Top Myths of
Renaissance Martial Arts
The diverse range of
misconceptions and erroneous beliefs within historical fencing studies
today is considerable. But there are perhaps some myths that are more
common, and more pervasive, than others. This webpage presents an
ongoing project that will continually try in an informal and condensed
manner to help address some of these mistaken beliefs.
Serious
investigation and exploration of the legitimate historical sources of
actual Renaissance Martial Arts (or "MARE" for short) today is still in its early stages. It
is no difficult thing to accept that few today have the opportunity and
resources by which to pursue the study of historical fencing,
academically and physically, to an exceptional degree of proficiency
and certainty. The obvious fact is that most people are not equipped to
properly evaluate a great deal of the information and opinions about
historical fighting and arms and armor they may encounter, as they lack
the physical skills, historical materials, and scholarly experience by
which to do so confidently. What would even constitute such expertise
in a subject matter long on opinions and short on knowledge is itself
open to discussion.
Unfortunately,
as with much historical information many claims are often tentative and
can neither be verified nor falsified but only weighed according to
what evidence has been accumulated. But when it comes to
historical close combat reliable evidence is frequently missing or
substituted with myth.
For the vast
majority of students of historical swords and swordplay, education in
the subject is self-directed and ad hoc. It should come as no great
surprise then, that despite a keen interest in this subject some
enthusiasts are nonetheless extraordinarily misinformed about
historical arms and armor and their actual use. Misconceptions and
distortions long present in popular media combined with the pervasive
influence of inaccurate sources of information all but guarantee the
problem. Some of this is merely due to insufficient quality learning
materials while another element of it is admittedly due to willful
ignorance on the part of some enthusiasts.
It sometimes
seems the case that because for so long there have been no credible
experts or demonstrable expertise in this subject it has allowed most
anyone to feel especially confident or well informed just by following
the generally available sources of conventional wisdom, whether or not
they are credible, accurate, or complete. But, one would hope that
because there are so few who can speak with authority on matters of
historical European fighting arts, especially swordplay, such would now
be readily welcomed by every interested person.
For some
reason though, when it comes to swords and swordplay, there is, for a
few, a sort of emotional investment involved in holding certain beliefs
that often precludes continued education or improvement of opinions. It
is not all that unusual to encounter an attitude of essentially, "I
don't really know anything about this and even if I did I wouldn't
change my mind." This is all the more remarkable considering that what
many already believe is largely acquired from exposure to the
information of others that they themselves at some point had to read,
view, or simply assume.
The following are those myths we most
frequently encounter today provided with a brief refutation of the
notion. While each itself could be the subject of pages of material
complete with citations of documented sources of supporting evidence,
and explanatory footnotes covering their origin and promulgation, they
are addressed here for quick reference only in summary:
1. There were no "martial arts" in Western
European civilization.
False. Combative systems
developed the world over, and Europe from the time of the Ancient
Greeks through the 19th century had indigenous
traditions of highly effective and sophisticated fighting arts that
were passed down and recorded. Though these skills eventually altered,
atrophied, or became extinct due to changes in military technology and
social conditions, these methods and teachings from the Medieval and
Renaissance periods were well documented at the time in numerous
volumes. Their efficacy and formidability is virtually self-evident.
The practice of the martial arts of Renaissance Europe (which we might
conveniently abbreviate as “MARE”) is a subject that has to be
reconstituted and restored by holistic study of its surviving
teachings. Experts from the 14th to 17th centuries left behind for us
unmatched historical documentation for their personal combat methods
covering the reality of self-defense in battle, duel, or street
encounter. This vast technical literature represents for us "time-capsules" of
authenticity for us, in that they are undiluted and unpolluted by the
civilianizing de-martialization that later occurs as generation after
generation no longer has need to practice such integrated combat
skills. See: An
Introduction to Historical European Martial Arts and Renaissance Martial
Arts Literature and The
Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe.
2. Medieval and Renaissance fencing were not
real "arts" of codified fighting systems based on any higher scientific
principles, but just collections of "tricks" and unconnected techniques
with some wrestling thrown in.
False. The prejudice that
Medieval or Renaissance close combat skill was based on little more
than heavy weapons and strong blows and lacked any larger "art" of
established principles and systematic concepts is largely the result of
ignorance by 18th and 19th
century fencing masters and fencing writers. Having transitioned to
narrower and more specialized applications of swordsmanship, they lost
not only the old skills but understanding of how and why they existed
as well as by what manner they were taught and practiced. From their
perspective, primarily focused as they were on gentlemanly duels of
single combat with single identical swords under fair conditions, their
perspective was skewed and flawed. With little surviving from
pre-Renaissance fighting arts, they interpreted unfamiliar armors,
weapons, and heavier sword types designed for battlefield or street
fighting only through the prism of what little they understood from
their Baroque fencing style. That they did so with typical
Enlightenment-era presumption or Victorian-era arrogance is
understandable, though incorrect. The influence of their view survives
to modern times. Today however it is an established historical fact
that Medieval and Renaissance fighting was highly systematized and
incorporated a diverse range of personal combat skills and weaponry
well outside that of the more limited craft of 18th
and 19th century fencing. See: Historical European
Martial Arts and Renaissance Martial
Arts Literature.
3. Medieval and Renaissance unarmed fighting
methods were less developed and less sophisticated than elsewhere in
the world.
False. There were a variety
of grappling styles and wrestling sports practiced across Europe since
ancient times. The surviving manuals and illustrated study guides
featuring these teachings reveal a sophisticated understanding of
unarmed self-defense and combat wrestling techniques, including
understanding of: throws, joint locks, groundfighting, wrist locks,
open hand blows, kicks, bone breaking, and even pressure-point
manipulation. Though they emphasized grappling over pugilism and a
preference for the power of armed over unarmed fighting, to argue any
of this is somehow "less developed" or "inferior" to other versions is
a non-falsifiable premise since we cannot truly know the full extent
and skill of Medieval and Renaissance combatives and their modern
reconstruction is still in its infancy. The reason these skills faded
and were lost is almost entirely due to the impact of handguns and
other firearms on Western civilization. See: Grappling
& Wrestling in Renaissance Fencing.
4. Knights in full plate armor were clumsy and
slow.
False. The popular belief in
untutored knights clumsily swinging crude swords while awkwardly
lumbering around in heavy armor is inaccurate and uninformed. Mistaken
claims that Medieval armored horsemen had become clanking tanks or that
unhorsed a knight was at his foe's mercy have become common even among
some medieval historians. A warrior in plate armor was far from being
the sluggish lobster so frequently mischaracterized by military
writers. While an armored man was not as agile as an unarmored one,
plate armor overall was well balanced and ingeniously designed to
permit considerable maneuverability and nimbleness. This fact is
clearly expressed in the fighting literature on armored combat and born
out by modern experiments in both antique armor specimens and
historically accurate reproductions. Unlike what has been notoriously
misrepresented in popular culture, a well-trained and physically
conditioned man fighting in full harness was typically a formidable
opponent (and there were many different kinds of armor for foot or
mounted combat). But this is not to say that fighting in full plate
armor was not tiresome or stifling. Armor restricted breathing and
ability to ventilate body heat, as well as limited vision and hearing.
If armor did not work well it would not have been around for so long in
so many different forms. (For more on this see: "Medieval
Armor: Plated Perfection" in Military History, July 2005).
5. A science of thrust fencing replaced cruder
cutting swordplay by the 16th century.
False. Thrusting was an
important and integral part of Western fencing since the time of the
ancient Greeks and Romans. Thrusting was long recognized as a dangerous
and deadly technique in Medieval fencing as far back as the 13th
century. Narrow tapering swords with very sharp points, both single and
double-handed, were widely used for both military and civilian fighting
beginning in the 14th century. These were the
ancestors of those longer, lighter, narrower swords appearing in the
early 16th century for street-fighting and
duelling. Specialized thrusting swords with stiff heavy blades for
puncturing the gaps in plate armor were also produced as early as the 14th
century and versions continued to be used into the mid-17th.
By the early 16th century, as armor use declined
due to increasingly effective firearms while the need for individual
close-combat skills decreased on the battlefield for similar reasons,
there was an increased amount of civilian combat and duelling. Large
crowded urban centers saw an increase in private armed fighting among
all classes and a thrusting method of unarmed fencing suited to these
encounters quickly developed. Under these conditions new lighter,
longer, quick thrusting single-hand swords, called rapiers and
specifically intended for unarmored combat, gained advantage over more
traditional military cut-and-thrust swords. They were soon adopted by
the aristocracy as the dueling weapon of choice. During the 16th
century, as this new "foyning fence" (thrusting swordplay) using long
narrow blades for unarmored civilian fighting took hold, it was seen as
a new innovation. In keeping with the renewed cultural interest in all
things classical at the time, it was also viewed as reflecting
something of the enlightened thrusting swordplay of the ancient Romans.
While over the next two centuries a methodical thrust-oriented
swordplay came to dominate civilian fencing and duelling in Western
Europe, especially among the aristocracy, styles of cut-and-thrust
swordplay continued in use and new types of swords were still being
devised all the way up to the early 20th
century. The orthodox and now cliché view of fencing history
for sometime has been that at some point in the early 16th century men
suddenly realized that thrusting was better than cutting and quickly
lightened their weapons and discarded their armor, which was already
being made obsolete by guns and crossbows. The usual belief
goes that along with change in sword forms eventually came a more
"scientific" and "proper" mode of fencing that leads in a linear
evolution to today's modern fencing sport. This is inaccurate and the
truth is much more complicated and much more interesting. Fencing
history and European martial arts were far more diverse and
sophisticated than once believed, with many branches, styles, and
methods, each adapted to a particular niche at a particular place and
time. See: Questions
and Answers About the Rapier and The
Myth of Cutting vs. Thrusting Swords.
6. Medieval swords were heavy and weighed tens
of pounds.
False. Despite what is
continually misrepresented in popular media and literature on fencing,
fighting swords of the Medieval and Renaissance eras were fairly light,
well-balanced, ingeniously designed, exceptionally well-made, and
properly proportioned for their purposes. They were neither heavy nor
poorly balanced for the challenges they faced and the tasks they were
designed for. See: What did
Historical Swords Weigh? and The Weighty
Issue of Two-Handed Greatswords.
7. Weighty swords were at first needed to
bludgeon and crush armor and only later when armor use declined did
swords become lighter for skillfully thrusting with the point.
False. The notion that heavy
swords were "necessary" to crudely bash and hack at combatants in heavy
armor is a considerably inaccurate and misinformed one. Virtually all
Medieval close-combat can be shown to have involved some sort of
systematic basis and principled action involving cutting and thrusting
techniques. These were optimized for the type of arms and armors
encountered at the time. Thrusting has always been important in
close-combat, especially armored swordplay, where it is actually the
primary form of attack precisely because hacking and chopping are
typically much less effective against armors. (It was after all
following the era of armored combat that large curved chopping blades
actually experienced a resurgence in European cavalries.) Cutting
blades naturally require a certain mass to produced optimal impacts,
whereas thrusting swords ideally benefit from lightness that permits an
agile point. Quite often specialized swords developed as ideal for one
situation or condition of fighting would prove disastrous if employed
in another. The later development of much lighter single-hand thrusting
swords therefore reflected a transition away from the more complex
self-defense challenges of a military environment and more toward
civilian concerns of unarmored single combat. Compared to modern
featherweight versions, historical swords that for centuries proved
effective and formidable fighting tools can therefore only be viewed as
somehow "heavy" or "awkward" if you are unused to properly training
with them at length following proper methods.
8. Swords were not primary weapons during the
Middle Ages.
False. Swords were neither cheap nor easy to make and
took considerably more training to wield effectively than did simple
axes, spears, and club-like weapons. For these reasons swords were also
associated with knights and men-at-arms more so than with common
soldiers. Other weapons were certainly more numerous on the battlefield
but the sword was still a primary weapon of choice for close-combat
precisely due to its versatility and effectiveness against a range of
different opponents, armored or unarmored, foot or mounted. The sword
in its various forms was the most personal weapon, the most
prestigious, and the most resourceful. While by the 16th
century it did come to find a greater role in civilian self-defense
than in war, its effectiveness was undeniable and reason why it
persisted in so many different forms for so long. Although the sword is
sometimes described as being a secondary weapon in the Middle Ages and
even as one that was more a badge of nobility or authority than
practical, this can confidently be dismissed as inaccurate. While the
lore of the sword as a noble "knightly" weapon is unmistakable, the
evidence for its use by non-knightly warriors in military and civilian
self-defense during the period is considerable. Considering their
ubiquity in literature and art throughout the 11th to 17th centuries,
the volumes of material written on methods for fighting with these
tools, the extensive variety of types produced compared to other
weapons from the era, their versatility as fighting implements, and
their military as well as civilian application, their value practical
is self-evident.
9. Only knights were permitted to use swords in
the Middle Ages.
False. Though the sword is
closely identified with knights and knighthood, virtually any foot
soldier or fighting man could employ a sword and was expected to know
something about doing so. Many early fencing teachers were themselves
commoners, and urban militias made up of ordinary citizens were
frequently equipped with swords. Knights might also have retinues of
non-knightly retainers who were armed with swords and mercenary bands
were a common element of medieval warfare. By the late 15th
century entire fighting guilds and schools run by common tradesmen and
craftsmen trained and taught the use of all manner of swords. There
were several attempts at different times in different parts of Europe
to restrict the wearing or owning of swords by commoners (or their use
in judicial duels), but such attempts at arms control were frequently
violated and largely unenforceable. By the 16th
century, the wearing of some sort of sword by any fighting-man,
nobleman, gentleman, militiaman, mercenary, soldier, sailor, tradesman,
guildsman, or brigand was fairly common in most cities of Western
Europe.
10. Medieval and Renaissance swords were
generally of inferior quality and workmanship.
False. There is no reason
whatsoever to believe that Medieval and Renaissance swords were
anything but superbly made and well-crafted weapons carefully designed
as highly effective fighting tools. Metallurgical study of
swords has confirmed they reflected considerable knowledge of how to
produce resilient high-carbon blades with hard steel edges, while
investigation of their designs has demonstrated their utility and
functionality. Fighting men of this time were no fools and for
centuries their self-defense weapons reflected the highest level of
technology and craftsmanship. The quality and accuracy of modern
reproductions of such swords, however, is an entirely different matter.
See: Critical
Characteristics of Historical Swords and "Hey,
Mister, is that sword real?"
11. Medieval and Renaissance swords were not
very sharp.
False. There are different
degrees of "sharpness" and a sword was sharpened according to the
material it was expected to penetrate and the degree of bevel its edge
geometry could support. Different sword types required and
permitted different degrees of sharpness. But even a dull or
unsharpened edge could produce a serious wound provided it struck
strongly and had sufficient mass and hardness. Surviving sword
specimens, the instructions for their use, and historical descriptions
of the injuries they produced confirm that Medieval and Renaissance
swords were indeed very sharp, though not always to same degree along
their entire length.
12. Curved swords were not known in Medieval
and Renaissance Europe.
False. Curved blades
indigenous to Western Europe were known since the time of Ancient
Greece and some types were used until the 20th
century. During the Medieval and Renaissance eras several types of
curved blade were used by both knights and common soldiers. Some of
these resemble Eastern scimitars and sabres while others were unique
forms. These swords go by names such as falchion, badelaire,
braquemart, storta, and many more. See: The
Myth of Cutting vs. Thrusting Swords.
13. Fighting with a sword and shield was the
typical method of Medieval foot-combat.
False. Despite their
ubiquity in popular media's depictions of Medieval combat, and their
close association with knights and medieval warriors, by the 14th
century large shields were actually uncommon and all but disappeared
from battles and single combats. This decline continued as the decades
wore on. Rather than a single-handed short sword with large shield,
soldiers, knights and men-at-arms were equipped typically with
double-handed weapons (whether polearms, hafted weapons, or double-hand
swords), or with two weapon combinations (swords with maces, axes,
daggers, etc.). Large shields survived as specialized tools mostly for
sieges and judicial combats but were not primary equipment. Smaller
bucklers and other hand shields were by far more common than larger
shields and typically served as a principal means of training.
14. Sword and buckler fencing was
practiced only by commoners.
False. Considerable evidence
establishes the weapon combination served for several centuries as a
primary training method for fencing among all classes, especially
knights. Many study guides on its use were produced over the centuries.
It was considered a military style, even though civilians did
frequently train in it. By the late 16th century it fell out of general
favor as a common tool for war as well as street defense and private
duel. See: The
Sword & Buckler Tradition.
15. Fencing reached a "golden age" in Europe
during the 19th century.
False. This can be proven
demonstrably inaccurate on several levels. By the early 18th
century, the vast array of traditional arms and armor as well as heavy
cutting blades for self-defense, duel, or battlefield close combat were
already all but obsolete and no style based upon earlier Medieval and
Renaissance cutting swordplay survived. The foyning fence of the
civilian smallsword, descended from the 17th
century rapier, provided the foundation for nearly all fencing
instruction thereafter. Fencers in this period, disconnected from and
ignorant of martial arts from previous centuries, came therefore to
incorrectly believe that their own method of fencing for gentlemanly
single duels with light slender thrusting swords or light dueling
sabres was a superior "evolutionary" advance over the vicious and
brutal ways of the distant past. Concern for aesthetics and form came
to dominate how certain men chose to defend themselves. The modern myth
then developed that "crude and simplistic" cutting had been replaced by
"superior" thrusting. With the emergence of modern militaries in the
new age of advanced firearms and cannon, the environment and conditions
under which men now fought in earnest with swords and other hand
weapons was much less frequent, far less demanding and not nearly as
diverse as it had been in the pre-Baroque era. Fencing by the 19 th
century became far more specialized and narrowly focused on formal
duels of gentlemanly single-combat with secondary considerations for
light cavalry. Even among the limited military use of sabers,
broadswords, and cutlasses, gone now were any concerns for fighting
under varied circumstances against multiple opponents, dissimilar
weaponry, pole-arms, shields, or armors. Virtually totally absent now
were concerns about closing-in techniques for seizing and disarming,
grappling and wrestling, two-weapon combinations, etc.; in effect, all
the considerations that encompass all-out fighting for a martial art of
battlefield utility or general self-defense. Fencing also shifted in
this era toward less serious and less potentially dangerous duelling to
eventually become a sporting game. Thus, rather than any "golden age"
of refined and "superior science" of defense, fencing in this period
metamorphosed into a sport and therefore can be viewed instead as a
remnant of earlier more sophisticated and dynamic European martial
traditions. See: Historical
Fencing Studies: The British Heritage.
16. Traditions of Medieval and Renaissance
fighting arts survived as a "living lineage."
False. Over time through
disuse and neglect the necessity for close-combat skill with older arms
and armor vanished and were replaced by newer concerns primarily for
ritual duels and sporting play. The very reason we must now reconstruct
and revive these lost arts from historical source literature is
precisely because they first grew irrelevant, then obsolete, soon
atrophied, then finally became almost wholly extinct. That is why so
little is known about them. No one living today was trained by any
historical (i.e., Medieval or Renaissance) Master of Defence or even by
anyone who themselves was indirectly trained by one. No one living
today has experience in using authentic Medieval and Renaissance
weaponry in life and death combat nor was trained by anyone who had. No
one living today was taught by anyone who retained unchanging knowledge
of these old styles and lost systems. Nor can anyone living today
document with verifiable evidence that any genuine surviving teachings
or methods from these old methods persisted unbroken down through the
centuries as either a local custom or cultural tradition. Time has
severed the links. There was a cultural and pedagogical disconnect.
While there are core similarities and fundamental principles universal
to the concept of armed combat that have remained unchanged, our modern
fencing is based largely upon Baroque-era styles and not upon the
weaponry and skills of earlier European martial arts. Modern styles of
fencing retain very little of Medieval and Renaissance era teachings
and techniques. Instead they have for several centuries focused on
substantially different kinds of tools used under considerably
different conditions of practice. Starting in the late 19th
century a handful of historians of arms and fencing masters began an
effort to explore earlier fighting methods, which they recognized as
having been abandoned. But even then they had to struggle to rebuild
and recover what little remained from those styles within their modern
fencing as they knew no Medieval and Renaissance teachings still
existed among masters or within schools. However, despite much
pioneering experiment their respectable efforts resulted in an
understanding that is now viewed as incomplete and flawed. There are no
"living traditions" or "living lineages" of Medieval and Renaissance
fencing. There is no method of combat-effective teachings
(i.e., devised for and intended for use in real combat) from these eras
that has survived as a martial down to even the 18th century, let alone
later times. What little that has survived of earlier
swordplay and weapon skills within modern fencing is derivative of
fencing for ritualized dueling applied now within a purely sporting
context. These styles, even the cut-and-thrust versions, are
post-Renaissance in origin with little to no connection to the far
older extinct systems now at last being systematically investigated and
reconstructed. There are no more historical masters of Medieval or
Renaissance fighting arts, nothing was hidden away or "secretly"
preserved, and modern fencing masters are not the repositories for
these styles of swordsmanship. Those claiming otherwise are frauds and
deceivers. See: Historical
Fencing Studies: The British Heritage & Martial
Art or Combat Sport.
17. These extinct martial arts cannot be
accurately reconstructed or credibly resurrected by relying on books.
False. We can recover the
teachings and the fighting techniques from the voluminous technical
manuals and highly detailed study guides the old masters left behind
(many of which are heavily illustrated) provided we vigorously train
and seriously experiment. We can further work now with these teachings
derived from authentic historical sources in drill, exercise, and
serious contact sparing, not merely some stunt routine or choreographed
performance. This process of interpretation and application is not easy
and requires considerable continuous effort, academically and
physically, to test or revise assumptions. But we can reach a confident
approximation of these lost fighting systems by following in the same
manner by which they trained and the methods by which they practiced.
The challenge is to do so in a manner that is historically valid and
martially sound. What we redevelop may not be the exact art they had,
since we do not study it for survival anymore. But nonetheless, it is
no less accurate and authentic than any other "extant tradition" of
martial art that has purportedly survived unaltered by oral tradition
to present times without such a wealth of supporting literary and
iconographic sources. Uniquely, the source literature of Renaissance
Martial Arts itself tells us that reliance on books, while incomplete
on its own, is vital for learning.
Yes, we do have a continual task
of subjective interpretation and analysis facing us -- even as we gain
increasing confidence in understanding the totality of their teachings
-- but such interpretation and subsequent experimental application is a
necessary aspect of its revival. The means by which these skills were
once acquired may be what is now missing to us, but the methods
themselves were preserved. After all, the real richness of any martial
tradition is in its physical movement and lessons on applying core
principles, the things learned in person from those who know. This
instructional literature, surviving among voluminous treatises and
collected works, is therefore something that as a community of students
we have very much inherited. Despite being extinct and little known,
this material is unequaled in its technical and iconographic detail. It
arguably represents the most well documented martial arts teachings in
history. While we may never know with full confidence how our craft was
authentically performed or practiced by the historical Masters of
Defence, our source teachings don’t suffer from being sportified,
commercialized, or mythologized. Thus, we have come to know
--with great depth -- their theories, principles, concepts, techniques,
and philosophy of self-defense. See: The Modern Study of
Renaissance Martial Arts.
18. Some swords could cut through plate armor.
False. Although maile armor
("chain mail") was not foolproof against strong sword cuts, a fighter
in full plate armor was however effectively immune to the edged blows
of swords. There are no real-life accounts of edge blows effectively
cutting through an armored harness; that is one reason why plate armor
was so popular and so much effort put into perfecting it. Though swords
were not capable of cutting through plate armor, a fighter would not
avoid striking edge blows against an armored opponent if it might
bruise or stun him, knock him about, tear into or crack open his helmet
or visor, slice through straps and tear off pieces, or otherwise weaken
his defense against a more effective technique such as a thrust. While
sword cuts that would have been debilitating or lethal on bare flesh
might have no effect against soft or hard types of armor, if delivered
with great force they could sometimes traumatized the tissue and bone
beneath and thereby incapacitate a target. Although, to be accurate,
not all armor was of equal quality and some type of helms could indeed
be partially split by edge blows from swords. While there are many
images from Medieval sources of swords cutting into armor or through
helmets, nothing in the historical accounts of actual armored combat or
the voluminous instructional texts on armored fighting supports this as
being common. Modern experiments, when performed under realistic
conditions with historically accurate weapons using proper technique
against historically accurate reproduction armor, have yet to
convincingly duplicate what is depicted in such images. An armored
fighter was still vulnerable to sharply-pointed tapering swords and
other weapons employed in thrusting as well as to crushing from
specialized anti-armor weapons. Yet even thrusts against plate armor
were difficult to succeed with because it was intentionally designed to
deflect and resist them, thus gaps and joints were typically targeted.
Yet descriptions of fights with specialized weapons designed for
fighting plate armor, such as pole-axes and maces, reveal even they
were able to pierce through armor only infrequently. More often they
were effective in simply denting and cracking armor to stun and bruise
the wearer into a vulnerable condition. But, given strong effort and a
hit to the right spot, a rigid point stabbing strongly could puncture
armor even if its cutting edge would not. (See: "Medieval
Armor: Plated Perfection" in Military History, July 2005).
19. There was no grappling or wrestling in
rapier fencing.
False. Close-in techniques
for seizing an opponent and throwing them, trapping their weapon,
locking up their arm or otherwise immobilizing them, were common in
Medieval and Renaissance fighting. They formed a vital
foundation for all systems of defense and indeed grappling or wrestling
were considered by many masters to be the basis of all fencing.
Historical accounts of armed combat where these moves were employed are
numerous while fencing texts from the period almost always included
detailed sections on the craft or even entire works devoted to it. They
even included kicking, empty hand strikes, joint locks, and nerve
pinches. This applied to rapier fencing almost as much as it did to
earlier forms of cut-and-thrust swordplay. See: Grappling
& Wrestling in Renaissance Fencing.
20. Formal duels of honor were the preferred
means of settling fights in the Renaissance.
False. The term "duel" can
apply to a wide range of ritualized and formal fighting from judicial
combats to street fights to formal duels of honor in the Medieval and
Renaissance eras. The history of duelling in the Renaissance period has
however tended to focus upon those accounts by a few chroniclers of the
aristocracy who recorded the duels of nobles for their audiences of
upper class peers; the ones with the leisure time to concern themselves
with codes of honor and formal challenges to their reputation,
character, and social status. These works have tended to focus upon
formal duel and challenges and not on the more common everyday
scuffles, street-fights, rencounters, affrays, ambushes, brawls,
drunken violence, and assassinations, which predominated. Men went
about armed after all not so they could just agree to formal combats at
some later appointed time and place, but because they lived in a very
violent world where self-defense was a necessity against the daily
possibility of personal assault. Going about so armed probably
prevented as many of these fights as it aggravated. However, popular
culture and fencing histories since the 19th
century (a time in which formal duels increased to become the norm at
the same time their danger and lethality actually decreased) has tended
to emphasize duels among cavalier gentlemen as being the standard of
the period. This imprecise view more or less survives still today.
21. Only nobles fought duels.
False. Commoners as well as
nobles in different parts of Europe fought different kinds of duels,
both official and ad hoc. Judicial duels between commoners often had
special rules in place concerning the conditions as distinct from those
permitted nobles. Challenges to single combat between commoners,
whether as sudden street-fights or more private affairs, both emulated
as well as influenced the duels of honor among the aristocracy.
22. The rapier developed to defeat armor.
False. The rapier was
specifically developed for unarmored civilian combat and was not a
weapon of war for the battlefield. While it is frequently stated that
larger swords were produced to face heavier armorers, the fact is, over
time, swords actually got larger as armor use declined. Swords also eventually became
lighter and thinner only as effective firearms all but eliminated the
customary value of armor. During the age of plate armor special swords
for piercing into its gaps and joints were developed but these stiff,
heavy, edgeless weapons (sometimes known as tucks or estocs) were a
different branch of sword family and not the forerunner of the later
rapier. The true rapier developed rather out of existing cut-and-thrust
arming swords ("side swords") for the purpose of urban self-defense and
had no relation to traditional knightly weapons of war for fighting
heavy armor. Indeed, many 16th and 17th
century accounts refer to the inability of rapiers to pierce maile
armor or even simple heavy leather coats. See: Questions
and Answers About the Rapier.
23. The rapier was strictly a gentleman's
weapon.
False.
A weapon is not invented to fight itself, but created to fight (or
outfight) existing arms and armor. So it was with the rapier.
Renaissance swordsmen did not create it over night so that they could
then go about asking others to duel them with the new invention. The
rapier may have helped encouraged the later craze for private duels of
honor but it was not their cause nor exclusive weapon.
The rapier, interestingly, has no direct lineage to knightly weapons of
war, which were the traditional tools of noble fighting men and those
originally employed in their duels and judicial combats. Though it
descended from cut-and-thrust style arming swords suited to military
use, the rapier actually originated among common citizens and soldiers
with their frequent street-fighting, brawling, urban gang wars, and
yes, duelling. The earliest references to the weapon in use
surrounds urban homicides, criminal assaults, and common fighting
guilds, and was not immediately associated with either fencing masters
or aristocratic duels of honor (as it was in time to become so closely
linked to and perfected for). As the weapon and its new method of
fencing became more and more associated with genteel duels of honor,
wearing and using it became more than ever an expression of class and
wealth (or at least pretensions to both).
24. True rapiers could make lethal or
debilitating edge cuts.
False. No historical rapier
text teaches, implies, or expresses that edge blows with true rapiers,
that is, the slender narrow blade forms developed in the 1570s or
1580s, killed by cut. Indeed, several historical sources
specifically criticized these kind of rapiers for their lack of lethal
cutting capacity. No historical accounts in the voluminous evidence of
rapier combats describe rapiers as killing with cuts (or debilitating
limbs by edge blows) but only as producing assorted lacerations and
scratches. Modern experiments with replica weapons as well as antique
specimens supports this understanding. Despite what for decades has
been depicted as being performed in stunt fencing with these weapons,
true rapiers (unlike their cut-and-thrust cousins) simply lack the edge
bevel, blade width, and weapon mass to produce lethal cutting
wounds. As ideal thrusting swords that's simply not what they
were designed to do, otherwise why even produce any wider cutting
blades? See: Questions
and Answers About the Rapier.
25. The Renaissance rapier replaced the older
heavy and crude Medieval "broadsword."
False. The common view of
European sword history has been that of a "progressive line" from wide
"weighty" and "awkward" Medieval cutting blades used with one or two
hands toward lighter cut-and-thrust forms, then the slender thrusting
rapier, and finally the agile diminutive smallsword. This pervading
view is simplistic, inaccurate, and misleading. The "evolution" of
swords and fencing in Western Europe did not occur in a straight line
and did not proceed in an environment immune from the technological and
social transformation wrought by firearms and cannon.
Medieval swords themselves existed in several forms, many of which were
quite narrow. As swords necessary to fight against heavier
weapons and armors became less necessary by the early 16th
century due to changing military technology, a variety of versatile
cut-and-thrust military swords came into use. From these the innovative
rapier soon developed as a light, quick, thrusting weapon for
self-defense in street fighting and urban duelling. Rapiers were ideal
for this kind of unarmored civilian single-combat. But on the whole
rapiers never faced and defeated military swords so that the later were
somehow abandoned or discarded and fighting men switched over to the
new sword en masse. A considerable variety of large cutting and
thrusting blades in fact persisted in wide use throughout the rapier's
popular run of roughly 200-years. It is a matter of history that swords
and fencing in Europe each altered in response to changing martial and
social factors. It is important to remember that in the
Renaissance, as in the Middle Ages, there was continual experimentation
going on in the development of effective sword designs and hence,
continual exploration in ways of using them. The social and cultural
changes in the early 1500s that produced the rapier and its affiliated
schools of fence, as well as those in the late 1600s which brought
about the smallsword, must each be viewed within their own martial
context. Sword designs did not change by themselves. Men changed them.
They changed them to do new things or better things that previous
existing kinds of swords did not. It is by identifying and
understanding just what those things were that we can better understand
the history and metamorphosis of swords.
26. The 18th century
smallsword defeated and replaced the longer, slower, clumsier rapier.
False. There is no evidence
that longer thrusting blades for unarmored combat were somehow deemed
suddenly inferior to shorter and lighter ones so that fighting men
switched to it out of necessity. There is also no evidence that rapiers
were either defeated or overcome by a new design of quicker thrusting
sword. No accounts of sword duels or combats are known to substantially
support such a view. The earliest smallsword fencing texts also do not
address the gradual change in sword styles and the commensurate
altering of technique that took place in civilian swordplay during the
mid-to-late 17th century. This process of
transition itself did not occur all at once. The Baroque smallsword
developed among the aristocracy from the rapier rather as a more
convenient and more elegant weapon of formal gentlemanly duels at a
time when swords themselves (especially inconveniently long ones) were
becoming increasingly obsolete for war as well as irrelevant for
general self-defense. The smallsword (court-sword or walking-sword) was
easy to manage and carry about crowded towns, when riding in carriages
or wearing with ornate formal clothing in an age when aesthetics and
style was increasingly important within aristocratic culture. It
reflected a style of fighting emphasizing deportment, composure, grace,
finesse, and proper decorum rather than sheer martial effectiveness and
the weapon was often worn solely as ornamentation by anyone professing
gentility. It was an effective tool but did not regularly face, nor was
it called upon to resist, the diverse range of weapons and opponents
that its Renaissance ancestor the rapier encountered. The lighter
quicker smallsword also did not on its own cause the dagger to vanish
as a defensive companion weapon of single-combat or duelling. Rather,
it was the dagger's social stigma and close-in lethality that
discouraged its use among gentlemen duelists. Daggers, being
shorter and lighter than swords, are extremely dangerous and difficult
to combat when in close. Doing away with them in civilian swordplay
reduced the lethality of formal duels and made the ritual safer for
gentlemen fencers to better avoid the more potentially lethal outcomes
that such weapons tended to promote. The smallsword's ascendancy in
civilian duels lasted some 200 years. It succeeded the rapier, but did
not replace it entirely and cannot be viewed as either superior or
inferior to it. Instead, it was adapted to the particular niche of its
age. But, in keeping with views toward advancement in science
and technology, it is understandable that fencers from its time would
eventually come to see it as an evolution over swords that had been
long out of common use. See: Questions
and Answers About the Rapier.
27. Prior to the 16th century, swords were
used only for "offense" and not in "defensive" actions.
False. An oft-encountered
assertion in writings on swords and fencing history is that prior to
the 16th century swords were not used for "guarding". The
usual assertion is that fighting men instead relied on their shields
and their armor alone for defense and never their sword. This
inaccurate view so widely accepted in the 19th century is false for a
number of reasons. Fighting postures that employ a sword to ward or
protect as well as threaten are inherent to any form of swordplay (or
for that matter, to the effective use of nearly any archaic
hand-weapon, ranging from a dagger to a spear to an axe). A warrior
carried a shield to protect himself from attack but could certainly use
it offensively as a secondary weapon. He put on armor in
case he was hit not so that he could be hit.
No fighting man was going to purposely receive a blow on his armor if
he could help it. If he could avoid a blow entirely or deflect it with
his off hand he obviously did not have to use his sword for that
purpose and was thereby left free to use it in
counter-attack. This was not any deficiency of "parrying" at
work in Medieval and Renaissance fencing, but a quite valid and
intentional methodology. Earlier fencing styles did indeed have an
assortment of efficient ways for defending against attacks with their
swords alone. The primary means of defending with the sword to was a
counter-strike that simultaneously deflected an oncoming blow and
struck back. The secondary means was to just knock it aside,
close and intercept it, or else actively receive it in a manner that
permitted a rapid return strike. The least desirable or effective was
to passively block an attack with a static position.
28. Parrying cuts with the edge of a cutting
sword was a common and preferred means of defense in Medieval and
Renaissance swordplay.
False. There is no direct
evidence in Medieval and Renaissance fencing literature (or within
historical accounts and fictional tales of sword combat) for blocking
cutting blows with the edge of a cutting sword as being a common, let
alone preferred, action. There is actually considerable evidence
instructing not to do so. Active defense was instead achieved
by hitting the oncoming blade edge against flat, or else receiving the
edge of the oncoming cut with the flat while moving into it. Otherwise,
a cut might also be intercepted on the edge at the intersecting
shoulder of the blade and the cross-guard while moving in against the
attack. Intentionally blocking with the edge, despite its ubiquity in
stunt fencing performances and widespread use in later fencing, was a
sure way of unnecessarily damaging a sword and risking it breaking.
See: The
Myth of Edge Parrying in Medieval and Renaissance Swordplay.
29. All European fencing is based upon the idea
of "parry and riposte" fighting.
False. The ideal of making a
separate parrying action (or defensive block) prior to delivering a
follow-up attack became predominant only in the fencing systems of the
late 17th and early 18th
centuries. Prior to this, the means of defending against cuts and
thrusts consisted essentially of a single action that counter-attacked
by displacing the oncoming blow with a strike while simultaneously
hitting back. This element is common in the armed fighting arts of many
cultures. Or else parrying was achieved by closing in to stifle an
attack before it impacted by moving to encounter it against the hilt
(where there was greater leverage) at the lower portion of the
attacker's weapon (where there was less momentum). These elements are
almost entirely absent from the later methods of fencing developed
during the very different military environment and civilian
self-defense conditions of the 18th
century
which relied almost exclusively on a "parry-riposte" method of defense.
Other than this, Medieval and Renaissance swordsmen were taught to void
or dodge attacks entirely while delivering their own strike to the
opening created by the opponent's own attack. Many 15th and 16th
century fencing teachers stressed the virtue of counterstriking
rather parrying and even emphasized that offense was defense. In
later fencing styles
(chiefly based on the method of the smallsword) the parrying of cuts
became a static action employing a rigid position using the edge (but
still nearest the hilt), which was then followed by a separate attack
from that position. This is the familiar edge-to-edge action seen in
most stage-combat and saber fencing.
30. Medieval knightly combat was always
chivalrous and courteous.
False. There were certainly
customary protocols to virtually every aspect of Medieval (and
Renaissance) society, and courtesy as an aspect of chivalry was a large
part of the martial sport of knightly tournaments as well as the ritual
combat of judicial duels. But personal armed combat at this time was a
violent, brutal, and bloody affair with little room for niceties and
false etiquette. While social norms have always influenced ritual
elements of close combat among different social classes, such as within
duels, the chivalric literature of the period largely reflected an
idealized manner of courteous combat that was contradicted by the harsh
reality of survival in violent situations. Fencing masters and authors
on combat teachings or dueling codes made clear that a fighting man was
free to use whatever worked within individual combat and that naive
courtesy was foolish when your life was at stake. The historical
record of battlefield fighting, judicial combats, streetfights,
ambushes, sudden assaults, and duels firmly establishes this. While
episodes of noticeable mercy, compassion, and fair-play are known, so
too are ones of unscrupulous deceit, duplicity, and underhanded
behavior. The pragmatic reality lies somewhere in between.
31. Double-edge swords are inferior to
single-edge swords.
False. A sword was designed
with existing technology as a tool to meet a desired function, that of
doing harm to another or preventing harm to oneself. Both
single and double-edged swords were produced across many cultures. Each
has advantages and disadvantages and was the subject of almost
continuous experiment and refinement as armors improved and the
conditions of combat changed. Single-edged blades tended to allow for
more powerful cuts and were more fitting on curved swords that slice or
slash. Double-edged blades were well suited to stiffer tapering swords
that permit better thrusting and allow for more versatile techniques
(i.e., back edge cuts, half-swording, throwing, etc.). Renaissance
fighting men employed numeoru stsyles of single edge swords, from
single-edged warswords to falchions to messers, stortas, badelairs,
braquemarts, back-swords, and the two-handed saberlike grossmesser.
32. Some swords had two edges so that when one
was ruined the other could be used.
False. Since ancient times
two-edged and single-edged swords have been designed and used, often
within the same cultures and fighting communities. There are only two
ways to produce a cutting sword; it either has a single edge or a
double one. Two edges are a natural result of producing a flat straight
blade that is ideal for thrusting and chopping at resistant materials.
Although a blade with a single edge has a wider bevel that allows for a
deeper cut, and has a stiffer back that permits greater stress; a
double-edged sword does permit a greater range of techniques (you can
cut both ways with it). While a fighter could conceivably rely on one
edge more than another or switch should it become dull or heavily
nicked, this was not its purpose (since either edge could just as
quickly become damaged as easily in the same manner). But no historical
evidence exists to support the assertion that a two-edge blade design
was intentional because one edge was expected to become ruined. In
fact, three out of five of the major cuts performed in Renaissance
fencing are delivered with the back edge of the sword.
33. Medieval and Renaissance fighting men did
not conduct any mock-combat weapon "sparring" in their training.
False. Modern research in
historical European martial arts has revealed considerable evidence in
Europe from the 12th to 17th centuries for several different forms of
mock combat used as earnest self-defense training, battlefield
rehearsal, ritual display, and sporting contest. From
knightly tournaments to prize-playing contests to bouting a few veneys
or assaults at arms and impromptu scrimmaging, the evidence for "free
play" or "playing loose" as practice-fighting is substantial. This
activity involved substantial contact, and not
merely pulled blows or surface touches. Examination of the
methods by which this kind of "sparring" was pursued (e.g., its
equipment, its intent and purpose, its permissible techniques and
safety considerations, and its risk of injury, etc.) is a main area of
exploration in historical fencing studies. See: To Spar
or Not to Spar.
34. European fighting systems never included
any spiritual or ethical components.
False. It is uncommon to
find Renaissance Martial Arts teachings that did not address ethical or
spiritual matters. Not only do most of the source texts on Renaissance
Martial Arts (as well as much literature of that age) contain direct
references to what is and is not ethical behavior among fighting men,
they also offer advice on the avoidance of fights and comment on when
and where and under what conditions it is appropriate to use violent
force. Masters of Defense did not teach fighting skills in a cultural
vacuum but drew upon classical learning, Christian morality, chivalric
traditions, and humanist ideas. These elements formed much of the later
ideal of what it means in Western civilization to be an officer and a
gentleman.
35. Flex-testing a sword is a good way to
demonstrate the quality of its blade.
False. The mistake of flex-testing sword blades today
(i.e., giving it a slow bend by hand then holding it there) is
something that has become quite common as a result of misleading
information among reproduction sword manufacturers and their commercial
distributors. Sword enthusiasts today frequently fall victim to this
misconception that their swords must have a tremendous flex to them
that can be repeatedly demonstrated, not realizing that not only is
this not a true sign of a well-made fighting sword but that each time
they do this they damage the structure of the blade. Each time the test
is performed the blade is weakened as bending begins to exceed the
steel's stress limits. Over time such damage will eventually cause the
blade to fail under stress. Repeated slow flexing will also prevent the
blade from returning true. Flex testing is supposedly a way of showing
good resilience and blade quality but the action is misleading and all
but useless for demonstrating a sword's sturdiness for combat. Slow
flexing is a gradual application of force to a blade that it will never
really see in actual use. Real swords need to be quite rigid yet still
be flexible under stress. This is a matter of having good resilience,
not "whippiness" or a "noodly" flexibility. Many modern replica swords
cannot be test-flexed at all because they are of inferior temper or
poor metallurgical quality and will either snap or stay bent.
Ironically, many kinds of actual historical specimens would also not
pass such a test either, as their blades were very often exceptionally
rigid. (In fact, this is how the sword of a dishonored man or
surrendered leader would be broken, by straining it in a bend so that
it snapped). Different portions of a blade typically will not have the
same degrees of flexibility due to cross-sectional
differences. Thus, a slow test bending by hand at one portion
of the blade does not equate to a fast flexing under force at other
portions as would occur when a sword stabs strongly at a resistant
target or is struck forcibly against its flat at the middle or lower
near the hilt.
Historically, proving a blade was accomplished in
various ways. An early method was by making a heavy blow on a block of
wood or iron, first with the flat, then with the edge, and lastly with
the back followed by briefly bending the blade flat-wise against it.
The operation concluded by driving the point through a thin iron plate,
which later became known as the "Toledo test". Several 17th
and 18th century French fencing masters wrote
how one should never force a bend in a blade as it may cause the blade
to be weakened and break upon use. They stated some tests of thrusting
swords involved a quick thrust at a firm target to note how the weapon
sprung back to proper straightness. In the 19th
century military sword tests could include smashing one down on a hard
surface or sticking it in a block and bending until it broke. Different
kinds of blades with different shapes and cross-sectional geometries
will typically have gradual change in the degree of flexibility along
their length. Most cutting blades will actually reflex spring at the
striking portion when impacting with a strong blow (this all but
invisible elastic recovery can be witnessed in slow motion videos of
test-cutting against substantial materials but it is near impossible to
display or check through slow bending a blade by hand). This is why
impact testing for cutting blades is a true test of quality, not mere
flexing. Impact strength has little to do with flexibility. As well,
slender thrusting blade shapes with more "corners" or sides will have
much less flexibility than would be the case if they had flatter or
rounded cross-sections.
Strangely, the very defect
of too much flexibility in a blade is frequently assumed as the measure
of a good sword. This error likely comes from confusing flexibility in
a blade with the plastic elasticity of its steel; elasticity is
necessary, but flexibility is useless and always detrimental in a
fighting blade. Although quick and effective parrying demands a certain
amount of elasticity in a fighting blade, whether for cutting or
thrusting it is impossible to have one be too stiff. There is no
possible use of a sword in cutting, thrusting, or guarding, in which
great flexibility would be advantageous. Sport fencing blades are of
course extremely flexible by nature in order to prevent injuries that
would result if genuine stiff weapons were used in the same manner.
Historical fighting weapons intended to do real harm were not designed
this way.
36. Japanese katanas wielded by samurai cut
through European military swords in martial encounters.
False. No documentable
verifiable evidence has come to light of any incidents where personal
combats between Renaissance-era European swordsmen and feudal Japanese
samurai resulted in a sword being cut or broken. Interestingly, a Dutch
account from the year 1669 does describe a demonstration occurring at a
temple in Japan wherein a European smallsword was set up stationary and
cut in two. However, putting the account into context, it is
important to know these light blades were very narrow and slender
civilian weapons designed for unarmed dueling, not military blades for
cutting, and were also well-known to snap during fights if grabbed and
forcefully strained by a bare hand. Further, an account from Scotland
in the year 1689 similarly described how pikes and smallswords were cut
clean through by Scottish broadswords as well as how pikes,
smallswords, and muskets had been snapped by blows from single-handed
claymores. So, the cutting of a smallsword is no particular feat. No
reliable evidence exists for any real-life incident wherein any
historical Japanese fighting sword cut through any historical European
fighting sword during combat. (And no, evidence is not
defined either by what appears in Anime or by anecdotal claims that a
friend of a friend's cousin's brother's sister-in-law's uncle knew a
guy whose old master's master once heard a story.)
37. Japanese katanas are the ultimate swords in
the universe because they routinely cut completely through Volkswagens
and employ secret powers of "Ki".
False. ...And if you believe
otherwise, nothing will likely convince you.
38. Historical European martial arts were
really copied from Asian martial traditions.
False. They were actually
stolen from Amazonian Martian cyborgs who are in fact the true
ancestors of ancient Africans via Atlantis. ...But
seriously, refer to entries 1, 2, and 3 above.
39. A really well made sword should never break.
False.
Sometimes swords broke. This is a historical a fact for all swords in
all cultures through history. They were typically well made and
resilient (they
had to be) but they were not indestructible. They were perishable tools
with
limited working lifetimes. Depending on how much use and abuse they
were put
through under particular conditions that period could vary widely. Like
any
human hand made object they might also sometimes have flaws that
rendered
them less durable.
40. "Real" Masters of Arms still exist
When
someone today is accredited as a "master of arms" by a fencing
federation this exclusively means that they are recognized by that
organization as having earned expertise only in teaching the modern
form of sport fencing. The title only holds relevance for the modern
competitive collegiate/Olympic fencing styles using the tools of epee,
foil, and sabre. It has nothing whatsoever to do with knowledge or
mastery of a historical martial art of self-defense using military
weaponry of even the 19th century, let alone from any European fighting
arts of the pre-Baroque era. No modern school of fencing anywhere
retained connections back to Medieval and Renaissance close-combat
combat skills nor preserved any authentic instructional methods of
their techniques.
The
whole
process of being taught by a teacher who comes from a "line" of
teachers is meaningless unless there is some preserved core skill-set
of collected knowledge that was retained unchanged and transmitted
unbroken from instructor to instructor along the way. For the martial
arts of the Renaissance, we know this was not the case. Virtually
nothing survived the generations to be retained and passed on by later
fencing masters using wholly different tools and methods for far
narrower conditions of self-defense. It is one thing today to construct
a new curriculum of martial skills based on interpretation of the
historical methods within the surviving source literature, and then
call yourself a "master" of that new reconstructed effort. But it's
something else entirely to claim some unique authority in this subject
by virtue of some supposed "special learning" acquired from some dead
modern fencing instructor who allegedly preserved "secret knowledge" of
lost arts. In the first case it is called renewal and revival; in the
second it's simply called fraud. What makes such claims all
the
more pathetic is when self-proclaimed experts today exhibit
comparatively
mediocre fighting skills.
It can also be surmised that as 19th and
early 20th
century arms historians and fencing writers examined wrote extensively
on how swords and swordsmanship from past eras was supposedly
crude and clumsy, had any fencing master at the time known differently,
they would surely have spoken up to correct their mistaken peers.
Had any of them had a better conception of the true nature of
Medieval and Renaissance fighting arts and close-combat skills, they
would have exposed the mistakes and myths then being perpetuated, if
not to reveal their superior knowledge then simply to give proper
credit to their own heritage. That none are documented as having
stepped forward to do so, but instead recorded as largely regurgitating
the same general consensus errors, tells us great deal about how much
had been forgotten and lost. This fact alone exposes the lie of there
having been modern era fencing masters still wise to the lost methods
of earlier European martial arts. They could not provide wisdom they
did not possess. Modern fencing masters and “masters of arms”
long ago ceased being Masters of Defence expert in martial arts, and
had since become mere sport coaches.
41. The use of axes, maces, and
warhammers in close-combat was unique.
False.
It is often asked why there is apparently no surviving
instructional literature within Medieval or Renaissance fighting
disciplines for employing common weapons such as maces, axes, and
warhammer? The likely answer is that there simply was no need
for
it. First, these weapons were not nearly as prevalent during the later
Middle Ages and Renaissance eras as popular media (and Victorian
sources) have tended to give us the impression they were.
Second,
the observation can be made that such concussion weapons
(often
used against heavier armors or simply employed by secondary troops) do
not require particular skills or specialized technique. As has been
suggested, their use is really a matter of aiming, swinging hard, then
repeating as necessary. The most probable reason we can conjecture then
for why they are noticeably absent from the instructional fighting
literature is that clubs, maces, warhammers, axes, are in every way
superseded by proper study of the sword along with the polaxe, the
spear/staff, and the dagger. After all, while there
was long
recognized such things as swordsmanship and swordsmen we do not read of
“axemanship” or “mace-men.”
In summation,
there is a world of difference between the earnest study of a diverse
martial art of armed and unarmed historical fighting skills and the
practice of fencing for ritual honor combats, duelling
sports, or entertainment display. While the above list presents some of
the major myths pervading the subject of historical European martial
arts they are far from the only ones. Myths about sword construction
and sword evolution alone would fill several articles. We might just as
well include many others and new myths and misconceptions are
developing even today. That many of these myths are mutually
contradicting is itself evidence of the extent of misinformation found
largely in film, television, anime, video and board games, historical
reenactment, sport fencing, and stunt fighting.
Robust debate and vigorous dissension are
certainly not to be shunned in discourse on a subject as varied and
open to investigation as this. But because inaccurate and erroneous
assumptions are so widespread it is fortunate there are now assets that
can be devoted full time toward compiling credible and verifiable
information from diverse areas. Though exploration of this craft is
still in its infancy, the old orthodox view of fencing history, as well
as the general mistakes popularly held about swords, is finally
beginning to fade in the light of new and better information.
A
fencer learns the basic actions of fighting by exercising in repetitive
movements and partnered routines of attack and counter-attack. But
skill in the art is not acquired just by doing
drills and
exercises. The more effective and better-prepared fighter will be the
one whose practice comes to reflect the energy and tempo of real
close-combat.
|