I think this discussion has raised some interesting and important points.
Mike, in case the comment on rapier theory's connection to longsword fighting was pointed at me, you are right in that the weapons are different, the context is different and the people who practiced the art in their time were different from 154th and 15th century knights as well.
Again, my background is much stronger in the Italian arts, but there I tend to see the 16th century material helpful in understanding the more vague descriptions of the earlier texts. 16th century material is also much closer to the longsword material, and as a style of using the sword is maybe a bit more "fencing-like", but still very natural and with stronger military connections. The origins of the Bolognese school, for example, seem to be in the first part of 15th century, so only a few decades after Fiore and before Vadi - therefore it is quite likely that the traditions overlapped each other and shared same fundamental theory, as most Italian traditions have always done.
Still, making the distinction is important, and the more theory we can get out from the actual longsword texts, the better. But if something needs to be filled in for Italian longsword, it may be better to look at the 16th century Italian texts and not German longsword, which is pretty much a tradition on its own, with wrestling, the messer etc. linked to it.
Sam, I agree that anyone opposing sparring completely are not doing themselves a favor, I can understand someone opposing letting students spar on their first class, or opposing sparring with certain tools or rules, but opposing it altogether is not good. Different groups have different emphasis, and the there is a difference between sparring and "real-life" combat. Likewise, drills should have a connection to sparring, as what is sparring if not a drill with almost unlimited degree of freedom?
Something I'd like you to consider in your comparison to Japanese schools with a living tradition. Even in Japan, it is unlikely that the tradition has remained unchanged; most of its proponents today most likely have not used the style on battlefield or in duels.
What we have in European arts is a direct link to the original masters, which has not changed throughout the centuries. While we all would like to have Liechtenauer and Fiore etc. to teach us, or their disciples descending in a direct lineage, we should be happy to have their original words written down (or, at least in Liechtenauer's case, the original masters students' commentaries). This gives us the instructions coming directly from the age and culture where the arts were used in their lethal context, with no change in the context toward civilian or other uses.
Coming back to sparring, or use of swords in a less than lethal context, it is definitely a historical thing. Fiore refers to fighting "in the barriers" and while this may refer to a lethal form of combat, he makes a distinction between it and fighting a duel with sharp swords, wearing no protection. He speaks of wrestling done in a friendly manner or in earnest (and says that his book is about doing it in earnest). In any case, all sorts of tourneys and pas d'armes were fought. I.33 may have some references to playing as well, but I can't remember without checking.
When we get to 16th century, the Bolognese masters even make distinction between play with a blunt sword (spada da zogho) and a sharp one (spada da filo) and describe a set of rules for scoring points in a fight. There should be plenty of evidence of this sort of practice, but I'm sure others can chime in here, since this honestly is not my strongest area of knowledge.
Yours,
Ilkka
 |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
