assistance

[John_Clements]

Perhaps. But, I'm confidant that Fiore was not ignorant of or against doing cross or horizontal cuts from Finestra. It's just too natural an action to believe he would not have employed it. The danger here is if we restrict ourselves only to the handful of actions in each manual, and exclude the wealth of obvious and simple techniques inherent in using a weapon that fit logically into the method of any particular historical text, we really limit our thinking and our skill. Just one example, from Tail you can cut under, over, sideways, or even turn it into a thrust --if one of these fundamental and obvious moves is not depicted or mentioned in a text, does it mean we assume it was not used or was unknown and thus never use it now, or that we should continue to practice and explore it anyway?

JC

[Bart Walczak]

Some general remarks:

There are people with different physical build and different techniques will be optimal for them.

There are swords of different shapes and sizes and different techniques will be optimal for them.

Thus the differences of style.

Therefore not every technique would be preferred by a certain master.

Were they aware of other techniques? Possibly. Why didn't they include them in their "curricula"? We don't know. My opinion is that they thought them unsafe or less effective for them.

Should we look for optimal techniques for us?

Yes, if we are doing the martial arts.

No, if we are doing interpretation. Instead we should look for the reasons why such a technique seems not to work, and maybe we will reach some interesting conclusions.


Re Fiore: his Mezzani is executed with opposite edge than is Zwerchau. This is my point - the difference. Not the possibility of executing a horizontal cut.

[Matt Easton]

I agree with Bart. And would also say that if a person does not understand one source to a high level, then they are probably wasting their time trying to compare between sources... Because they would not really know what they were comparing..

Matt

[Bart Walczak]

Matt, if we are to stick to what you say we couldn't compare the sources ever.

Comparison is one of the methods to gain deeper understanding. Detailed analysis of a source is another. In most cases these two go together and simultaneously supply us with additional information, which we can then use to make better comparisons and better analysis. And so on <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

It's a neverending process of refinement.

I hope to write an article on this soon.

[Derek Wassom]

It is my belief that one must study, intemperate and understand the similarities of the manuals before they can jump right in to a certain one.
You need a deep understanding of the similarities before we can fully understand the differences.

[Bart Walczak]

Derek, you describe a blind circle. "We must know similarities before we might know what exactly they are talking about."

It is another extreme, opposite to Matt's.

[Derek Wassom]

Good point, Bart. <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />
I would think, though, doing a combination of the two would be very difficult (if not impossable), and possibly flawed. The best thing to do, I think, is for one group to study one extreme, and the other to do the opposite. Doing it this way allows us to discuss and debate different points from different points of view, thus creating a better understanding. Make sense? <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/crazy.gif" alt="" />
I'm not saying that Matt's way is wrong, and my way is right, I'm saying we are both going about it the right way by doing it differently.

[Randall Pleasant]

Derek and Matt

I must agree with Bart, the similarities and the differences are both important in our understanding the of the subject. The study of historical manuals is a lot like Comparative Anatomy. If you look only at the bones of one animal you cannot see the evolutionary tree. If you never spend time looking at the bones of just one animal you never really understand that animal. Likewise, a full understanding of the science of defence requires that not only do we have scholars studying at the general and specific levels but also that those scholars <u>share and understand each the other's knowledge</u>. You cannot have one without the other.

[Bart Walczak]

Derek,

The combination is not impossible. It is what we do all the time - first analysis of a source to a certain point, then we get some new ideas from external sources, and we again re-analyze the thing, getting closer and closer to the core.

It is a kind of spiral which gets tighter with each next step. And both indepth analysis and transgressing comparisons are often happening at the same time.

[Derek Wassom]

Bart,

Yes, but what do you start to compare between the sources? You cannot compare the differences, that is impossible. You first have to compare the similarities. After they have been compared to a point, you can then confidently study the differences.
When you study these differences you will, of course, have a greater understanding of the similarities. This is the spiral you describe, correct?
The spiral has to start somewhere, and begin with one extreme or another, I would imagine. I think we agree on the process of studying these sources, our only difference is the time we spend getting started.

PS. Sorry for helping to take this thread so far off topic. <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/blush.gif" alt="" />

[Randall Pleasant]

Steve

I want to point out some things not as a student of the sword but as a fellow (ex) archaeologist with the intent of helping you think about the problem you will be addressing. I don't have any answers for you, only questions. I am also not asking for answers since we don't want the thread highjacked by archaeology. I just want to get you thinking about questions your professors may well ask. <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/crazy.gif" alt="" />

To go from cuts on bone to the "style" of swordsmenship responsable for the cuts is a very big step, which will require a lot of mid level arguements. For example, one cannot go from talking about an attribute of an atom directly to talking about it's effect on the interactions between stars and planets. There must be an understanding of the things between the atom and the stars. To the best of my knowledge, at this point in time we are not even able to state what type of weapon created a given cut on any bone. So the questions become: How do you know if a given cut was actually made by a sword? If the sword is not found embedded in the bone how do you know it is a sword cut? If the cut was clearly made by a sword, was the cut made as a result of an actual technique or was it just a "lucky" blow? Does a cut by a master look any different from a "lucky" cut by an unskilled swordsman? In bone, can you tell the difference between a false edge Zwerchhau and a true edge cross cut?

Basically you are faced with many of the issues addressed by the New Archaeology (which is far from being new but still just as valid) and Mid-Range Theory. Good luck with your research.

[Bart Walczak]

Derek,

I'll pursue hijacking this thread, because it helps me to clarify several things.

True that when you compare, you naturally try to look for similarities - point well made. The differences tend to pop up just by themselves, sometimes in the places where you least expect them - sometimes even in the places where you saw similarities before <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

Does it invalidate your previous research? Yes. Did you waste your time? No, because you wouldn't be there were it not for your previous conclusions. We are bound to change our interpretations if we want to progress.

In my opinion the spiral should start with a rough analysis of a single source, but I hope to write more about it soon.

[Derek Wassom]

Thanks, Bart.
I'm looking forward to this article. <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Steve Thurston]

No probs!

It is all helping me clarify where the similiarities start and stop. I did mention regional styles, a very medieval thing!

I agree with Bart to some extent. An individual does need to concentrate on one style, first though they need to find out which style suits them. The best way to do this is have a go at a few different styles, then go with one.

Once you have a more natural understanding of your chosen style and have at least become compotent you can move on to improve your understanding of other styles, still focusing on your original style. A bit of "know your enemy" if you will.

Then you can begin to compare the styles and see if things are similar or different, don't try to find similarities or differences just compare and draw conclusions.

Once you have got your conclusions take them to individuals who practice the style that you have compared to your own.

Sorry have to dash uni......

Steve