Italian and German Traditions

[Randall Pleasant]

Scholars

In the Getty version of Fiore he states the following (Tom Leoni translation, page 7):

The whole art and expertise Fiore acquired from several German and Italian Masters, in many provinces and towns, with much labor and expense. And by the grace of God, Fiore learned so much from so many Masters and students, and in the courts of such great lords, princes, dukes, and marquises, counts, knights, and squires, that he was himself often asked to teach. Several lords, knights, and squires came to me, Fiore, for instructions on the art of amrs and of prolonged combat in the lists; this art I taught to many Italians and Germans who had to fight inthe lists, as well as to countless others who did not.

In the above Fiore is clearly states that the art he knows was learned from a mixture of German and Italian masters. Likewise, Fiore clearly states that he taught the art to both German and Italian students. We clear know that the footwork of Fiore is nothing more than a subset of what was know as the Scales among the Germans. Fiore's dagger material is pretty much the same as the German dagger materials. Much of the longsword material is not unlike the German longsword, the first play is nothing more than Ringeck's zorn-to-zorn play.

So the question is: What is the actual evidence, as oposed to mere opinion, that clearly suggest that Fiore's art is something completely different from the German art and the rest fo the Europen arts?

[Tyrone Artur Budzin]

I have been contemplating this question myself. So far in my research I have noticed many techniques used by Fiore having counterparts with the works of other German masters.

His work cannot be purely Italian due to influence from various German teachings and vice versa. What we may have to contend with is the notion his manuals were probably the first to contain a very well documented mixed martial arts system in European history.

There is no evidence to dispute it from being partly German for he himself has acknowledged this in his literature.

My 2 cents on the matter.

[I. Hartikainen]

Hi,

I think a more intriguing question would be whether Fiore ever met Liechtenauer or any of the masters that went on to gloss Liechtenauer's teachings.

Italy as a nation did not exist in the 15th century, and Fiore certainly originated from the same area, cradle for most of the martial writings of that time.

So far I have not seen any evidence to an existing text that would've served as source for Fiore directly - although not surprisingly there are common themes.

The arts were probably much older than we think, transmitted from teacher to student, and it was only in the 15th century when attempts were started in writing the arts down and perhaps for more systematically codifying them.

Randall, did you know that Fiore likely wrote his material some 30 years before Ringeck? So even if the techniques had some similarities, fiore's action can hardly be decribed as "nothing more than Ringeck's zorn-to-zorn play". Rather, Ringeck's zorn play would be nothing more than Fiore's first play. I'm saying this because often people fall into artificial camps (Fiore against Liechtenauer etc.) that serve very little purpose.

That said, I suggest viewing any material from a single author, or material from a clearly visible lineage in isolation - commonalities in the works do not necessarily point towards a connection between the authors or even the material itself. It can, but it is often too easy to jump into conclusions.

In my view, if we knew that Fiore and Liechtenauer corresponded, we could be relatively sure of a direct connection, if there was more common terminology and division into concepts we could be sure or if there was clear evidence that parts of the treatises, text or pictures, were copied from one or the other would point to the connection.

As things stand, the iron door is pretty much the only connection in terminology. The guard names are distinctly different, the cuts are different (the meisterhau are absent in Fiore) and the concept of timing is not described in Fiore. Fiore's work is also absent of any direct advice to winding actions - a very defining feature of many Liechtenauer texts.

Fiore's definition of footwork is relatively precise, with his three turns and four other things, and it is not described similarly in any other text. Whether it is a "subset" of some other named concept (can you point me to a source describing the set of which you see Fiore's work as being subset, please) I do not know - there simply aren't that many different ways a human being can step. I think, in the end all footwork is derived from simple everyday walking - placing yourself into a position of advantage.

I get the feeling that you are looking for a sort of "which came first" answer, but likely one is not available. The art itself is older than the written records, and Fiore's work is one of the earliest and most complete depictions of it. We know it represents one man's take on the subject he knew so much about, but how representative it is of anyone else's take, or of what was seen done by most people in a sword-wielding society is difficult to answer.

Yours,
Ilkka

[Randall Pleasant]

Ilkka

Thanks for the reply.

I think a more intriguing question would be whether Fiore ever met Liechtenauer or any of the masters that went on to gloss Liechtenauer's teachings.

Yes, that question is indeed intriguing but let's save that one for later.

So far I have not seen any evidence to an existing text that would've served as source for Fiore directly - although not surprisingly there are common themes.

I agree that so far there is no text that served as a source for Fiore.

So how much commonality must there be before we say it is the same art rather than just common themes? How much real difference do we see between the art of the Germans and the art of the Italians? Both the German and Italian used longswords in and out of armour, they cut the same, moved the same, stepped the same, had the same dagger techniques, shared the same sword techniques, etc. Fiore makes clear that they did trained among each other.

The arts were probably much older than we think, transmitted from teacher to student, and it was only in the 15th century when attempts were started in writing the arts down and perhaps for more systematically codifying them.

I think most of us are aware that the art was already old by the time of Fiore and Liechtenauer. That the art was already old actually supports the theory that it was one art since there was more time for people to travel and share what they knew of the art.

Randall, did you know that Fiore likely wrote his material some 30 years before Ringeck? So even if the techniques had some similarities, fiore's action can hardly be decribed as "nothing more than Ringeck's zorn-to-zorn play". Rather, Ringeck's zorn play would be nothing more than Fiore's first play. I'm saying this because often people fall into artificial camps (Fiore against Liechtenauer etc.) that serve very little purpose.

Yes, I am aware of the time differences between Fiore and Ringeck. I was not trying to say that Fiore came from Ringeck, nor that Ringeck came from Fiore. The question is, To what degree is Fiore and Ringeck the same art? Is there really enough difference to justify considering them two separate arts. Of course, another question is this a real difference or just a difference between interpretations.

That said, I suggest viewing any material from a single author, or material from a clearly visible lineage in isolation - commonalities in the works do not necessarily point towards a connection between the authors or even the material itself. It can, but it is often too easy to jump into conclusions.

There may not be a connection between known works, but as stated in Fiore there is a clear connection between German and Italian swordsmen. It is indeed easy to jump into conclusions on both sides of the issue.

In my view, if we knew that Fiore and Liechtenauer corresponded, we could be relatively sure of a direct connection, if there was more common terminology and division into concepts we could be sure or if there was clear evidence that parts of the treatises, text or pictures, were copied from one or the other would point to the connection.

Fiore and Liechtenauer did not have to correspond in order for them to have the same art.

As things stand, the iron door is pretty much the only connection in terminology. The guard names are distinctly different, the cuts are different (the meisterhau are absent in Fiore) and the concept of timing is not described in Fiore. Fiore's work is also absent of any direct advice to winding actions - a very defining feature of many Liechtenauer texts.

Are different names really solid evidence of two different arts or is that just a product of moving between languages? Is there really a difference between the Ochs guard and the Window guard once we move beyound their names?

Fiore's definition of footwork is relatively precise, with his three turns and four other things, and it is not described similarly in any other text. Whether it is a "subset" of some other named concept (can you point me to a source describing the set of which you see Fiore's work as being subset, please) I do not know - there simply aren't that many different ways a human being can step. I think, in the end all footwork is derived from simple everyday walking - placing yourself into a position of advantage.

There is nothing in Fiore's footwook that we don't perform as part of the Scales when doing German longsword. Personally, I think the differences seen many be due to mis-interpretations, such as some intepretations that say that both feet must pivot during a Volta Stabile rather than one or both feet pivoting. As you pointed out, "there simply aren't that many different ways a human being can step".

I get the feeling that you are looking for a sort of "which came first" answer, but likely one is not available. The art itself is older than the written records, and Fiore's work is one of the earliest and most complete depictions of it. We know it represents one man's take on the subject he knew so much about, but how representative it is of anyone else's take, or of what was seen done by most people in a sword-wielding society is difficult to answer.

I am not looking for "which came first". Rather, as I stated in my first post, I'm look for "What is the actual evidence, as oposed to mere opinion, that clearly suggest that Fiore's art is something completely different from the German art and the rest fo the Europen arts?" Good evidence would be numerous methods of moving the body and/or sword in ways that are clearly described in Fiore but absolutely not found in the German manuals.

Thanks,

[Tyrone Artur Budzin]

Mr. Pleasant,

I am not familiar with sword techniques when it comes to Medieval Arts for I focus more on the unarmed combat aspect taught by the German masters. After reading through the thread I would like to ask if Fiore's teachings were ever mentioned in the German circles during his time or beyond it? Maybe some of his dagger or Ringen (Abrazare) works found its way into some German literature?

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Rather, as I stated in my first post, I'm look for "What is the actual evidence, as oposed to mere opinion, that clearly suggest that Fiore's art is something completely different from the German art and the rest fo the Europen arts?"

I think it depends a lot on what exactly you mean by "the art".

If the art is purely the result for you, i.e. how the fighter moves and what he does during the fight, maybe there isn't a whole lot of difference that we can tell from the manuals. That is because the arts tend to be rather complete, you won't find a useful way to move that is completely unknown or cannot be described in either.

Personally, I'd take a wider definition and include pedagogy into the arts, how you teach someone how to move and how to decide which move to perform in which situation. I think those are the things that made masters useful back then: they didn't just know how to fight but knew how to teach and turn someone into a good fighter quicker than raw experience and trial and error.

I don't know the early sources well enough to argue, but if there are differences to be found I'd rather look for them at that last level.

Regards,

[Stacy Clifford]

Vincent,

I can definitely see where you're coming from, but I'm personally inclined to believe that you can have multiple ways to teach what is essentially the same art. The Germans certainly seem to have focused more on conceptual analysis than the Italians, but in the end the results don't wind up looking a whole lot different. I can't speak for Fiore as much because I haven't worked with it in a long time, but Di Grassi is another Italian who never mentions winding and binding and feeling and all that, but yet when you start to understand what he's doing, you find that it's still all in there and quite unavoidable. I doubt by Fiore's time that there were many masters anywhere in Europe who could have completely escaped any influence by foreign ideas, but there was still enough isolation by language and culture to allow for some convergent evolution as well.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Hi Stacy,

I can definitely see where you're coming from, but I'm personally inclined to believe that you can have multiple ways to teach what is essentially the same art.

As I said it's purely a matter of definition, and I see merit in both points of view... I have chosen to consider the art as a composite of performance and pedagogy because it makes more sense with my favorite texts, especially Thibault. I find it helps realizing that how he exposes the motions is as much a part of what he considers his art as the motions themselves.

I think considering the art as the sum of the moves performed works well if you are trying to master a particular weapon combination. So if I wanted to become very skilled at the rapier I would study several rapier arts and use each of their different pedagogical focuses to further my own personal performance and understanding. That wouldn't make them the same art but just complementary training methods applicable to the same context, in a sense.

As I said, I can't judge how valid this is for the earlier sources. From what I've seen the pedagogical exposition seems different between German and Italian sources... But that's just from a rather superficial exposure.

Regards,

[RayMcCullough]

I think considering the art as the sum of the moves performed works well if you are trying to master a particular weapon combination. So if I wanted to become very skilled at the rapier I would study several rapier arts and use each of their different pedagogical focuses to further my own personal performance and understanding. That wouldn't make them the same art but just complementary training methods applicable to the same context, in a sense.

Regards,

What makes the sum of moves performed the "art"? Is the "art" not the application of the concepts, fundamentals, and principles of fighting/self defense? At least that is what I understood the "art" to be.

That being said, I don't have a difference other than the order of the techniques. The way they taught, different, not what they taught. Fiore tells us to use measure, judgement, perception, Audacity, courage, speed, initialtive, simultaneaty, strength, and stability. The Germans say the same in a different way. Vor, nach, weak, strong, indes, fuhlen, and scales.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

What makes the sum of moves performed the "art"? Is the "art" not the application of the concepts, fundamentals, and principles of fighting/self defense? At least that is what I understood the "art" to be.

Yeah that was poorly phrased on my part, let me elaborate a bit.

The art rests indeed on principles and concepts. But these principles and concepts on their own are not the art, in particular because they are shared not just by martial arts throughout the world but also by many opposition sports. So the application part is very important too, and can be looked at in two different ways.

One possibility is too look at the moves performed by an exponent of one art and try to assess if an exponent of the other art would see them as appropriate to his own. That's what I meant by art as "the sum of moves performed". The focus is not what the fighter thinks he is doing or how he learned doing it, but how it is possible to describe and understand what he is doing. This is one possible way to assess the similarity between two arts: you look at the applications and see if it fits to either. From this point of view it may well be that different traditions end up being the same art: they are mutually understandable.

Another point of view is to focus on how the principles are taught, what canonical techniques are used to expose the principles, how the principles and concepts are implemented in the applications. From this point of view, the underlying pedagogy is at least as important as the final application that is reached. I think it makes sense for martial arts: their point is not just to be able to describe what happens or expose the underlying principles, but also to teach someone efficiently. From that point of view, you could have two traditions that share the same principles (the science underlying the art), reach the same applications, but are taught following different paths. In that case I would say they are not the same art.

Regards,

[RayMcCullough]

"The art rests indeed on principles and concepts. But these principles and concepts on their own are not the art, in particular because they are shared not just by martial arts throughout the world but also by many opposition sports. So the application part is very important too, and can be looked at in two different ways. "

Yes, the application of the principles and concepts together are the art. They cannot be seperated. I have not seen any other Martial arts or sports that have the same "art" as the Renaissance Europeans.

"One possibility is too look at the moves performed by an exponent of one art and try to assess if an exponent of the other art would see them as appropriate to his own. That's what I meant by art as "the sum of moves performed". The focus is not what the fighter thinks he is doing or how he learned doing it, but how it is possible to describe and understand what he is doing. This is one possible way to assess the similarity between two arts: you look at the applications and see if it fits to either. From this point of view it may well be that different traditions end up being the same art: they are mutually understandable. "

I really am not sure what you were trying to say here. Please elaborate more. Thanks.

"Another point of view is to focus on how the principles are taught, what canonical techniques are used to expose the principles, how the principles and concepts are implemented in the applications. From this point of view, the underlying pedagogy is at least as important as the final application that is reached. I think it makes sense for martial arts: their point is not just to be able to describe what happens or expose the underlying principles, but also to teach someone efficiently. From that point of view, you could have two traditions that share the same principles (the science underlying the art), reach the same applications, but are taught following different paths. In that case I would say they are not the same art."

Ok. I have racked my brain awhile on this. It has been a good discussion and has really got me thinking. Let me try and restate what I meant because I think our meanings are different.

Let's say X is a Martial Art. Master 1 and Master 2 both teach the same art,X. They have the same set of techniques. The difference between the two is the order that they teach the application of the concepts and principles(art X) using techniques.

Techniques are the specific actions used to accomplish the application of the concepts and principles, the art. Techniques change from weapon to weapon but the art does not.

Does this make more sense?

Thanks

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

I really am not sure what you were trying to say here. Please elaborate more. Thanks.

I was trying to say more or less what you said here:

Let's say X is a Martial Art. Master 1 and Master 2 both teach the same art,X. They have the same set of techniques. The difference between the two is the order that they teach the application of the concepts and principles(art X) using techniques.

Which means that to assess whether they do the same art, you look at the end result (techniques) and see if they're similar and can be deduced from the same principles. That approach will often lead to consider that everything that applies to the same context with the same weapons is the same art. As such, many forms of unarmed fighting could be considered as the same art, western or otherwise.

After that, there is also the issue of how much difference is needed to say that it is difference. You always have personal variations, in techniques and in pedagogy. If it's just about order of teaching, it probably does not matter much. But what if they are not using the same 'technical alphabet' (the canonical applications used to demonstrate the concepts and principles)? I think this would show in how trained people fight... Same thing with a switch of favorite weapon: if someone teaches the same principles but applied to another weapon, is he doing the same art?

I'm not in favour of forgetting pedagogy too much while defining the art, because we end up with more or less everything everywhere being the same art. I'm not too clear either on the practical consequences of saying that German and Italian longsword are the same art. What does this change? It's not like it's forbidden to study two different arts if it makes you better at what you want to do...

Regards,

[Randall Pleasant]

I think it depends a lot on what exactly you mean by "the art".

If the art is purely the result for you, i.e. how the fighter moves and what he does during the fight, maybe there isn't a whole lot of difference that we can tell from the manuals. That is because the arts tend to be rather complete, you won't find a useful way to move that is completely unknown or cannot be described in either.

Personally, I'd take a wider definition and include pedagogy into the arts, how you teach someone how to move and how to decide which move to perform in which situation. I think those are the things that made masters useful back then: they didn't just know how to fight but knew how to teach and turn someone into a good fighter quicker than raw experience and trial and error.

I don't know the early sources well enough to argue, but if there are differences to be found I'd rather look for them at that last level.

Vincent

A martial art is a set of fighting skills. It doe not refer to how those skills are taught. A man with little ability to teach may have the fullness of the art, yet a man with great teaching abilities may only have a small part of the art. I also consider a martial art to be language independant. In other words, two men who speak totally different languages can have the same set of fighting skills. When I look at the fighting skill set of Fiore, as defined in his works, I don't see any significant amount of material that is not found in the workds of the German masters.

I don't mean to down play the importances of pedagogy. In fact, all of the recent advancements within ARMA, commonly known as the ARMA Rosetta Stone (see: http://www.thearma.org/essays/revealing-new-perspectives.html), have their roots in the pedagogy breakthrough by John Clements. While others have turned to modern pedagogy John Clements took the opposite view and focused on how the historical masters were teaching, as defined by the structure of their works. This is why ARMA is so far ahead of where it was just a year and a half ago. Without Clements' pedagogy breakthrough it is much less likely he could have made his interpretational breakthrough. We can never know for sure how the historical masters taught the art but a class with John Clements is probably about as close one can experience.

So again I ask, What is the actual evidence, as oposed to mere opinion, that clearly suggest that Fiore's art is something completely different from the German art and the rest fo the Europen arts?

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

A martial art is a set of fighting skills. It doe not refer to how those skills are taught.

OK, I think it helps if you include that in your question.

When I look at the fighting skill set of Fiore, as defined in his works, I don't see any significant amount of material that is not found in the works of the German masters. [...]
What is the actual evidence, as oposed to mere opinion, that clearly suggest that Fiore's art is something completely different from the German art and the rest of the European arts?

(emphasis mine)
Aside from the definition problem, the issue will be what you consider to be significant. Apparently you do see some differences, what are these exactly and why do you think they are unimportant?

As far as I can see the context of martial application was similar across Europe at that time, so I'd be surprised indeed if there was a big technical gap, moves that you can't figure using either Italian or German works. On the other hand, you could have different emphasis or different decision processes, something that would not appear looking at individual techniques but would be visible over the course of a fight. I don't know, I'm just suggesting possibilities...

While others have turned to modern pedagogy John Clements took the opposite view and focused on how the historical masters were teaching, as defined by the structure of their works.

This is a tangent, but doesn't that imply that you (well, John Clements) also think that the pedagogy was relatively homogeneous across Europe?

Regards,

[Tyrone Artur Budzin]

Can anyone shed light to my question if Fiore's work was ever mentioned in any German books? I do not have access to the wealth of literature many of you do. Any information on this is highly appreciated, thanks!