What Gives You the Right?!

[Allen Johnson]

Nice little attention getting headline <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" /> Some thoughts I have been mulling over has led me to the question of; Who decided that these people would pen manuals? Were there any qualifications? Did someone need to be appointed to write them? Could they just do it on a whim?
I was prompted with thought in the course of going through Thomas Pages 1746 manual on 'Use of the Broad Sword'-- ie baskethilt. His manual is saturated with smallsword guards and techniques. There are others who are even more of this pursuasion like Hope and McBane. Part of my current research is including, what is the most effective technique to use the Baskethilt with. Seeing the sketches of the native highlanders using these weapons with a very medieval flair and hearing the accounts of the bloody carnage that followed their blows just dont seem to match up with the forms portrayed by some of these 18th and 19th century manuals.
Another thing we run into at the begining of almost every manual is the kiss up preface. This is where the author drones on and on about how perfect his king (or whatever political leader) is and how flawless everything he does is and all that.
Page states, "All my Aim is to be serviceable to Society, that I may be Acceptable to your Lordship; and I am Ambitious of your Lordship's Favour, that I may be approv'd of by all Mankind." Seems pretty ambitious. Is he writing this because he has really found a better method of using the broad sword? Or is he just trying to get noticed by appealing to the heirchy who is probably in constant practice (or at least ver familiar) with smallsword techniques - and by applying something they can relate to, to a weapon that is becoming en vouge?
Tough question no doubt, but I think an important one. How did these people come to start writing a manual? Were they really qualified? And what was their true intetion with it?

[Casper Bradak]

Are you annoyed at smallsword technique being shown for cut and thrust weapons? I think you're probably right, they're adapting what they know and trying to relate it (and when nobles, unlike earlier times, were less likely to use it). That's how it's been up until swords ceased being used in the west. "It's the pinaccle of swordsmanship, right? It should adapt well enough to other types."
At this point, much of the old fashioned proper cut and thrust use probably became an informal or in house dealing until extinction.
As for the initial flattery, while that one seems a little more ambitious, many of the fencing manuals begin that way. A little flattery, but a lot of ettiquette, as they were often written for specific nobles to which the masters were employed.

[Stacy Clifford]

Well, as many Asian martial artists have proven today, anybody can write a manual if they have the right incentive ($$$), regardless of whether or not they have the actual knowledge and skill to back it up. Since charlatans are nothing new, the same can be said of Renaissance times as well. The only ways we have to know for sure whether the writer of a manual was truly a teacher worth learning from are to look at his credentials listed by outside sources and to try out what they teach in earnest and see if it works. So far I haven't heard of anyone interpreting any of the existing manuals we know of and concluding "This guy was a total klopfechter and an idiot," but I suppose it could happen.

[Jeffrey Hull]

Indeed, I have raised those sorts of questions about the motivations and audience of McBane, which have been met at times by furious replies from those who seem to think his Imperial smallsword stuff somehow pertains to Gaelic cutting swords.

JH

[Casper Bradak]

Not saying this in defense of the cut and thrust as smallsword masters, but even then, you'd think they, or at least a personal student, would have to prove, or put to the test, their method. No complaints due to no survivors? <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Jon Pellett]

Hello, everyone - new here, nice site, etc.

What's the smallsword stuff in Page? It looks like pure backsword to me.

Aside from McBane's rowdy autobiography, other accounts confirm that he was quite the fighter. According to this article, he fought 37 matches and at the age of 63 thoroughly thrashed a hotshot young Irish fighter with the falchion - so he must have known something about cutting swords.

A lot of these late-period guys fought in prize fights, which are not exactly fancy-prancy salle play. If anyone was holding back ass-kicking secrets from the Renaissance, it's funny that they never showed up on stage. (Well, maybe they did, but I haven't heard of it- if you know of such a thing, please share!) IMHO, people are generally pretty smart, and if the early-modern style was so sucky they surely would have given up on it, at least outside of fashionable schools.

Just wanted to stand up for the late period guys - I prefer the earlier stuff myself, but let's not shortchange guys who fought for real.

Anyway, about the question. What gives you the right? Nothing. In some cases we can verify, or reasonably deduce, that the author knew what he was talking about, but I'm willing to bet that when we know more (a lot more) we will find out that some of the manuals are crap, or at least not very good. Still, even if they are crap (like lots of martial arts books today) they still tell us what was done back then (by lousy fighters), so they are still valuable.

Anyway, I'm not really saying anything new here, so cheers all. This is an interesting subject.

[Allen Johnson]

Welcome Jon!

I wasnt debating that these guys werent decent fighters. The stats (if we can trust them- I see no reason to not) speak for themselves. My biggest question really is that- Is what they are teaching (using small sword techniques for basket hilt play) the most optimal form for this type of weapon? At this point in my research, I really feel that they are using an inferior technique compared with the way the baskethilt was used by the Highlanders prior to the disarming act. There is no doubt that it was tought this way and that it was at least passably effective- just not the optimal use of this weapon.
Smallsword play is really not too like backsword. There are of course some similar elements present (as in all areas of swordplay) but it really isnt the same thing as something like Silver or Marrozzo.
Look at these three weapons:
A mid 1700's baskethilt:
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/displayimage.php?album=19&amp;pos=211

A cut and thrust:
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/displayimage.php?album=17&amp;pos=257

and a smallsword:
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/displayimage.php?album=55&amp;pos=5

Do you really think that these three vastly different weapons should all be used the same way? (not directed just at 'you'- just a general 'you all' <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> ) Seeing a baskethilt and a smallsword side by side its really striking to me to have anyone think- "yeah you use them the same". I'm still doing the work on this but I just really feel that once they started using smallsword to train broadsword, things are heading in the wrong direction in reguards to overall effectiveness.

[Jon Pellett]

I wasnt debating that these guys werent decent fighters. The stats (if we can trust them- I see no reason to not) speak for themselves.

Ah, okay, good. I agree entirely. Sorry for overreacting there.

Do you really think that these three vastly different weapons should all be used the same way?

Well, why not? Using different weapons according to the same principles goes back to Doebringer, if not before.

Is what they are teaching (using small sword techniques for basket hilt play) the most optimal form for this type of weapon?...I just really feel that once they started using smallsword to train broadsword, things are heading in the wrong direction in regards to overall effectiveness.

Hmmm. I don't think I understand. They didn't use smallsword to train backsword as far as I am aware (they used singlesticks or, well, backswords.) I don't think they used smallsword techniques either (well, I lie, they did tend to call all the thrusts and parries of thrusts "smallsword".) What exactly do you mean?

Cheers

[JeffGentry]

Hey Jon

Well, why not? Using different weapons according to the same principles goes back to Doebringer, if not before.

Using the same principal yes, the technique's themselve's can be vastly diffrent.

We use some of the same principal's in unarmed as we do with longsword, the physical technique's of unarmed are diffrent than longsword technique's

As i think smallsword technique's would be diffrent than technique's of longsword, just by the design of the weapon being more suited for certain technique's.

I think the principal's are universal, weapon's by there design alot of time's are designed for certain application's and technical use's.

So not all technique's can be effectively used with all weapon's other wise we could read Lichtenauer and be done with it we need no more technique's because these use all the principal.

So if an author use's an oberhau with a small sword(i am just using this to illustrate a point) it is a good technique and principaly sound just not real effective with a smallsword.

These are MHO and just trying to illustrate the diffrence between technique and principal.

Jeff

[Casper Bradak]

I guess he's not talking about principle, but technique. It could be compared to teaching longsword using rapier technique.
Also, the smallsword brings into play effective double time technique, which can be effective, but far from ideal, for a cut and thrust blade.

[JeffGentry]

Hey Casper

I am a subscriber to the saying "believe nothing that you hear and half of what you see", watch David Copperfield there is more going on in his show than meet's the eye.

By that i mean if it cannot be duplicated effectively over and over then i don't believe, just because someone write's a book doesn't automaticly mean they know what they are doing or saying.

I don't mean that the people writing these manual's shouild not be believed we just need to cross reference with other manuel's of approx. the same period and if we see vast diffrence's in one manuel than in say 2-3 other's i am inclined to believe someone is mistaken.

I believe that is what we are doing. <img src="/forum/images/icons/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Jeff

[John_Clements]

Good question, it's one Hank R. has asked for many years now. Given that these men had to seek a patron to publish and were trying to sell books, earn renown, or acquire positions as paid instructors, we can never really be sure. Certainly they had to be remarkable and confident, yet how many times today do people of questionable experience and skill write books on all sorts of martial arts topics from knife fighting to chi/ki silliness. How many of these folks do really we know anything about their actual qualifications or their veracity of martial skill? Perhaps some of this was true back then as well. After all, it is a historical fact that military manuals were frequently produced in these times by men with little to know actual experience in combat, sieges, or commanding armies. But that didn't stop them from theorizing in great detail with complete authority no matter how absurd their ideals. There is also no question that by the 18th century the smallsowrd was now considered by fencing authors to be the prerequisite foundation for even mlitary cut and thrust swords. Go figure. This view was only rarely challenged even by the late 19th century.

JC

[Stacy Clifford]

Well, why not? Using different weapons according to the same principles goes back to Doebringer, if not before.

As long as the different weapons are designed with the same general purpose in mind, then yes, this is true. All types of cutting weapons are going to share a lot of common techniques, as will all types of thrusting weapons. However, you wouldn't use a backsword the same way as a smallsword for the same reason you wouldn't use a knife the same way as an icepick. It can be done, but you're missing out on a lot of useful techniques if you do it that way exclusively.

[Jon Pellett]

As long as the different weapons are designed with the same general purpose in mind, then yes, this is true.

Doebringer says to use the staff like the longsword - those are pretty disparate weapons.

However, you wouldn't use a backsword the same way as a smallsword for the same reason you wouldn't use a knife the same way as an icepick. It can be done, but you're missing out on a lot of useful techniques if you do it that way exclusively.

Well, I won't deny that using a backsword exactly like a smallsword would be silly, but the backsword has a more extensive repetoire - cuts, of course, but also traverses - it was more circular.

Cheers

[Casper Bradak]

Doebringer says to use the staff like the longsword - those are pretty disparate weapons.

Not in their use (both used for blows and thrusts), and not nearly as disparate as a weapon designed for blows and thrusts and a weapon designed only for effective thrusts, any "edge" use being very minor.

Well, I won't deny that using a backsword exactly like a smallsword would be silly, but the backsword has a more extensive repetoire...

Exactly.