assistance

[Bart Walczak]

Search is inevitable. Ecclectic approach is ok if it is not a way to hide one's laziness.

People have different priorities and goals.

Focus is necessary at some point, especially for fine-tuning your technique.

[Steve Thurston]

ecclectic is different, not lazy <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" />

It is the differences of approach that will make it possible, for us together, to develop a more complete understanding <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/cool.gif" alt="" />

Steve

[Steve Thurston]

The thread is beginning to sound very much like a tale told by a C16th English master.

Steve <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Steve Thurston]

Good points and I have answers to some aspects.

I don't intend to prove the existance, only the potential for existance. Archaeology is never going to be able to tell you exactly what happened, just what might have been. Occupational markers on trained fighters are probably likely.

"To the best of my knowledge, at this point in time we are not even able to state what type of weapon created a given cut on any bone"
- as far as I have seen so far most of the research seems to be one of two ways. 1st, hack at pigs with different weapons and see what happens or, 2nd, look at the archaeological record and see if you can spot any similiarities with skeletal populations. If the two talked to each other they may start getting somewhere, but its rare if its outhere. If as further research one was to produce a database of cuts conforming to a common 'style' (as no better word) it might be possible to see a trend or pattern in the signatures left by each strike. This could then be compared to the archaeological record with a greater chance of being able to islolate potential instances of trained fighting. Also need to look at cemetary graves more than battlefield stuff as a greater abundance of data from which to draw conclusion.

"Does a cut by a master look any different from a "lucky" cut by an unskilled swordsman?"
- This is why I was asking for tales of test cutting. I had a go at test cutting with a guy called Oz. I was supprised to see that my sword did not cut a straight clean line thru' the plastic bottle as I had expected. Oz said that this was common and that associates of his who had more experience than he and could cut straighter, on comparison Oz's cut was straighter than my own. If this was so, and common to other individuals, it might be possible to determine a certain level of skill of the individual whom executed the blow.


"In bone, can you tell the difference between a false edge Zwerchhau and a true edge cross cut?"
I might be able to tell you in 6 months with more confidence, however, I think so. <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" />

Its going to take a lot of research before there is any real chance of me finding anything that constitues real evidence. Hopefully I can show that waving a sword in the direction of a piece of meat and hoping it does some damage is not reflective of real events, and that should do for a Bsc and give me plenty of questions to answer later. <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

Steve

[Jay Vail]

The danger here is if we restrict ourselves only to the handful of actions in each manual, and exclude the wealth of obvious and simple techniques inherent in using a weapon that fit logically into the method of any particular historical text, we really limit our thinking and our skill.

Absolutely true. No MA manual in existence is truly comprehensive and includes all the techniques that are possible in any martial system. In Fiore's unarmed dagger defenses, for instance, there are many techniques that can be used besides those he depicts, or some techniques shown following one master can also be used following another. Same is true of his dagger to dagger work. Thus, the same must be true of his sword material. Also, we should not forget that Fiore trained in Germany as well as Italy. It stands to reason that he knew much if not all of the material in Talhoffer, et al. Referring to Fiore's system as an Italian style may in fact be a misnomer. It's probably a hybrid of national approaches, if it is even accurate to say there were national systems at that time rather than a patchwork of individual ones.

[Matt Easton]

Bart said:
"Matt, if we are to stick to what you say we couldn't compare the sources ever.

Comparison is one of the methods to gain deeper understanding. Detailed analysis of a source is another. In most cases these two go together and simultaneously supply us with additional information, which we can then use to make better comparisons and better analysis. And so on "

I agree, but you misunderstood me, or I was not clear enough. What I mean is that until someone has at least a good understanding of something, then they are not able to make valuable comparisons. I could say, in the next 10 minutes write a comparison of Jujitsu and Aikido, but I don't know anything about either of them, so I can't!! And as we know, to get a reasonable understanding of medieval and renaissance European sources takes time and research. You can't just look at the pictures a few times and understand hardly anything about the art <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />.

Matt

[Matt Easton]

Jay said:
"Also, we should not forget that Fiore trained in Germany as well as Italy. It stands to reason that he knew much if not all of the material in Talhoffer, et al."

Firstly, we do not know that Fiore went to Germany at all!! He says in all three versions of Fior di Battaglia that he studied under German masters as well as Italian, not that he went to Germany. We have many referrences to Fiore during and after his life (I wrote about this in the publication you can buy by following the link from my website), and all of them are in Italy.
As for knowing all the techniques of Talhoffer, well maybe he did, though Talhoffer is a strange branch of the Liechtenauer lineage, and there is no reason to believe Fiore knew the Liechtenauer lineage. But the important point is that Fiore did not show all the techniques of Talhoffer (as an example) - he chose to show what he did, and there was reason behind it. In any martial system there are some things that one system will like and another will not, hence we have different martial systems, designed astutely by people who really knew the stuff. I do not trust a modern interpreter to create their own medieval martial system - I trust that the old Masters knew best.

"to Fiore's system as an Italian style may in fact be a misnomer."

Of course it is a misnomer! Anybody calling Fiore's art an 'Italian System' is stupid. It is very very different to the Bolognese school, Pietro Monte, and even has differences to Vadi. A system can only belong to one Master(person), with variations on that system belonging to a Lineage.

To say what is 'Italian' or 'German' in the 15thC is just plain dumb <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />.

Matt

[Jay Vail]

we do not know that Fiore went to Germany at all!! He says in all three versions of Fior di Battaglia that he studied under German masters

Yer right. My mistake. Sorry. <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" />

[Steve Thurston]

"To say what is 'Italian' or 'German' in the 15thC is just plain dumb"

yup, as far as I can remember Italy and Germany did not exist as nation states. Germany was a collection of dukedoms under the controll of the Holy Roman Emperor and did not become Germany till 1870's(I think?). Italy was a group of seperate satalite states usually fighting one another.
I think to some extent we need to remember this, things don't fit into the nice little boxes we want them to. There was probably a lot of variation in any given "German" or "Italian" 'style' as the boxes are realistically a lot smaller. No standardisation of lifestyle, Florence had different fashions to Milan, probably means no standardisation of sword style. Especially as it appears that Flourence would develope a style different from Milan on the principle that it had to be different from Milan. England is the first true nation state in Europe forming before the begining C16th, even then differences were still apparent within the country. A true Yorkshire man would probably alter his style to be different from a Lancastrian, even today!

To look for a totaly uniform 'style' is obsered, the medieval mindset seems to struggle with the attitude of 'uniformity' , there will however be comparisons that can be made. For my own personal reasons it is the similarites are that important, not the differences.
As society as a whole likes to observe the differences in the past, it is not surprising that as individuals we look to the differences and thus express our own individuality, perhaps medieval people were not to disimilar, their society certainly had fewer hard and fast rules and I would expect this to be reflected in their swordsmanship. <img src="http://www.thearma.org/forum/images/icons/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Steve

[John_Clements]

I was talking with Dr. Anglo once about the historical source manuals and whether to specialize or generalize and he replied you can't do the first without doing the latter. He compared it to studying Medieval literature and then making a special study of Dante. You never stop studying the general literature of the period and it enriches your understanding of the context of whatever you focus on, such as Dante, which only takes on special value when contrasted and compared with other authors from the era. I like his analogy and try to follow the advice as the philosophy of research in our club.

JC

[John_Clements]

Hi Matt,

And yet, historians all the time do refer to things from the Middle Ages and Renaissance as being Italian or German or as being from any number of other nations. They do so as a modern convenience, as a way of associating things with the heritage of a particular people. So, even though these terms were meaningless at the time, I think it's perfectly ok in general to call it Italian or German now --provided we understand the true ethno/cultural context. It's like referring to something from the 12th century as "Medieval", the term had no meaning at the time but it does now for us. Make sense?

JC

[Bart Walczak]

John,

The analogy with Medieval Literature is very good.