think the reason that it is so commonly mistaken is that Singlestick has, until very recently, been completely forgotten by modern fencers. It is only the resurgence of WMA/Classical Fencing which seems to have returned Singlestick to the swordfighting gestalt at all.

But because modern fencers had no other idea, they just (quite logically) believed that Saber is Saber. Dueling Saber, Military Saber, whatever. Now the info is beginning to, slowly, be disseminated and that's a good thing.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

If you add the word "ONLY" to the Civilian purview reading, and caveat it with having no lethal training aids, weapons or tools, ever, I think you might find it a little more palatable. Most martial arts training eventually involves the sharp and pointies, Fencing never gets there.

As for single stick, I'll definitely chase down it's history a little more thoroughly, but to be frank, I'd always considered it the precursor to the Shlager (as the Foil is to Epee). It is the training aid for an slightly more dangerous big brother.

 

Nope.

Archery, Fencing, and Broadsword

Broadsword and Singlestick by Allanson-Winn

Singlestick - from wiki (ugh)

Heck, even the boy scouts away-back-when

There are a whole bunch of other period resources. This barely scratches the surface.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

Well you would be wrong then. Singlestick is definitely the broadsword/Sabre training tool.

The Bear.

 

That's like saying that Muay Thai isn't a martial art if they never take the gloves off, or judo isn't a martial art if they never train without mats. I don't buy it.

 

Not quite, I'm saying that their purpose and application is combat, it is designed to hurt your opponent. Fencing (meaning Classical Salon Fencing) is a training methodology whose ultimate application is the bout, a judged affair wherein the object is to score points.

You *can* bout with a Martial art, the bout is further application of training, but the intent is ultimately as a fighting form. In Fencing the bout is the end.

Sure, Fencing skills can ultimately polish some fighting skills, but Fencing is Sportive Combat.

I would liken it to Tai Chi vs. Kung Fu. Both draw on the same skills, studies of motion, kinisthetics and using the body in the same way, both can be utilized as a training aid to Combat, but ultimately Tai Chi is a meditative Art that is used to tone the body, it is not a "Martial" art.


As far as the Singlestick origins and application, I am definitely going to research this further, but with the references you've posted, this may be a case of us both being right.

I'm inclined to view Singlestick as you've presented (meaning your resources and application) as a distinctly late 19th century application. The earlier Singlestick references are primarily Georgian-era, and almost exactly mirror the German Mensuren. This does not surprise me in the least, as the Hanoverian influence *is* German. The strict heads-up format, Torso/Head targeting, and single-handed method are very similar to the German Mensur.

Fencing was split into several camps, with the French and Italian being similar, yet different, forms, and the German developing a very distinct separation between the Thrusting and Cutting forms.

The Cutting forms were devised later around the Military Sabre, and the Shlager and Fencing Sabre are born of this form. The Mensur ("mens" being the latin root for Blood) was the Sportive Combat bout used to build character and sometimes settle squabbles. It was an Academic bloodsport, not a Military training tool per se.

I'd typify the Shlager and Fencing Sabre as common branches that went in different directions from the Academic Fencing (i.e. Sportive Combat), based on a Military weapon, the Cavalry Sabre.

I'm inclined to add to that Family of fence the Singlestick (originally) as the Anglo-Saxon adaptation and branch from the same tree, developing slightly earlier, and geographically further away than the Shlager and Fencing Sabre.

At any rate, thank you for forcing me to crack open the Library again...

 

What you're saying is "in Muay Thai, competition in the ring is the end, not merely a means for preparing for a street fight." Facially true, but it ignores the fact that people who have trained in the Muay Thai ring for purposes of competition can handle themselves just fine outside of it, and have, time and time again. By your reasoning, Muay Thai would not be a martial art, as they're not teaching specifically to street fights, even if the competition they're teaching to works in street fights.

Except the "we're training to use this for real and you don't" distinction makes even less sense in the context of western sword arts instead of empty-handed arts, because NOBODY here will ever actually engage in a life-or-death back-alley swordfight. They just don't happen anymore. A Krav Maga guy (who you would consider a martial artist) and a Muay Thai guy (who you apparently would not) both might need to defend themselves with their art in a real-world situation; neither an Olympic epeeist nor a classical epeeist ever would.

Bad analogy, because taiji IS a martial art, even if it isn't always trained that way. "Cardio kickboxing" isn't a martial art, but kickboxing is. Ninety-something percent of taiji taught in the United States is the taiji equivalent of cardio kickboxing, but that doesn't change the fact that the remainder is, in fact, a martial art.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NM-DtnVzHE"]YouTube- londontaiji.wmv[/ame]

I'll let the more learned historians here handle this part. All I know is that saber fencing is derived from university students trying to draw blood and make cool scars in honor duels (fact: chicks dig scars), and singlestick is derived from trying to chop open people's skulls and chop off their arms. And you can see it in how each is practiced.

 

Even now as I'm reading R. G. Allanson-Winn's 'Broad-Sword and Single-Stick' he is emphatically calling it a 'game', 'sport', 'play', and most telling:

"Single-stick, then, may be looked upon as a gentle exercise, suitable for early middle age."

Single-stick is again, Sportive Combat, not a Martial Art. Applicable to true combat? Definitely, but it is an excercise, a sport, a hobby, a "Gentle hobby" for Middle Aged men... like us...

 

I have absolutely no idea on the history of fencing, so this thread is an interesting read.
However, your Tai Chi / Kung Fu analogy is severely flawed on two fronts. 1, Tai Chi IS Kung Fu, so using those terms is not good at a semantic level. 2, Tai Chi Quan, 'Ultimate Fist Boxing' is very much a martial art. People think otherwise because the health and relaxation gang sell more of it that way. It's the equivalent of me waving a conductor's baton about and someone saying that is evidence that Fencing is not effective.

And definitely don't go into the Tai Chi forum and say it's not MA, they'll beat you up...just...really...slowly!!

Pettiness over, carry on.
MN