Question on Fiore

[Jayson May]

Hello all,
My name is Jayson May and I have been a solo scholar in the long sword for some time now. I have just recently discovered ARMA and what I great organization it is. Completely inline with my own ideas of serious and practical study of Western Martial Arts based on practice and scholarship. I have put in my application for membership, and I am waiting for its acceptance with great hope. In the mean time I do have a question that I’d like to pose to you all about one of the old masters.

I have heard the style of Fiore described as a “defensive” style of swordplay compared to the Germans. But in reading the translations of the texts it seems to me that the Fiore style is just as aggressive as the Liechtenauer school of thought. While Fiore doesn’t go into great detail on strikes, he does seem to put forth the idea that being strong, aggressive and cunning are the ways to win the fight, much like the German Masters suggest. I am fluent in German so for those texts I typically try to read the texts in the original language if possible, but my Italian is abysmal, so I have to rely on other people’s writings for the Italian Masters. Anyway, down to the question of the matter. Does Fiore teaching represent an offensive fighting style as I suspect or do I have it all wrong and is Fiore's style really more of a defensive form of combat?

[Greg Coffman]

You are right on target.

[Andrew F Ulrich]

I think it is safe to say that among ARMA members, it is generally agreed that there are many more similarities than differences between the German and Italian traditions, and to try to learn the two separately as opposed to holistically would be disadvantageous.

Check out the article "Interrelatedness within the Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe", and "Our New 'Rosetta Stone'" in the articles and essays area.

[Gene Tausk]

Hello all,
My name is Jayson May and I have been a solo scholar in the long sword for some time now. I have just recently discovered ARMA and what I great organization it is. Completely inline with my own ideas of serious and practical study of Western Martial Arts based on practice and scholarship. I have put in my application for membership, and I am waiting for its acceptance with great hope. In the mean time I do have a question that I’d like to pose to you all about one of the old masters.

I have heard the style of Fiore described as a “defensive” style of swordplay compared to the Germans. But in reading the translations of the texts it seems to me that the Fiore style is just as aggressive as the Liechtenauer school of thought. While Fiore doesn’t go into great detail on strikes, he does seem to put forth the idea that being strong, aggressive and cunning are the ways to win the fight, much like the German Masters suggest. I am fluent in German so for those texts I typically try to read the texts in the original language if possible, but my Italian is abysmal, so I have to rely on other people’s writings for the Italian Masters. Anyway, down to the question of the matter. Does Fiore teaching represent an offensive fighting style as I suspect or do I have it all wrong and is Fiore's style really more of a defensive form of combat?

I have yet to hear from an experienced, good fighter that the best course of action is to fight "defensively." I would be shocked to find that any reputable system of combat, especially one from the Renaissance, advocates such fighting. Every good fighter and fighting system advocates that "the best defense is a good offense." I do not accept any other interpretation unless their is hard evidence, and this means practical, fighting evidence, to the contrary.

[Jayson May]

Thanks so much for y'all's input. I have always felt that a purely defensive fighting system basically is just a way to prolong the wait of a killing strike actually hitting you. I feel much more comfortable knowing that I hadn't completely misunderstood the Fiore text.

And Andrew thanks for the suggested articles, they were great.

Jayson

[I. Hartikainen]

Hi!

I'd just like to add that most of the plays Fiore shows are showing a progression in which the 'masters' - the fellows wearing a crown - show a position called a 'remedy', which Fiore defines in the dagger section as a position that prevents the opponent's attack from landing and allows you to hit him. The 'students' that follow the master then show various techniques that can be done from the position.

So the core, in a sense, is in showing a defense against a more or less specified basic attack and various techniques that can be done from there, but what is also shown are counters to these techniques or the remedies, which by definition are follow-ups to the original attacks, and hence teaching ways of attacking that go beyond the initial strike.

I think the offensive/defensive labeling is a bit misleading, since (as others pointed out) a fighting style that is defensive in nature is against the thought process I've seen in any historical martial art or otherwise. There are different levels of offensiveness, like disarming your opponent instead of hurting them, but the attitude is never fearful or defensive.

We can speculate why Fiore has so little in the way of directly explaining how to attack (in comparison to the later Bolognese style, for example), but the way he chose to lay out his treatise and teach does not mean that the teachings were only suited to one or the other.

One thing to consider is also context, some of Fiore is intended as 'self-defence', some for other contexts. The italian tradition of the judicial duel, which specifically forced the accuser to attack and the accused to defend might have been one of the contexts already in Fiore's time, although I am not sure of this.

Yours,
Ilkka

[Jayson May]

One thing to consider is also context, some of Fiore is intended as 'self-defence', some for other contexts. The italian tradition of the judicial duel, which specifically forced the accuser to attack and the accused to defend might have been one of the contexts already in Fiore's time, although I am not sure of this.

Yours,
Ilkka

That would seem to me to be a major deviation from the Lichtenauer school of thought of staying in the "Vor" But what you put forth is a very interesting point. While it would be best to strike first, the protocols of the duel might require otherwise.
thanks
Jayson

[I. Hartikainen]

Jayson,

you understood the point exactly right! The (perhaps already a bit dated) notion of Fiore being defensive may stem from the way his treatise is organized and the possible protocols of the duel - which at least in the 16th century were very important.

I'm still looking for more information on how the duels were fought in the 14th and 15th century, but at least according to Tom Leoni this type of institution was already in place then.

Though not an expert in the Liechtenauer tradition by any means, I would say that the concept of vor, indes and nach can be applied - not just as an idea of maintaining the initiative - but also as a way of always finding a spot to land your own attack whether or not you were the first to attack.

All the best,
Ilkka