Charron test cutting

[Stuart McDermid]

Hi Matt,

Usually, I like to put IMHO in front of any points I make that might be a bit controversial but in this case, I am not going to because to be frank, this is obvious to anyone who actually treats their fencing as a scholarly pursuit and does their own research instead of relying only on the work of their instructors. If you are not currently researching Fiore from the Getty manuscript, perhaps you should take the time to ask Bob questions instead of wasting his time arguing semantics.

There is absolutely NO "Norm" when it comes to Western Swordplay. This is still not true even if we consider only Longsword.

As someone who has done alot of study on Silver, a fair amount on Ringeck and only a little on Vadi I say without any reservation that this "Norm" of which you speak simply does not exist. Each master has their own methods of moving that are subtely different and their methods are IMHO often totally incompatible with each other.

Throughout this thread Bob Charron has made constant specific reference to Fiore dei Liberi's writings. He has been countered with statements from Ringeck and other German sources. If you aren't a Fiore scholar, how can you be arguing this. Once again, you can all rabbit on about things being martially sound but personally I would rather see things match the text than be sound via a method that can only ever approximate fencing for real.

Not once has anyone attempted to counter this with specific references from Fiore. As Bob said above "Volta Stabile" is part of Fiore's system. Full Stop people, that's it. You can quote Ringeck until you are blue in the face but the above statement is fact- for Fiore.

The longer I spend in HF the more I realise how important it is to restrict yourself to one treatise per weapon at a time.
Cheers,
Stu.

[claus drexler]

Hello Bob,

it is a pleasure to read your most excellent postings and crystal-clear argumentation.

Bart already mentioned it earlier, that also in Liechtenauers tradition footwork is essential -
nevertheless there are some movements when the blades are in the bind that do not necessarily require a full step or a step at all. A good example is "Duplieren" as a counter against the slice against your arms, which is a break to a Zwerchhau to the opponents right side (Danzig).

Necessary and appropriate footwork has to be applied to serve the technique not the other way round. Doebringer is very clear on that point.

I think this principle and others (like the use of just necessary power in opposite to cutting like a “buffalo” – which indeed strips one relying only on strength of the possibilities of e.g. the German “winden”) have Fiore and Liechtenauer as universal rules in common.

Swordfighting means “feeling” (Fühlen), sentiment de fer.
Fühlen requires instant (re-)actions.
But such advanced (re-)actions are not possible when fighters tend to think only in absolutes.
To think in absolutes reveals in some way apparently a need to create rules, where the masters have not given rules.

just my 1,5 eurocents,
Claus
________________________
"Ochs - historische Kampfkünste e.V.
http://www.schwertkampf-ochs.de
HEMAC-Member

"l´epee est l´art poetique majeur"

[Randall Pleasant]

Stuart McDermid wrote:
Not once has anyone attempted to counter this with specific references from Fiore. As Bob said above "Volta Stabile" is part of Fiore's system. Full Stop people, that's it. You can quote Ringeck until you are blue in the face but the above statement is fact- for Fiore.

Stu

The problem is that most of us <u>don't</u> have a translation of Fiore from which to quote. We enthusiastically await the publication of Bob's translation.

Stuart McDermid wrote:
The longer I spend in HF the more I realise how important it is to restrict yourself to one treatise per weapon at a time.

I think most of us in ARMA do focus on one treatise at a time. However, I would strongly disagree that one should <u>limit</u> themself to one treatise. My understanding of Ringeck has greatly increased recently due to studying the related treatise Golaith, especially the images. Likewise, I would think that Vadi would be invaluable to a study of Fiore as Fiore is to a study of Vadi. There are some general concepts and principles that apply to all of the styles of swordsmenship. For instance:
[*]True and False edge. [*]Strong and Weak of the blade [*]The time of the hands, body, foot, and feet. [*]True and False time [*]Passing footwork

The list leaves us with the question: Are all of these items and those left off the list contained in Fiore, Ringeck, or any other treatise?

Everybody - sorry for going off topic <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" />

[John_Clements]

Ok, fair enough. No harm done.

I think I know why there is some confusion here.

No one fights stationary, or in affixed position without moving in some way. This is what I was getting at.

A person can indeed stand perfectly still, hold a weapon over their head and cut all the way downward, vertically or diagonally. This stationary action would be “a cut while standing still.”

Why anyone would possibly want to do this is beyond me and I can’t see that any master is really saying this.
From my experience it would be too easy to avoid by the opponent and is not nearly as strong a blow as it could be by cutting while moving.

If instead, you step or you pass (forward or backward) as you cut, you’d add range to the strike, allow for better timing with it, and hit with more force.
If we understand them correctly, this is consistent with what all those other quoted manual sources are saying.

If however, we are awaiting an opponent who strikes first, we might find we could set aside or displace his cut as we stood there without doing the above, and just slash or chop down quickly on his forearms right as he moved in close enough.
We do this all the time.
Though, I can’t imagine the feet are perfectly still without one moving a few inches, and the body certainly leans in as you strike with any technique. Sometimes both feet even make a short shuffling burst but without changing position. So, once again it’s not “standing still.” There is “movement” of more than the arms at work. And that’s what I am stressing.

Similarly, if you lifted your blade to meet an oncoming downward cut you could also stop it without need to step or pass but move the same as above (there’s even a video of this on the ARMA site somewhere, I believe).

Even further, as the opponent cut you might step off diagonally to the side with one foot, stretching yourself out on the other leg, slashing as he goes past, and again, you would not really be moving your feet as you struck, but you still had to step to do the action and turn your body/hips to execute the move –thereby not being stationary or “standing still.” Which again, is what I am stressing.

Is this making sense?

By the way, none of Fiore’s instructions about “not” stepping would seem to exclude lifting and replanting the foot in a sort of stomp as we cut. That would not be a “step” because we have not really moved. Both feet remain in the same place. Yet, we are not “stationary”.

After all, with these moves we must ask, does he say, “I never move my feet at all,” or does he only say, “I don’t step with either foot as I cut.” Because, again, it’s very hard to imagine that while all these other period sources stress moving when fighting for your life, Fiore was advising to just stand there stationary.

If we had a definition of exactly what he meant by “step” and “foot”, it would help a lot.

JC

[Bob Charron]

So John,

You completely agreed with the concept, but still are holding back on admitting that Fiore told us to do it, even though the original Italian and the translation are provided telling you it is done "standing firm"?

You've said you can't imagine why someone would do that. It would happen under specific circumstances, and is a possibility among the many options of the system, most of which include stepping. And we do it because the master says to do it, and I am not going to second-guess someone with as much practical experience and credentials as Fiore .

Well, it's progress anyway

I do believe that the only way to really understand a treatise is to stay within the specific system and study it. Sure, you want to look at other manuscripts for information, but you must be careful not to make it into something it's not, and not to impose practices of other masters on it. For instance Zornhau is not fendente, and Fiore's system differs from Vadi's enough to cause significant problems. Every master is an individual jewel that deserves the most dedicated of study.

So thanks to others for excellent posts on this, and for the support.

[Guest]

Stu,

I'm going to assume that you didn't mean for your post to come across as rude as it sounds. I do in fact study the historical treatises to the best of my meager ability to understand them. I do not have access to the Getty Manuscript, as I'm sure you well know.

[Jake_Norwood]

Re: Matt/Stu

Whoa there! Let's chill. No one is attacking anyone's credentials.

Re: Bob/JC

Yeah, the internet sucks for this kind of thing. Fact is that there are some pretty different ideologies all hitting the fan at once, and a lot of us are getting upset or offended because our beliefs are being challenged. That's cool, but there's also a lot of real potential to learn from this thread, and all the Provo guys and I were commenting on how much we've enjoyed this thread from a scholarly perspective. IOW, I feel like I'm learning something. So thanks John, Bob, and everyone else.

Bob,

Your last posts made many of your points much clearer, and I hadn't caught all of that before (though I had assumed some of it). So let's get down to some questions so that we can see why these cuts exist *according to Fiore,* because we haven't hit that yet.

Again, what's your take on stoping, etc, as part of "still" cutting? Would you say that it's outside of what Fiore meant? (and of course I grant that even our best answers are only guesses in the long run, but I can live with that.)

And yes, having a copy of the Getty around here would be very usefull.

Jake

[Bob Charron]

Hey Jake,

Well, I outlined the context and points clearly from the start, they just got "run away with" in a direction I never intended nor encouraged It seems that folks forgot a lot of what I initially made very clear.

I have been a little shocked at the disbelief that a master spoke of this. As Stu pointed out, every master is different, and you cannot make general statements about their arts.

Even if you see similar concepts they are addressing, they may be expressed entirely differently (with more or less variables, with a different mind-set, with language that plugs into the system). They may even use the same term to describe entirely different concepts.

So yes, great care is needed, and great respect should be given in this study.

[Jake_Norwood]

Hey Bob,

I confess that when I first read the same thing in Vadi I said, "What?" I think that there's going to be a lot of study before we know what exactly is meant (if ever). As for the thread running away...we're up to about 15 pages now, aren't we?

It's also not unreasonable for people to be suprised and express disbelief at something that seems counter to what so many other masters have said. It's not that we doubt Fiore--we doubt our interpretation of Fiore (I know that you know exactly what I mean!). There is an inner need, if you will, to make much of the separate masters gel together in principle, though not neccessarily in form. After all, Lichtenaur and Fiore had the same number of limbs...

So let's talk "why's." What are the advantages to such "still cutting?" We all do it at one time or another, right? No one will claim that Fiore fought standing still--clearly he didn't. But he discusses certain cuts that can be thrown without significant foot movement, right? In what cirumstances, in the Getty, does he advise to use such cuts?

Jake

Edited for clarity

[John_Clements]

Not exactly, try re-reading my last post.
I pointed out possible interpretations. There is no sense in fighting to cut strongly while "stationary", which is what I said all along. Otherwise, you can only slice. Still then there is in the action always going to be movement of the body in some way including the feet, as so many other writers of the period clearly emphasized, and you've acknowledged.

So for us it's not a matter of Fiore superceding or contradicting with entirely different body mechanics, but rather a question of how to reconcile the methods in context of an understanding of how men fought and what actually occurred in real fighting.

JC

[Bob Charron]

Jake, you actually make an excellent point.

If we don't have people digging in on the individual treatises on the 30 year plan, we'll never come close to understanding them.

And I don't believe there is a need to reconcile what one master did with what another master did. It is unecessary, and an often futile exercise to do so. In doing so we try to "meld" entirely different systems, which leaves us with a modern system or no system at all. This is my opinion.

In the first play of incrosada zogho largo at meza spada, Fiore advises after the crossing of swords to allow the sword to pass over the hands of the opponent to strike their arm. Then he adds that if he wishes to pass he may add a thrust to the chest. This is one clear example.

The point is that it is a concept which can be used and is quite valid given that you interpret the existence of the proper distance and time during the engagement. It is the blow delivered in the fastest time, and should be given while closing the line against a blow which takes more time.

It's OK to question my interpretation. You do that by asking me to prove it, as you have done, not by saying it defies logic and that it just can't be. I appreciate your question, and I continue to provide primary information for this directly from the treatise. It's easily documentable and quite clear in the text, so let's accept that it is done in Fiore

[Bob Charron]

You can cut strongly enough to end a fight without moving your feet. Hold your sword aloft and then use the 75 degree angle from your sword to the top of your opponent's head, or the 90 degree angle from your sword to your opponent's arm to deliver a cut with proper mechanics. You don't need to over-power it, just cut. The result to your opponent's head or arm will not be pleasant (it will be a horrible, devastating wound), and will most likely end in them not continuing to fight. The same cut will damage bones where they are close to the surface. How powerful do you think such a cut has to be. I've seen men who could knock someone standing down if given two feet to deliver the blow in. You can cut well and with sufficient power without moving your feet. Moving your feet should make it easier to deliver the same sufficient power.

From the comments of Claus, Bart and others who study the German systems, it seems there are cuts delivered in those systems that can be done and are done without moving the feet as well. Therefore Fiore supercedes no one, and doesn't introduce something alien to those who have studied the treatises.

As to reconciling the concepts with "real fighting", the Medieval masters did, and had to. We will never approach their level of understanding in this regard, because we will never be in a fight in earnest with swords, nor will we train anyone who will be. They did. I will trust them more than any modern man in this regard.

[Jake_Norwood]

I'm starting a related thread called "how much is enough." Check it out.

[Bob Charron]

Jake,

While terms such as "light cut" or "softer cut" may be extreme and provocative, I know I never raised the concept of "light" or "soft" cuts in this thread. Did someone else raise it? My idea of cutting is not "light" or "soft" but "elegant" and "enough". These are very diffferent ideas indeed.