Style or Method?

[Jared L. Cass]

Hi All, I just thought I'd start a new thread, sort of dealing with the direction that the "Assistance" thread took.

As I'm sure you're all aware, there has been much discussion lately concerning the German (or Liechtenauer's) "style" and the Italian (or Fiore's) "style".

Awhile back (like a couple of months ago) on the Elist, ARMA members discussed the question that I'll again post here. I believe that it would be interesting to see what you all have to say concerning it. And to give those that might have missed out on the initial disscussion a chance to chime in.

It may be just be semantics, but do you all think that [color="red"] [/color] Style [color="black"] [/color] is what we should be talking about? Wouldn't [color="red"] [/color] Method [color="black"] [/color] be a better word choice?

The word "Style" to me, makes me think of something unique, belonging only to a select one. A very personal way of doing things. Something that can be seen, but not truely imitated.

"Method" on the other hand brings to (my) mind more of a general way of doing things. Something still personal, but not unique to only one. Something teachable (if that's really a word <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" /> ).

(Note: theses are just the meanings that occur to me when I hear "style" and "method" mentioned.)

So, what will (should) it be folks? Fiore's/Liechtenauer's "Style" or their "Method"? Or doesn't this word choice really matter?

Jared L. Cass, ARMA Associate, Wisconsin

[david welch]

Hi, Jared.

I may be completely off base, but I think of it as, at least in Fiore's case, his method is for each of us to make your OWN style, useing your definitions of "style" and "method".

Fiore, and most of the other masters it seems, trained with as many people as they could, took what worked for them, and made their own "style". You can't even tell what Fiore's personal style WAS because in the prolog he says:

"No one should think that in this book there are false or erroneous concepts because, eliminating the ambiguities, I have described in it only techniques that I have invented, or seen, or tried.

So he says that he doesn't even use all the techniques in his manual. How can that made into his "style"?

It looks to me like we are given a list of techniques that Fiore says he knows work, now we are specifically supposed to pick out what works for us, and develope our own way of doing things with them. How is that for a style. "Do What Works For You".

It looks to me like Fiore beat Bruce Lee's "Study everything. Take what works. Leave the rest." by about 500 years. <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

[Steve Thurston]

Works for me!

A European 'method' of fighting, modified by different masters to develope an indiviual 'style'.

Steve

[Jared L. Cass]

Carlo Parisi wrote in an email:

"Hi Jared, I keep having technical problems with the forum, here is my intended reply to your "styles-methods" post:
Now, yours I guess will be the most debated question of the near future in the wma ground. There are various opinions.

In my, ok the bast... logician came back, point of vew, we could compare a style to a species and a method to a genus, now, this could implys that styles of a given weapon are all the same beast, in zoology terms.

However, there is another couple of points of vew to eamine, firstly, the generality of the genus can be extended only to a certain period time or place or combination of both, this we could call a restricted genus view.

Secondly, we could see things in analogy to a medieval logical doctrine: negation of generalia (I believe it was Roscellino its main proponent), we could say that the only things that exist are the particular beings, while their genus (the general term that means them all in this analogy) is only a product of the mind and a flatus vocis.

So, what's the right approach? I've no idea <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" />

If I had to vote, I'd select the restricted genus, I'd also keep in mind that species of the same genus can compare (cross style bouts) and that when you study single manuals you see species (styles).

Carlo

If you wish to reply me on the forum, you can post my reply of above, making clear that the reason why I didn't do it myself is technical problems"

Jared writes: Thanks for the reply, Carlo! Hope the technical problems clear up for you.

Jared L. Cass, ARMA Associate, Wisconsin

[Randall Pleasant]

Scholars

The changes in swordsmenship over time is a form of cultural evolution. I would think that anthropology might provide better terms than zoology/biology but I have been out of anthropology so long that I can't remember if there were any useful terms. Maybe Steve Thurston, Eric Gregory, or AMRA advisor Dr. Tom Green could provide more useful terms.

[Steve Thurston]

Each area of anthropology seems to use its own parameters and definitions, so I would suggest we do the same.

If we are going to look to anthropology for the answer we need to start looking at defining catagories both in time and space.

On this forum site, I would suggest that we stick to European examples, later we could look at Eurasia, moving on to the east last. <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

If we accept the environmental boundries as Europe we can start to analyse the ebvidence available.

The first true evidence for a developed methodology(for that is what it is, a "method" for the use of a given weapon.) of sword use is I.33, C13th.

swords were used before this I.33, however, there is little substancial evidence for a particular methodology. The periods before I.33 will need clasification, I will go into this later.

Is there a correlation between I.33 and other, later, manuals?

As yet I don't know that much about the range of documents available. I have, however, noted similarities between other manuals continuing till the end of the C16th - G. Silver. 1598/99. I am not aware of manuals that display correlation after this period and therefore suggest that 1290-1600 to be our second time frame of methodology.

After 1600 the balls in your court, I know nothing other than it is all "frog prodding" stuff.

We need a name for our first two Methodologies. I would suggest 'the dark ages' for the first. As yet we know nothing about it yet there must be change and evolution due to the change in materials that were used to produce the weaponry.

The second I don't no. I would suggest "sword in the age of chivalry" as it seems rather appropriate on this forum more than any other.

The main problem with classication of method is that it gets confusing. Many manuals cover more than one weapon type, yet each weapon has its own evolutionary avenue. I have produced a ruff time line to demonstrate the problem.
I have used weapon definitions where I feel it is likely to find a change in 'methodology of use' . This is primerely due to change of materials. Those with a greater understanding of European martial arts will be able to find faults, but it is perhaps not a bad place to start.

How do I send a scan? <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/blush.gif" alt="" />
If anyone is interested say and I can email it to you.

[Shane Smith]

To my mind,the "style" is unique to each individual "stylist". As men, we all have our own individual physical attributes and temperments and that alone will tend to color our personal concepts of combat. A tall thin guy may well find that certain techniques that suit more physically-powerful guys simply don't work well in his case and so therefore based on experiences in bouting as well as his own knowledge of alternatives offered by the Masters,he will choose techniques that DO work for him. That's the basis and starting point of a personal "style" which develops within the parameters set by historical precedent.

This "style" is derived from the earlier "methods" as set forth by the writers of the source-texts. I would also wager that those individuals training and working with the very same texts will find that even they will have differing personal "styles" for the very reasons mentioned above...Any man can perform the movements, it takes a martial artist to turn them into a workable whole that is viable for himself...His "Style" if you will.

[John_Clements]

I think since none of us know for sure what the historical "styles" were, since none of us have ever seen them and the source texts we have for them surley do no present the entire knowledge or system, we should should instead refer to them as "methods." We can study and interpret and reconstruct what we can of their methods, but as to their actual styles, who can say? It may be symantics for some, but I feel more comfortable not using the label "style" in this subject except in the broadest context.

JC

[Bart Walczak]

So Asian schools should also switch to "methods" instead of "schools" or "styles"?

It is semantic for me. It doesn't change a bit what they were doing.

[John_Clements]

I think you miss my point entirely, Bart. As they are extanct traditions, not extinct like ours and having to be rebuilt, they already know what their "styles" are all about. Not only that, but for their schools and fighting systems they do not really even use the word "style" themselves, that too is, in a large way, a Westernized concept.

JC

[Bart Walczak]

But John, their "extanct" tradition is certainly as far removed from their roots as is ours.

True that they didn't call it a style - they used completely different name for a mix that one master made and decided to start his own school. But as far as Chineese goes, we all know it's this or that kung-fu <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/laugh.gif" alt="" />

(no disrespect meant to anybody)

On the other hand, my Webter's dictionary equals method with system. I thought that you were of the opinion that Fiore does not present a system in his book?

[Bart Walczak]

OK, I was a bit hasty with my last post.

Come to think of it, it doesn't really matter.

[John_Clements]

The problem I have with the word "style" ---when used to mean anything other than simply the way something is done, expressed, or performed ---is that it can also mean the combination of distinctive features that characterized expression, execution, or performance as well as the customary manner and tradition of presenting material and knowledge. And it is this later that we no longer have any real connection to.

As for Fiore, there is no doubt the information in his work is presented systematically and methodically and that he had a “system” ---as did Liechtenauer, Marozzo, Meyer, Fabris, Silver, etc. But does the “Flos Duellatorum” present all of Fiore’s system complete? I think we’d be fools to believe it does. Thus, I urge caution when referring to studying “the system” of Fiore, as opposed to in our studies interpreting the material “on his system” from within his treatise. Make sense?

JC

[Bart Walczak]

The more I look at the manuals, the more I see that the techniques described therein are meant as the illustrations for certain principles, which should be explored and interpolated, and are much more than just a simple "bag of tricks".

Whether we make from it a system, depends mostly on us, not on the source itself.

More on it in my future article on the research method which allows to learn as much as it is possible from sources.

[Bart Walczak]

OK, method (Webster's):
1. a procedure, technique, or planned way of doing something.
2. order or system in doing anything: to work with method.
3. orderly or systematic arrangement, sequence, or the like.

Method is a template, a way of coping with problems, implies order and sequence or arrangement. Swordsmanship is hardly sequential. This is my problem with the word "method".