Charron test cutting

[John_Clements]

The notion that "cuts may be done not stepping" strikes me as contradictory to common sense and the instructions of virtually every [combat effective] martial art I've encountered.

Are we to believe that one is supposed to suddenly step into proper range against an armed and moving opponent but then stand still as we make our strike?

Fighters don’t start at a range where either can immediately hit the other by just swinging with their arms. There has to be some movement of the feet, whether passing or stepping. They have to move into or out of the other’s motion. I can’t imagine a fighter standing still and hitting an opponent who is coming at them and in the process managing to either avoid their attack or prevent it entirely.

An overview of the teachings of master of defense from the 14th to 16th centuries reveals that strong, smooth footwork was vital in cutting. As the Liechtenauer in the 14th century declared: “Who rests is dead, who moves is still alive.” Reading of fighting knights in Malory’s tales of Arthur (c. 1470-85) we are similarly told how “they tracyd and travercyd and hewe on helmes and hawberkes.” The anonymous 15th century English sword text MS 3542 instructed, “let thy hand and thy foot accord together in good afense.”

Ringeck even stated: “When you close with your opponent, leap towards him at the right moment and strike.” (translation by David Lindholm. Sigmund Ringeck’s Knightly Art of the Longsword. Paladin Press to be published, July 2002).

Emphasizing the core footwork of “passing” steps, the master Filippo Vadi in the 1480s said, “The legs can justly keys be called, as they can close and they can open”. The idea of suddenly passing back out of range or closing in explosively can be found in Vadi’s instruction: “Be always matched with your enemy while moving, attacking or defending, and what I say never forget: as soon as you see his sword begin to move, or if he moves, or even if he attacks, go back or let him find you near.”

Paulus Kal’s 15th century Fechtbüch includes a figure with deer feet as a metaphor for being able to quickly get in and out of his opponents blows –and deer don't do this by tip toeing or shuffling, they leap.

Pietro Monte in the 1490s declared: “it is good to dissimulate with the feet and hands, for if we remain fixed they can easily injure us.” (Anglo, Martial Arts, p. 133).

During the 15th century, King Dom Duarte of Portugal writing on fighting on horseback in the tourney stated that to deliver a forceful cut “if one strikes when at a standstill and with the arm alone the blow is comparatively weak…” (Anglo, Martial Arts, p. 256).

Joachim Meyer’s 1570 edition states on longsword footwork (Chap. 7), “nothing is built on so much as footwork.” And later, “every strike must have its own step, which shall happen at the same time with the strike.”

Giacomo Di Grassi wrote in 1570 of the importance of footwork and stepping saying, “Most great is the care and considerations which the paces or footstepps requier in this exercise, because from them in a maner more the from anie other thine springeth all offence and defence.”
On the two-hand sword he wrote, “there is no doubt but he vanquisheth which is most nimble, and this nimblenesse is not obtained by handling of great heftes or waightes, but by often moving.”

In the words of George Hale from his 1614, “The Private Schoole of Defense”, “all cunning in this Art consisting more in feet than hands.”

There’s no doubt you are supposed to step when cutting or striking with any similar hand weapon. (This is also standard in Japanese kenjutsu too –though not the later ritualized style of Iaido).

The question before us then is how did the Renaissance swordsman move, what were their movements when cutting and what was their style of footwork like?

JC

[Matt Staats]

What if your opponent steps into range on you, and you cut him without moving your feet?

-Matt Staats
Milwaukee, WI

[Bob Charron]

John,

I think you are reacting too strongly, and again you come forward with many interesting citations which really miss the point entirely.

Within Fiore's system, there is one category of sword movement (including cuts, covers and setting side actions) that can be done while not moving the feet. That leaves a lot of other possibilities, all of which can be done stepping in some way. Therefore your citations do not refute Fiore's practice. And because they are not citations from within Fiore's instructions which refute this possibility in Fiore's system, they have little or limited meaning relating to Fiore.

When one speaks in absolutes, one limits one's understanding, and in this case eliminates a category of valid sword movements.

To say that the instructions of a Medieval master of the longsword are quite plainly not true and defy logic is hubris we would all do well to avoid.

And this is how plainly correct he is.

A simple case in point:
You cut fendente and I cover by moving from tutta porta di ferro to posta frontale. I catch your blow on the cross and your arms are extended in such a way that give me the inside line to your arms. You cannot attack appropriately from this position because there is no potentiality to your position. You are "lying spent" as George Silver would say. I may then quite safely use the tempo it takes you to return to a potentiality to cut your hands or arms. I have just cut without stepping, no matter if I stepped on the cover or not.

And another:
If you thrust and I void in dente di cenghiaro, stepping off the line to establish a new place, I may use the tempo you need to return to a potentiality to cut your arms with sottani without an additional step. I am therefore cutting without stepping again.

And another:
I stand in porta di ferro mezana and you attack man dritta fendente passing forward. I, without moving my feet in the least, set aside your blow with a sottani cut and return to cut your arms or head with fendente without ever moving my feet, as you have brought yourself into range. If you did your cut as a full cut you have not finished the tempo of it as my sword descends, as my tempo is shorter than yours. If you made a half cut, you are lying spent in posta longa, and the premise still applies.

Therefore these examples, logically, are quite numerous. It defies logic to claim otherwise.

The master is right.

[Guest]

I would like to make an observation that has to do with discussion but has little to do with swords, yet it applies here.
We should be cautious in attributing to an argument the property to go against logic on the basis of practical examples.
The reason is that practical examples can, at best, prove a statement wrong, going against logic requires an argument to be absurd <img src="/forum/images/icons/shocked.gif" alt="" /> or self contradictory by its form, which implies that the man who asserted it is a bit mad... Logic is formal, historical truth is a material matter (I hope my argument and my spelling make sense in English here <img src="/forum/images/icons/smirk.gif" alt="" /> ).
I know logicians are sorry animals, but it's not my fault if I'm one of them <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Bart Walczak]

While it is true that the general rule for cutting is to apply footwork (for various reasons), it also seems quite possible that several actions even in Liechtenauer's swordsmanship result in a cut without the necessity of making a step, for example like oben abnehmen or duplieren.

There are also many actions when you want to step sideways, because your opponent has already entered the distance by attacking you.

Footwork is crucial yet as all techniques it is dependant on the actual tactical situation.

[John_Clements]

Bob,

Sorry you feel I am reacting “strongly,” I consider it intelligent discourse to be challenged to think further. If you see the points raised and quotes cited as not relevant, I'm afraid I can't help you there. They speak for themselves. Broaden your interpretation perhaps if they seem obscure?

When someone seems to state categorically that a master said “XYZ” about some aspect of fencing, and that it absolutely can only mean one thing, I think that is a very limiting mindset, especially this early in our investigation of the craft, and even more so if that interpretation appears to contradict both common sense and a wealth of other period as well as modern sources.

In the first example you give, Fiore is simply lowering his weapon after intercepting and stifling a potential cut, using the opponent’s own momentum to resist against. This same thing is seen numerous times in German texts. No step is necessarily required because as he comes at you are only dropping the blade against his hands or forearms hard and pull slice by pulling it down. It would be semantic games to argue this is as equivalent to delivering a powerful downward cut from inaction. It is not the same technique as a powerful downward cut from a range outside the chest to chest distance of pressed swords he describes this technique as occurring under.

In the second example you give, the very act of “stepping off the line to establish a new place” is itself all the motion needed to add necessary momentum to your cut against an advancing opponent. So, again, footwork is involved, you can’t do the techniques as he says without moving.

In the third example, as with the first, the opponent has already moved into range, so to step again would certainly put you at too close a position to strike, and the opponent’s forward motion and blade position --having just been set aside --leaves you with your blade not forcefully impacting with a powerful cut but being placed against him in a way that permits a strong drawing slice. Again, not a powerful cut and so not contradicting the sources quoted in the previous post. Yet still, are we to believe that as the opponent flies forward in this manner to have his cut intercepted and his sword set off, that Master Fiore expects us to stand still while the opponent’s aggressive forward momentum magically stops without impacting us? Surely you must move you feet after to complete the action? Or perhaps, again, like in the second example, he has already moved off line and did not mention it.

So maybe the error lies in equating a shearing, cleaving blow to a pulling slice as all just being "cuts" --but in fact they are different types.

The point is there are subtleties involved that are not always explained or self-evident in the manuals –that once again, only become clear to us today when performing techniques at realistic speed with sufficient force.

You can’t stand still when cutting at someone trying to kill you. But you can slice against someone flying at you. If you do, you are still going to have to move your feet at some point.
I certainly would love to see someone in person try otherwise when fencing this way.

There is a problem is assuming that the manual teaches “all and everything” you need as is and that it’s whole and complete on its own. Which you know full well it is not so. After 500 years we must translate and then interpret their words and in reconstructing the techniques we cannot help but include things he did not mention or that he may have assumed knowledge of on part of the reader. Systematically or not, you cannot include everything about fighting with every singe technique in one short book. That is the whole problem. As Doebringer wrote “should know that one cannot speak or write about fighting as clearly as one can show and demonstrate with the hand; therefore use your common sense and reflect on things further.”

So perhaps you should consider that you’re misreading the text, mistranslating the text, or have misinterpreted the instructions. As Dr. Sydney Anglo has said on the difficulties of trying to interpret Fiore and similar works, it poses “considerable problems which require for their solution much more than enthusiasm, good will, and a pragmatic knowledge of fighting. Texts need to be accurately transcribed, meticulously collated one with another, and scrupulously translated. The language has to be studied, scribal details in manuscripts investigated, words and phrases glossed, and so on.”

JC

[John_Clements]

I recall some of Hank Reinhardt's public test-cutting demonstrations where he would tell the audience that with a katana there was a proper way to cut. He would announce to the audience it was important to “first summon your ki” then he solemnly approached the cardboard tube with slow movements, stop, then slowly lift his blade, hold it, give a loud hair-curling yell, and finally slashed powerfully downward in a graceful arc to cut cleanly through the tube. He would freeze there, holding the position, then slowly recover and step back.

Everyone would “ooh and awe”. Then he would turn casually say there was “just one problem with this kind of performance...Us Georgia boys ain’t got no ki!” and at this he would whip around and hack violently at the tube shearing of pieces left and right with one hand and sending them flying across the room. It would get tremendous laugh and the lesson was self evident. He’d then repeat it using a short arming sword and large stomping steps.

We did some amusing test cuts once here in my garage using some large raw beef rump steaks tied by strings to a 60 pound punching bag hanging from a chain. We rocked the bag back and force and tried to step in against it to cut the meat. It was surprising how often we’d completely miss the steaks or only cause a little cut. Eventually, we got the hang of it and learned to subtly time it and adjust our cuts. On a few occasions I recall we stood perfectly still and as it came at us we tried to just “slice” and the punching bag ended up knocking our hilts or hitting us, forcing us to step back, while the damage to the steak was almost nothing. But then, by stepping off to the side instead, and timing our motion with a turn of the hips and a long draw of the arm we did more damage. Still, it was nothing like the full arm blows with timed passing steps that chopped pieces of the 2 inch thick meat right off.

It was enlightening to consider this in terms of an armed opponent charging violently.

JC

[Bob Charron]

John Clements quotes are below, my responses follow (***):

Sorry you feel I am reacting “strongly,” I consider it intelligent discourse to be challenged to think further. If you see the points raised and quotes cited as not relevant, I'm afraid I can't help you there. They speak for themselves. Broaden your interpretation perhaps if they seem obscure?

***You said that it defied logic to cut without stepping. That is not challenging me to think further. Challening me to think further would have involve you asking for citations from the manuscript in support. You then supplied quotes from other masters that supported cutting while stepping. This is all well and good, but misses the point that there can be, and is, cutting without stepping in Fiore. That was my point, which still stands. If you want to say that Fiore does not cut without stepping, then you need to prove that from the text of Fiore.

When someone sems to state categorically that a master said “XYZ” about some aspect of fencing, and that it absolutely can only mean one thing, I think that is a very limiting mindset, especially this early in our investigation of the craft, and even more so if that interpretation appears to contradict both common sense and a wealth of other period as well as modern sources.

***Well, it's pretty straightforward. Many masters are very clear in what they want you to do. Insisting that the original language doesn't say what it says is a device to allow free interpretation of the techniques and to avoid what the master tells you to do if you already do and insist on something entirely different.

***Here are Fiore's words:
"Volta stabile sie che stando fermo po zugar denanzi e di dredo de una parte." And later, "E per zo digo che la spada si ha tre movementi zoe volta stabile meza volta e tutta volta." Which translate respectively: "Volta stabile is that, standing firm one can play in front and in back on one side." and: "And because of that I say that the sword thus has three movements - that is the *volta stabile*, the meza volta and the tutta volta." It doesn't get much more straightforward than that. No difficult words or phrases in this passage.

In the first example you give, Fiore is simply lowering his weapon after intercepting and stifling a potential cut, using the opponent’s own momentum to resist against. This same thing is seen numerous times in German texts. No step is necessarily required because as he comes at you are only dropping the blade against his hands or forearms hard and pull slice by pulling it down. It would be semantic games to argue this is as equivalent to delivering a powerful downward cut from inaction. It is not the same technique as a powerful downward cut from a range outside the chest to chest distance of pressed swords he describes this technique as occurring under.

*** I don't believe it to be semantic games. You said cutting without moving your feet defies logic, and then you agree above that you can cut without moving your feet. Changing to "powerful downward cut outside the chest to chest distance" is a first step backward from your original position. My point and example still stand.

In the second example you give, the very act of “stepping off the line to establish a new place” is itself all the motion needed to add necessary momentum to your cut against an advancing opponent. So, again, footwork is involved, you can’t do the techniques as he says without moving.

***No. I described this as being delivered after the new position is established. Stepping before the cut does not add the power of the step to the cut. The example still stands.

In the third example, as with the first, the opponent has already moved into range, so to step again would certainly put you at too close a position to strike, and the opponent’s forward motion and blade position --having just been set aside --leaves you with your blade not forcefully impacting with a powerful cut but being placed against him in a way that permits a strong drawing slice. Again, not a powerful cut and so not contradicting the sources quoted in the previous post. Yet still, are we to believe that as the opponent flies forward in this manner to have his cut intercepted and his sword set off, that Master Fiore expects us to stand still while the opponent’s aggressive forward momentum magically stops without impacting us? Surely you must move you feet after to complete the action? Or perhaps, again, like in the second example, he has already moved off line and did not mention it.

***No again. In the example it is clear that the delivered cut was not done "flying at" me. It was done in a collected manner which kept him in the range of zogho largo. If he "flew at" me, we would be in the zogho stretto and an entirely different technique is called for. The example stands as cutting without moving the feet, given the obvious parameters of the situation necessary to it.

So maybe the error lies in equating a shearing, cleaving blow to a pulling slice as all just being "cuts" --but in fact they are different types.

***You made no fine distinction about what kind of cut it is, nor does a cut always have to be of a particular type. The examples still stand.

The point is there are subtleties involved that are not always explained or self-evident in the manuals –that once again, only become clear to us today when performing techniques at realistic speed with sufficient force.

***Subtleties in the systems taught by the masters in their treatises can be gotten at through many methods: better translation, time with the material, full-speed drill. All are valid and all are productive.

You can’t stand still when cutting at someone trying to kill you. But you can slice against someone flying at you. If you do, you are still going to have to move your feet at some point.

*** Maybe, maybe not. There are techniques in Fiore, and most evidently otherwise in German messer that involve a void of the body by shifting the weight backwards while pivoting on the balls of the feet. This requires no foot movement, and creates a void. If the circumstances are just so, even this may not be necessary. It does not require stepping.

I certainly would love to see someone in person try otherwise when fencing this way.

***The situation for the technique must arise. If one is always "flying" in then they will be immediately in zogho stretto if the opponent does not void. If they are playing carefully from zogho largo there are many opportunities to counter with a cut that does not involve moving the feet. I cut Brian Price's hands with just such a cut last weekend during the unarmored tournament in Benicia. Once again, there is no rule that you must step to cut within Fiore. In fact, there is instruction that among your options you may not have to move your feet. It is up to you to disprove that within Fiore to counter my position.

There is a problem is assuming that the manual teaches “all and everything” you need as is and that it’s whole and complete on its own. Which you know full well it is not so. After 500 years we must translate and then interpret their words and in reconstructing the techniques we cannot help but include things he did not mention or that he may have assumed knowledge of on part of the reader. Systematically or not, you cannot include everything about fighting with every singe technique in one short book. That is the whole problem. As Doebringer wrote “should know that one cannot speak or write about fighting as clearly as one can show and demonstrate with the hand; therefore use your common sense and reflect on things further.”

***The longer I spend with Fiore, the more I realize that darn near every single minute detail I need is there. So maybe I don't know that full well. I don't need to go to another treatise to find it. I need to study this one further. So we will undoubtedly perpetually disagree on this point, and let it fall away.

So perhaps you should consider that you’re misreading the text, mistranslating the text, or have misinterpreted the instructions.

***I consider that every day. Anyone studying these treatises must, in humility, approach it this way. But it doesn't make me think I have to look elsewhere. It makes me think I need to become better at understanding what is written. The text is above. Read it and see if I'm misunderstanding it.

As Dr. Sydney Anglo has said on the difficulties of trying to interpret Fiore and similar works, it poses “considerable problems which require for their solution much more than enthusiasm, good will, and a pragmatic knowledge of fighting.

***Indeed it does, which is why I don't limit myself to looking at the illustrations and creating techniques from them. I've even seen people use the illustration of the colpo di villano in support of a certain type of parrying. It is clear the person that did that hadn't read the text of the treatise.

Texts need to be accurately transcribed, meticulously collated one with another, and scrupulously translated. The language has to be studied, scribal details in manuscripts investigated, words and phrases glossed, and so on.”

***Which is exactly what I've been doing for the last 3-1/2 years - every day without interruption. I have purchased five various regional and historic dictionaries, glossed phrases, studied the batard hand so I could understand all the ligatures - all of it.

***My points and examples still stand, and have yet to be refuted by any evidence to the contrary. Matt Easton has studied Fiore, and I'm sure Eleanora is an excellent translator, so I'm sure they both are aware of volta stabile.

***It seems that no matter what I try to put forward here people try really hard to find fault with it or refute it. They do so far beyond discussion. I haven't been asked to prove it. I've been told it just isn't so. I hope the original Italian (and the translation for those who can't read it) help with understanding this.

[John_Clements]

You seem to be getting increasingly testy in what should be a casual discourse, Bob. Still, I am sure everyone here appreciates your discourse. Maybe broadening your circle to a more skeptical audience is not always pleasant or easy to deal with.

You shouldn’t be bothered that I or anyone else can freely question your or anyone else’s translation and interpretation of Fiore as much as we wish, and do so in light of what other masters and our own experience tells us. If the two can’t be reconciled, so be it. No need for friction. We’re not arguing “religion” here.

The plethora of masters stressing the importance of footwork in lethal cutting can’t be argued with as far as I see it. So far, you have avoided addressing that problem which we are actively dealing with solely by deference to your interpretation of Fiore. That’s ok. It’s your choice. But, I say whether footwork is a simple turn of the heal and lean of the hip, a simple forward or back step of one foot, a hopping leap, or a full on passing motion, footwork predominates in Western swordsmanship up to the period of the rapier. And it's necessary to cut strongly.

It certainly seems to me in your three examples you either equate or confuse a slicing action with a more powerful shearing and cleaving blow. Since Master Fiore does not appear to distinguish which he means in these actions we have to determine it by following his direction and trying to work it out. If you get a different result than someone else, so be it. If you want to interpret his teachings as meaning to stand perfectly still, that’s your choice. If it works for you among the circle of those you play with, that’s... understandable. Thus, my questions and comments on the logic of how one could cut strongly while standing still are perfectly sound. And as my earlier rebuttal shows, not supported by your three examples of slicing at close ranges (actions which have equivalents in the German school where they do not appear to be described as powerful killing cuts) –and all of which, as I pointed out, involve moving the feet before or after within the action Fiore describes, and have the opponent moving toward you…Additionally, we must ask if these three techniques are even indicated by Fiore as being killing blows as opposed to disabling slices?

Wise as he was, I seriously doubt Fiore really wrote down every single thing about how to perform every single action. There are numerous significant elements of fighting he either excluded or chose to omit that gives us pause to wonder. Rather than read into him with our own ideas when interpreting any modern translation of his words it’s better to compare what other masters of the day agree on. I advise anyone studying this craft to not exclude other sources when interpreting what Fiore’s teachings meant and how to perform them in earnest today.

JC

[Jake_Norwood]

I think part of the problem arises in how narrow study can lead to such an interpretation. Vadi, like Fiore, implies that cuts *can* be made (not necessarily should be made) without significant foot-movement. But by studying more sources and especially by cutting and sparring and flourishing with intent one begins to see that while “still” cuts are possible—and have their place as slices, beats, and recoveries, they are hardly the basis for a system.

Bob,
Are you saying that cuts should be made still when possible? I recall that we made all cuts from a pass at your seminar in Denver. Likewise, in most situations if you cut without stepping you end up in a position that is outside of Fiore's system: for example, if you cut Fendente from di Donna right without stepping the cut must stop in posta breve or in middle iron door, but cannot go all the way to boar's tooth because that would require a step. That would imply that such "still" cuts are generally used as beats, slices, and recoveres/transitions or even threats. I think that these still cuts exist, but I wonder what advantage they might offer over a more Germanic-style stepping hit.

Also, is is possible that by "stable" Fiore and Vadi don't mean that the feet remain planted, but rather that they stay in their same "which leg is leading" position, resulting in a stop or shuffle step. This would add power to such cuts and would improve balance. Likewise it incorporates the frequent exhortation to move the body and feet with the cut.

Some thoughts.

Jake

[Mike Cartier]

It has been my experience with every martial art I have encountered that footwork is invariably the central element that needs to be mastered to gain any kind of skill in said art.

When you put a weapon in your hand this rule is doubly true.


I think J.C. made some valid points about those examples you offered up Bob, made perfect sense to me.

[Guest]

Very interesting discussion. Since the original topic centered around test cutting, I'll attempt to steer it back that way. While it is possible to cut (or slice) without associated footwork, I think this situation would probably present itself fairly rarely. Real fighting is very dynamic and the need for footwork, whether it is passing, stepping, pivoting, shifting weight, etc. to control range and position is vital, and is discussed by many different masters. I think that although there are probably cuts explained by Fiore and possibly others that don't require footwork to accomplish, the overwhelming majority of cutting actions do involve footwork. It makes sense to me therefore to do most of your test cutting the same way most real cutting would be done, with associated footwork. I'm sure I can stand in range of a target and cut it, especially a soft target and this does provide some insight into the mechanics of cutting. However, it is much more challenging to start out of range and step into range as you cut, or start too close and pass back as you cut, or traverse as if you were warding off or voiding and then cut. These actions require more timing, judgement of range, and coordination of the entire body, just like in a real fight and therefore make the cutting much more relevant.

[Bob Charron]

Gosh, where do I start.

I was never testy. If this is the impression, it was given by the medium of communication.

There seems to be a good deal of confusion here. My point was, as I have said over and over again, that there is only a category of cuts done in Fiore without moving the feet. "Standing firm" is a pretty clear indication of that.

It is not the basis for my interpreting the entire system. As I have said repeatedly, the majority of Fiore's system uses stepping with cutting. I don't know who made the leap to me interpreting an entire system as not stepping.

I did the majority of my test cutting with a step. My original point was that *even* when not stepping, the mechanics still worked.

And of course you get different cuts stepping than not stepping. It was never stated otherwise. This direction was taken by someone else entirely.

Again, I thought I was pretty clear throughout my posts. The direction of the discussion was steered away from volta stabile being *part* of the system all the way to believing I never stepped and told people not to. Very silly.

I believe that the sword is only a tool of the art. I believe the what the feet do is more important than what the sword does. I teach footwork constantly. I stress it. I preach it. Anyone who has ever seen me teach would have to agree - especially recently where I taught an entire two hour course on Fiore's footwork and power generation.

Please re-read the entire thread again. There is a rule being made to exclude cutting without stepping. This is not possible in Fiore, as he clearly includes it as *part* of his system. Therefore there is cutting without stepping in Fiore as an *option* among many.

Does that make it more clear? This has been my position from the beginning.

[Guest]

Bob C: "I did the majority of my test cutting with a step. My original point was that *even* when not stepping, the mechanics still worked".

In the videos on your site, only one of the three is done with a step, on the other two you only twist your body slightly. You seem to have cut pretty effectively in all three examples, although the fendente with a pass was obviously the most powerful. Folks watching the videos, who have not attended your seminars may have interpreted this as a tendancy to cut in this way most of the time. At your seminar that I attended, footwork was certainly stressed, I don't recall any techniques that did not involve some sort of footwork, whether cutting, voiding or covering. I think this is certainly the norm throughout western swordplay.