The Danger of Tunnel Vision...

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

666

[John_Clements]

Well, ours has always been a holistic approach.
I have long argued that while specialization of study is good individually, on the whole you have to take a broader approach, one that cross references and seeks commonality while equally recognizing differences. You can only do that with a more comprehensive approach. In the end it helps out everything.

It's in the same way that studying the staff helps your long sword, and dagger helps short sword, and all of them help rapier, etc.

It's like studying early English literature, you don't do it in a vacuum. You don't ignore Chaucer if you are studying Shakespeare, and you don't ignore Beowulf and the Arthurian tradition if you study Chaucer. And in the process you can't ignore Homer. You are aided by understanding similar themes or earlier sources of influences.

Yet, in our subject today, I detect certain folk just want very much to see things as "separate" so as to better enable them now to pretend to be a "specialist" or the "expert" on one small aspect (having its own distinct ethno-cultural identity) while ignoring the harder work on the whole. Make sense?

JC

[Mike Cartier]

well i do agree with you on several points but i think you can also miss stuff by going outside a source from what your working on.

We study Meyer almost exclusivley, using longsword, polearms, Diusack, Rappier, Ringen and Dagger. Meyer represents a hybrid art IMHO , the German school with his addition of Italian cut and thrust.

I think the best approach is to focus on one manual for a long long time, i have been personally working Meyer longsword for about 4-5 years now and Dusack for something like 2 years and i am still only scratching the surface of it , constantly reevaluating it in light on information from other parts of the book.

BUT we can only do this because we have a base of knowledge and knowledgeabblre people at ARMA to fall back on. And like you say ARMA takes a more braod view of the material. So we at ARMA-SFL get the best of both worlds.

[Bill Welch]

JC wrote
"Yet, in our subject today, I detect certain folk just want very much to see things as "separate" so as to better enable them now to pretend to be a "specialist" or the "expert" on one small aspect (having its own distinct ethno-cultural identity) while ignoring the harder work on the whole. Make sense? "

AMEN!!!!

[s_taillebois]

As M. Welch & Clement's noted there would be the tendancy to imply seperation because of the implications of specialization or 'mastery''.
And no doubt there were regional emphasis and variations. However, mayhaps there's a tendancy by some to assume too much isolation on the part of our forebearers. Ritter caravans would often hire various men at arms to protect their caravans, and it wasn't unknown for traders to themselves learn the art. Especially after fight manuals began to be printed.
And whilst in Chartres, Flanders or as far afield as Kiev or Constantinople discourse about the sword arts likely occurred genteely or by other means. (although at some fair towns the local ruler was strong enough to ensure that weapons were constrained within the town walls...it wouldn't have stopped discussion or 'friendly' sparring outside)
With the armor plated aristocracy, some were sent as diplomatic envoys, or held as hostages in some fairly far afield places. And would have likely talked trade in their travels.
And with the medicant orders, as envoys, couriers and such, some monks were the equivalent of a postal service centuries prior to when national governments established a like system. Plus what the laity may have picked up on pilgrimage (which often weren't as pious as some believe...more like a moveable social visit with an atonement at the end) . The pilgrims staff for example wasn't carried soley as a religious symbol.
And when books become cheaper with the development of printing, smaller scale versions became a trade item.
And this is without even considering the interchange of sword arts as a result of crusades, wars between rulers and etc.
Some original fight manual authors could be somewhat chavinistic in their opinion of other countries styles. Silver for example, but he was writing when nationalism was a fairly new concept...and so may have been knowingly pushing the line.
And anyway, to talk of a German style, Italian or etc, is a little touchy dependent on the period being reviewed There may have been sword styles which people identified with, but they may not have considered it to be a national style as such....because those identitys took a long time to conceptually develop. A Burgundian may have fought in a French manner, but they often didn't percieve themselves as French.

[Nathan Dexter]

I mostly agree with you, however, in the period, you would study under your teacher, and probably learn a lot from experience. However i think that studying from more sources is especially valuable today, because we don't have masters to learn from.

[Jaron Bernstein]

I support the holistic approach. To use just one great example, Codex Wallerstein and the Albrecht Durer book both illuminate the other, and the various Lichtenaeur masters have a similar effect.

[s_taillebois]

I mostly agree with you, however, in the period, you would study under your teacher, and probably learn a lot from experience. However i think that studying from more sources is especially valuable today, because we don't have masters to learn from.

Quite true, and what we can learn from the codices of the masters, would be slightly changed due to any number of variables. Such things as our weapons being slightly different, our philosophical outlooks, and even our respective diets.
And the fechtbuch authors, and period masters, were people of learning and worldly experience. No doubt in their teachings, whatever travials and travels they experienced were added...hence although they made have had preferences they were practical men, in a period where these arts were in active use.
Like M. Berenstein I'd also favor a holisitic approach, in my case the interest is meshing the Lichtenauer masters with elements of the British tradition...such as the variants of the pendant guards. Certainly not 'pure' but it does seem to work. Plus we today have the bliss of finding out if a combination doesn't work via generally trivial things like a loss sparring, a sore wrist, a few bruises or a snapped waster. Much more preferable to what our predecessors may have paid for a poor combination... such gems as severed arms, a selection of missing fingers, or the last rites.

[Nigel Plum]

Fellow scholars,

Let me just kick this off with a bit of a disclaimer: this IS NOT intended to spark off a flaming contest, (although, after reviewing many of the recent threads, it seems like it is becoming an unfortunate trend. I thought I was the only powder-keg around here).

I want to address something, and I'll try not to pontificate too much. I believe one of the major shortcomings of several WMA\RMA\HEMA groups seems to be one of too narrow a scope.

What do I mean by this?

Well, without naming names, there are groups that study Fiore, or Fiore and Vadi, and then there are groups that study the tradition of Lichtenauer. The "Italian" school, and the "German" school. And these groups study these sources to the exclusion of other (valid) sources. This stated, so far I've only encountered one group that studies both (and more): the ARMA.

Now, let's take some things into consideration before we proceed:

1: the population of medieval Europe (and we're not even dealing with eastern Europe, though I'm sure they had similar \ comparable martial traditions) was far less than to-day.

2: the warrior aristocracy of western medieval Europe, and their trained retainers (those most likly to be knowledgeable\skilled in the fighting arts of the day), would have comprised significantly less than %10 of the total population.

3: masters-at-arms would have been even rarer, perhaps comprising an estimated %1 of the overall population. This is a very small percentage. It does not take any appreciable stretch of the imagination, to come to the conclusion that most masters knew each other, by reputation at the very least. After all, who can confer the title of master upon another, but a master? Fiore even mentions fighting (and presumably killing) other masters.

4: both Fiore and Vadi EXPLICATELY mention travelling to other lands than those of their origin, and training under masters of various regions.

5: form dictates function. Swords in Italy were essentially the same as swords in England, France, the Holy Roman Empre, Denmark, etc. It stands to reason their methods of use were essentially the same, as well.

Taking all this into consideration, it is easy to see where some groups \ individuals (IMO) slip up. The problem is, quite simply, that they are "purists:" A is Italian, B German, C English, etc.

When a group or individual modern practioner studies only one source (and Vadi doesn't count, he basicly just re-hashes Fiore, with a few notable exceptions) to the exclusion of all else, they miss a lot.

I have heard \ read remarks like this: "Fiore's system is more defensive than the German material." I too once laboured under this false apprehension, until I was rather painfully (and embaressingly), enlightened by Casper Bradak (my very good friend).

If these aforementioned groups would simply bother to cross-reference, and reject their "purist" thinking, it would rapidly become very clear that the similarities far outweigh the differences.

In other words: yes, A is Italian, B is German , and C is English...however, C is also Italian and German, B is English and Italian, and A is English and German.

Cross-referencing also brings to light (gradually) things discussed in the heated "windshield wiper" Krumphau thread. Meaning, the more you study the various sources, the more clear certain aspects of your primary study become.

This has all become very poignant to me recently, as I have been working on a project that brings the matter into sharp contrast. The project is tip-top secret, so I won't elaborate on it any further for the moment, (I guess I must be insecure).

-B.

The situation is rather different on this side of the pond. For instance while the group I train, Schola Gladiatoria, with specialises in Fiore, I am in easy reach of several others with whom we are on good terms. I regualrly train with Dave Rawlings who specialises in Dobringer & I.33. I also teach English C17th backsword with a bit of Petter & Passchen thrown in. If I had the time I could equally visit The Exiles for Extra Fiore or STMF for Ringeck.

On top of that many European countries have National federations (to my knowledge Britain, Sweden, Italy, Portugal and probably others) who meet on a regular basis. So you get the chance to train & fight against a huge range of periods/ weapons / styles.

I plan to attend events next year in the UK, France, Austria & Sweden. Some of these will be attended by groups from as far apart as Hungary & Spain

So we don't train in quite the vacuum you imagine.

I'm not at all convinced that the Fiore lineage is unrelated to the Lichtenauer one. While it is far from clear whether he ever left Italy. Northern Italy, as the richest & most violent part of the continent was awash with foreign mercenaries & knights. It was cetainly well served with German fencing masters.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

Well, ours has always been a holistic approach.
I have long argued that while specialization of study is good individually, on the whole you have to take a broader approach, one that cross references and seeks commonality while equally recognizing differences. You can only do that with a more comprehensive approach. In the end it helps out everything.

It's in the same way that studying the staff helps your long sword, and dagger helps short sword, and all of them help rapier, etc.

It's like studying early English literature, you don't do it in a vacuum. You don't ignore Chaucer if you are studying Shakespeare, and you don't ignore Beowulf and the Arthurian tradition if you study Chaucer. And in the process you can't ignore Homer. You are aided by understanding similar themes or earlier sources of influences.

Yet, in our subject today, I detect certain folk just want very much to see things as "separate" so as to better enable them now to pretend to be a "specialist" or the "expert" on one small aspect (having its own distinct ethno-cultural identity) while ignoring the harder work on the whole. Make sense?

JC

Makes perfect sense.

As far as I can tell, and I've studied both the German and the Italian "schools" for about 6 years now, (no, that does not make me some "grand master," just educated) the only appreciable difference friom Fiore's tradition and the German one is that Fiore clearly advocates thrusting above everything else. Not that Fiore recommended never cutting, of course. But the importance of thrusts are mentioned explicately:

"We are the thrusts...more than any other [attacks] we kill people."

You don't find this in the German school, where thrusts are pretty much seen as just another effective way of killing the opponent.

-B.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

s_taillebois wrote:

Ritter caravans would often hire various men at arms to protect their caravans, and it wasn't unknown for traders to themselves learn the art. Especially after fight manuals began to be printed.
And whilst in Chartres, Flanders or as far afield as Kiev or Constantinople discourse about the sword arts likely occurred genteely or by other means. (although at some fair towns the local ruler was strong enough to ensure that weapons were constrained within the town walls...it wouldn't have stopped discussion or 'friendly' sparring outside)
With the armor plated aristocracy, some were sent as diplomatic envoys, or held as hostages in some fairly far afield places. And would have likely talked trade in their travels.
And with the medicant orders, as envoys, couriers and such, some monks were the equivalent of a postal service centuries prior to when national governments established a like system. Plus what the laity may have picked up on pilgrimage (which often weren't as pious as some believe...more like a moveable social visit with an atonement at the end) .

All very good points. It's also useful to remember that this was an age where two individuals of the warrior aristocracy, who may never even have met, could recognise one another by their heraldric arms (heraldry being a coded language of sorts) alone.

Factor into this masters-of-arms (who, as I said before, were even more rare)...they're gonna know each other.

-B.

[Nathan Dexter]

I cant understand why anyone would want to be specific in their study. An all encompassing aproach just exposes you to many more thechniques to use. I'm sure that any swordsman in history would gladly study under more than one teacher. It's common sense.