"Wait and see" or..."Give them something to see"?

[Shane Smith]

So,in my study of the source texts,it seems very arguable to me that the Italian school of medieval fencing as typified by Master Fiore de Liberi's work could be largely classified as a "Wait and see" approach to the Art,ie. If your opponent strikes thus,achieve incrossada and counter.

The German school to my mind, offers more of a "Give them something to see" approach...Much more pro-active in the ruin of your opponent. Ringeck writes, "do not watch his blows and do not wait for what he might use against you."

Why do we see such seemingly divergent opinions from two accomplished medieval schools? Could it be the personal attributes and cultural circumstance of the Artist's themselves that dictated the nature of their Art or something less obvious? What lessons does this hold for us today as we strive to recreate these Art's in your opinion?

[Matthew_Anderson]

Good Topic Shane! My take on this is similar to yours, that in general the German tradition seems more focused on seizing and maintaining the initiative, staying in the "before" and making the other guy react in the "after". However I can't help but think that we are probably missing something. I really believe Fiore was a good fighter as well as a good teacher. As such he must have understood the advantages of initiative as well as any of the German masters. Is it possible that this just isn't as clear to us in Fiore's manual as it is in the various manuals from the Lichtenauer tradition?

[Randall Pleasant]

Shane

I do agree with you in general. However, my opinion is that most of the differences between the of Italian and German schools is in the way the leasons are presented to the reader, not in the way they were actually used in combat. To the best of my very limited knowledge, there is nothing in Fiore saying that one should not make the first strike. Like wise, there is nothing in Ringeck, etc., that says you cannot let the adversary make the first strike. For all the differences that we might see in the writing style of the masters from the two schools we should also keep in mind that they more alike than different. My opinion is that they are both part of a single combat system that use the same basic guards and is focused on counter-cutting techniques. Of course, my opinion may change once the long known Fiore material actaully reaches the light of day.

[Casper Bradak]

The Nature of Martial Arts

It is the nature of martial arts, for their very defensive purpose, that other than the basic movements, they are mainly taught as a catalogue of counter techniques. The fencing manuals, as our prime example, are basically lists of principles, advice, and counters to different varieties of attacks.
No martial art worth its weight in those who practice it is "defensive". The only exceptions I'm aware of are perhaps a relatively modern asian style.
To defend is to prolong defeat. Some would say the italian styles of medieval martial arts are "defensive". Why? Because they show it as a list of counters? All do. Because Master Fiore initiates most of his attacks/counters from crossed blades? The german fechtbuchs teach most of their techniques from the bind as well.
Fighting with only counter attacks leaves one vulnerable, even moreso in war or against several opponents. Only reacting to your enemies attacks is inviting disaster. It's also the nature of these arts, that although they are taught as mainly lists of counters, all of these "counters" are meant to be used as attacks as well. You can initiate them just as well as react with them, by seeking binds and crossings, using feints and falsings, and flowing to them from your attacks and handwork, and combinations.
Another example, partly my inspiration for this article, is the modern self defense art I study as well. It is the most aggressive primarily unarmed style I have seen, yet it is taught mainly as a large list of categorized counter attacks, because these give them a good context, and are more helpful to the beginning student. They, of course, are all excellent attacks as well, which is readily learned as you progress in skill.
Many say the medieval german styles are more aggressive, because they wrote down some initiated attacks, or advise more explicitely to maintain the initiative, yet the principles and the universal truth of combat are the same, and the core of their writings are still the counterattacks. Should we assume that because the italians didn't write down specific assaults instead of the counters (in the known surviving texts), that they fought only in reaction to the enemy, tempting fate? No. Counter attacks are for the very skilled and those who out of suprise, timing, slowness or necessity, or who are simply outclassed or fail to gain the initiative, must resort to. Which, happens to everybody, but is not the ideal way to fight. Martial arts, again by nature, are usually taught first as your savior for worst case scenarios, again mainly as counter attacks.
Another thing that spreads such impressions, are the individual "styles" of those who study. We can't see the personal styles of those who really used these arts, but when seen in the flesh by those who practice them now, beginners often make their judgements of the art by the method of the one they see putting it to action. If the practitioner interprets the art as defensive, when he puts it into action, his personal style of that art will be defensively executed, reinforcing the beliefs of those who have seen it who don't take it into account that it can be used with the same principles and techniques, but in any fashion the individual sees fit.
By only counter attacking, one more easily allows themself to be taken in by falsings, combinations, etc. I think this is another meaning behind the term used by so many, "If you are fearful you should not learn to fence." Not merely in fear of recieving and countering your enemies attacks, and fear of closing with him, but you should not be afraid to initiate your own attacks and combinations.
Another core principle of the martial arts is to end the fight and eliminate the threat your enemies pose to you as quickly and decicively as possible. Can you do that by fighting defensively? By only using counters? Not as quickly as you could with a well executed attack.
Often the one who wins is the one who strikes first, it's known now, and always has been.

"A true sign of a warrior is the willingness to close with the enemy."

Just a rant I wrote on the subject a while back. I've since noticed that several or Fiores techniques are, in my opinion, initiated attacks rather than counters. The best defense is a good offense.

[Shane Smith]

When it comes to swords and to tactics,Fiore tells us;

"For thrusts and cuts and strikes of the sword My guard gives me no problem, Let them come to me one after the other, For I want to fight them all; And he who wants to see parrying and wounding, Grabbing away the sword and tying without failure, Let him see what my scholars can do: If he doesn't find the contrary, they have no equals. " *Note Fiore makes no mention of going to the enemy,he apparently wants them coming to him.

Fiore also shows very little in the way of pre-emptive attacks(There are several in his dagger however) although admittedly there are some which may be interpreted as such.

Ringeck gives us many options for offense and pre-emption as well as advice on how to behave in pre-emptive attack . The Master cuts and their breaking of the guards comes immediately to mind as well as his quote on attacking without undue concern for the opponents counters and actions."When you are closing to an opponent, do not watch his blows and do not wait for what he might use against you. Because all fencers, who just wait for their opponents blows and do not do anything else than warding them off, do not succeed very often. They are defeated very often."

If we are to strive to catagorize based on just what these source-texts show and say,we can only conclude that the early German tradition does indeed present us with more offensive and initiating options explicitly.Most such encouragements drawn from Fiore are done through speculatory reasoning in the absolute sense in my opinion. Based on that,I think my original premise holds water.

All that said,I am not foolish enough to assert that the Italians were purely defensive in their fight,but then again,Fiore does seemingly present an art of largely counter-fighting techniques.

[Craig Peters]

It's difficult to be certain one way or the other on this issue, though logically, one would expect that Fiore would use both offensive initiating options and counterattacks as necessary.

One thing I would caution is using the text that you quoted as evidence for Fiore emphasizing counters. All he says is "Let them come to me one after the other." Does this mean that he wants them to attack first so he can counter and kill them? Or does it mean that he will strike first? Given the ambiguity of the text, we don't know for certain one way or the other; all we know is that he is inviting others to come to him, but whether he strikes first or they strike first is left up to speculation.

It is a little odd, however, that Fiore does not emphasize the importance of striking first in his text to the same degree that the Liechtenauer school does, given the evidence that Fiore trained under German tutelage at some point. Perhaps Fiore's manual has more counters simply because skill in initiating attacks is already assumed? His manuals were written for princes and lords who would have had some skill in arms with weapons already, and therefore discussions on initiating attacks are probably unnecessary. As John succinctly put it, "It might perhaps be the equivelent today of someone spending effort to create a detailed Internet Web site dedicated to how to dial your telephone or how to park your car." Thus, Fiore's manuals might have been specifically tailored to counters and responses when one is not able to offend first, operating under the assumption that one already knows the importance of initiating attacks first.

[Casper Bradak]

I think that's another interpretive issue. It seems to me that he's not advocating waiting in a guard in order to counter, he's just talking about how good his guards are.

[Shane Smith]

Hi Casper,

Fair enough.Fiore does come across as an arrogant and confident fellow at that! Why wouldn't he be proud of his guards?

That was a great-reading article you posted above by the way.Very passionately written and powerful! There is nothing more interesting to read than the thoughts of someone that is passionate about a particular subject whether you agree 100% with their conclusions or not. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Casper Bradak]

Thank you, that's quite a compliment. I know it's a very opinionated article, but that's my argument for my opinion <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

[leam hall]

I wonder if this is a cross-over with the "body-type and fighting style" topic. From what I've seen, and this is a generalization, northern european body-types and clothing styles seem to be heavier and larger than southern european.

That larger body actually has slower reflexes based on nerve signal transmission and inertia. Thus it is easier for a large slow person to initiate the action and not have to perceive-evaluate-respond.

[Matt Shields]

Leam,

You have to remember that combat would most likely take place against neighbors (nationally or locally) so their size and reflexes would be similar.

I really don't think size had much to do with it anyway, more of what you are trying to accomplish and your mind-set. Roman Legionaries and Vikings were on opposite ends in height, but both would be well beyond classified as "aggressive." And it seems that aggression tends to prevail more often in war.

Perhaps it's simply that Lichtenauer intended his method to be more for large scale combat, while Fiore intended his to be more for combat on a lower scale. But, then again the master-cuts don’t seem like they’d fare too well against armor...

[Craig Peters]

Shane,

According to the Knights of the Wild Rose translation, one of Fiore's end recommendations is:

"Be audacious in the attack and let your soul not be old."

This particular line would suggest that Fiore does not advocate the "Wait and See" attitude but rather the "Give them something to see" attitude.

[Shane Smith]

Hi Craig,
I agree that the text above does suggest attacking with intent but it does not imply a pre-emptive attack explicitly(Although it's not a large leap). One can counter-attack with audacity as well as initiate with same and yet in both instances be on the attack. Once again, Fiore doesn't really give explicit instructions on initiating specific attacks that I can find in his sword work,Ringeck does.Once again,if we base our theories on just what these source-texts tell and show us, without supposition, there is every evidence(but not proof) that Fiore advocates more of a wait and see approach than Ringeck who gives us many options for offense...

Since I feel so strongly about this,I'm probably in danger of being wrong <img src="/forum/images/icons/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Casper Bradak]

But Fiore really doesn't indicate often how he came to be in his binds and crossings. From the apparent range of many of them, it looks like they came to cross their swords more often than bound them from an attack. If this is the case, Fiore may have aggresively sought to cross his weapon with his opponents, because he advocated initiating most of his attacks from the cross, when touching the opponents blade. Particularly since he favors thusts and short cuts. This is advocated by other masters who favor thrusts.

Remember that the master cuts are also master thrusts, so they may not be so bad vs. armour.
I disagree with body size having anything to do with movement or reaction time for trained individuals. Electrical nerve impulses may have farther to travel in a bigger person, but when they're traveling in the neighborhood of light speed it's no biggie. Actually some of the fastest people I've ever seen were quite large.

[leam hall]

"I disagree with body size having anything to do with movement or reaction time for trained individuals. Electrical nerve impulses may have farther to travel in a bigger person, but when they're traveling in the neighborhood of light speed it's no biggie. Actually some of the fastest people I've ever seen were quite large."

Yes, large people can be fast, but the nerve signal travels slower in the nerve body than the nerve junctions. Since we have the same number of nerves, just longer, larger people are slower.

Larger people are also slower if the body weight to strength ratio is higher. That is, a large arm at rest takes more effort and has more inertia than a small one.

This is not to say that large people cannot get fast, with effort. It just takes more effort to get as fast as a smaller person. Training will also help you decipher and initiate a response to an attack earlier, effectively giving you a head start.