diff between the German and Italian longsword sys?

[JohnDemick]

Hello, im looking to get into the German Longsword and i was wondering if their are any Major diffences other then the philosphies of the two. I already know the German System is very offensive while the Italian System is a blend of both defensive and offensive. (currently only studying one system)

But, other then that, were their any Major diffences in the basic techniques. From what ive seen, many of the moves are exactly the same. Also, are their any diffences in the four guards?? for example, did the ox stance look the same in both the Italian and German systems? Was the foot positioning basically the same?? if their were even minor diffences in the four guards please tell me that would be helpful.

thanks.

[JeffGentry]

Alot of the European Master's of arm's were employed in diffrent countries Pietro Monte of spain lived in Italy for year's and taught and wrote so IMHO most were pretty similar with slight difference's in philosphy.

[Casper Bradak]

I'm convinced the offensive/defensive differences between the german and italian systems are entirely a matter of modern opinion and interpretation, which I don't subscribe to, though I'm a minority in this.
Most differences I've seen are stylistic, with the majority of techniques shared.

[Randall Pleasant]

I'm with Casper on this, the major differences are a result of modern interpretations. Once all of the Fiore materials are published so we can read his own words ourselves and we start more indepth study of Fiore's techniques using the ARMA method with its focus on combat level martial soundness I believe this whole thing of "style" will basically disappear.

[Brian Hunt]

I agree with Casper and Randall,

Fiore studied in Germany and abroad. I think part of the problem is the styalized nature of the drawings of his posta. I have also seen several times where people claim the diffirence between Italian and German longsword is Germans always attack, and Italians wait and counter attack. I have sometimes wondered if Fiore simply didn't write a manual based on retaking the vor rather than a manual telling us to wait for his attack and then counter. He may have left basic attacks out of it because they are already well known, but regaining the initiative once you have lost it can literally mean the difference between life and death.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Brian Hunt
GFS

[JeffGentry]

It may even be a Fighter prefernce in that they prefer to wait because it is just the way a certain individual fight's.

Most people right the what they know and maybe the way the auther fight's suit's his speed and strenght and all sort's of personal factor's, so he wrote it that way not realizing it was his way of fighting, and not just the technique's.

[JohnDemick]

So basically what u guys are trying to say is, that the basic techniques and leg positioning are exactly the same and even the philosphies were probably also similar too?

if this is true? then could we just negate the fact that there is a german and italian style, and simply call it a universal style throughout western europe?

[Randall Pleasant]

John Demick wrote:
...could we just negate the fact that there is a german and italian style, and simply call it a universal style throughout western europe?

Many of us just like the term Medieval and Renaissance swordsmenship. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> We really should not refer to Liechtenauer's teachings as the "German Style". Liechtenauer was German but there were other masters in Germany, thus we should just say "Liechtenauer's teachings". Likewise, we should just say "Fiore's teachings".

[Matt Easton]

Fact: there are more similarities between Fiore dei Liberi and Doebringer than differences.

Fact: there are some tactical as well as strategic differences between what they both do in a fight, stated very clearly in black and white script (not a product of interpretation).

Fact: there are also some tactical and strategic differences between assorted 'German' masters also.

Brian Hunt stated:
"Fiore studied in Germany and abroad."

No, you are making an assumption here. There is no evidence he ever lived outside the modern borders of Italy - au contraire, all our documentary data for his life places him as living further south from where he was born (for political reasons probably). What we do know is that he studied under Germanic masters (of which there were many in Italy).

Now what does that tell us? Not an awful lot really... What most people here describe as 'German' is simply Liechtenauer... What then of all the other lineages which hailed from Germany? Wallerstein and Gladiatoria, not to mention I.33. A survey of the play sequences quickly makes anyone realise that Fiore is more closely related to the Gladiatoria lineage than to Liechtenauer lineage.
There are even conflicting statements in the Liechtenauer-tradition contemporaries Von Danzig and Ringeck (see their disparity in the Krumphau for example).

IMHO, at the end of the day, people need to get out of this 'Italian' and 'German' rubbish - it was all part of the Holy Roman Empire, and we can see as much variation between individual masters as between regions. What we have are *master* lineages, not *national* lineages, when the nations of Italy and Germany did not even exist as concepts yet.

And as we all know, students taught by one master will quickly diverge into different variations of the original art within one lifetime - it happens in modern martial arts and it probably happened then. One of the best lineages to illustrate this is the Bolognese lineage of Dardi, leading to Di Lucca, Manciolino and Marozzo, and on to Dall'Agocchie,

Matt

[Matt Easton]

p.s. there are other causes for differences between treatises. I have maintained for some time that Fiore's art is optimised for using a relatively small and light bastard sword. Some people agree and some say it is not important.
I believe though that such factors play a part in how the art 'looks' to us on paper. Certainly Fiore uses his 'longsword' in one hand more often than most Liechtenauer-tradition texts.

Fiore also has what is clearly a parry (coverta), on the same side as his lead leg (gioco largo), and this is confirmed by later Bolognese texts - and this seems foreign to the Liechtenauer tradition, yet is a pretty basic thing (not a technique per se).

Matt

[JeffGentry]

Well like i said it seem's the basic's are almost the same, and the author's put it down on paper the way they would do the technique i bet Jake or gene or Stew do these nearly the same as John and have probably adapted it to there own flexibility, strength, height and reach and it would look a little diffrent to see each one do certain technique's.

I don't think there is an Italian or German style it is all swordsmanship, and how it is perceived and executed by the individual, some technique's are difficult for me because i broke my right wrist a few year's ago and i have learned to do them a little diffrently, more than likely it is the same with the Master's we study.

[James_Knowles]

Jake or gene or Stew do these nearly the same as John and have probably adapted it

In my limited contact with them, I've noted that JC, Jake, and Stew place differening levels of emphasis on particular details, even though the material is identical.

However, in the overall picture these are very minor. Pedantics may argue ad nauseum about the "John style" or the "Jake style" or the "Stew style," but IMHO it's more academic hot air than anything else. I believe that this is where the EMA have fallen down for the most part.

From my limited exposure as a beginer, I don't see the differences between the teachings from Germany and Italy as being materially different than the differences between our own senior scholars.

The real test is not quibbling over words or diagrams, but on the battlefield. This is where experimentation, comparing insights, and training with intent come into play.

If there are material differences between the German and Italian teachings, I would assume that they would become evident in practice rather than hot-air theory.

My two bits.

[Shane Smith]

In MY opinion(here it comes... <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> ), I believe that the Italian school of the longsword as represented by Fiore offers more of a "wait and see" sort of art with much of the work taught as counter-actions.

I further believe that the German approach is much more pro-active in that it strives to "give your opponent something to see", and that, to his ruin. Just my opinion.Many others may,and will, disagree whole-heartedly and I'll not tell them that they are wrong.All that said,I believe that neither school can be classified as purely passive or purely aggressive in nature.That would be naive in the extreme I think. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smirk.gif" alt="" />

[Brian Hunt]

Hi Matt,

Figured you would appear for a Fiore discussion <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

I am just a hobbiest when it comes to Fiore. I intend to become a better scholar of his style of fence after I have a translation of the Getty in my hands. Until then . . . I will continue to play with him on the side. I am too involved in the I.33, and the Liechtenauer forms of fighting at this moment. I do however really like Fiore's wrestling and dagger work, when I work with Fiore at this time this is mainly where I concentrate.

No, you are making an assumption here. There is no evidence he ever lived outside the modern borders of Italy - au contraire, all our documentary data for his life places him as living further south from where he was born (for political reasons probably). What we do know is that he studied under Germanic masters (of which there were many in Italy).

Ooops, I checked my facts on this one and realized that I had put German masters and Germany together in my head. <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Good Catch. <img src="/forum/images/icons/blush.gif" alt="" />

I was thinking of what Sydney Anglo said in his book "The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe" about Fiore on page 130.

"`Fiore de' Liberi da Premariacco tells us that he had studied under German masters in the latter half of the fourteenth century; and much of his work closely resembles the system recorded by Liechtenauer and his disciples. This is apparent in the range of material he discusses; his general approach to swordsmanship; his division of the body to indicate target areas; his reccomended postures; his method of combining wrestling and grappling techniques with fencing; his use of halb-schwert techniques for the long sword wielded by armoured combatants; and, more generally, his disordered orderliness."

Anyway, we both agree that there are more similarities than differences between Fiore's swordsmanship and German swordsmanship. I think the real differences are where Fiore has his favorite types of techniques or his own personal 'style.'

IMHO, at the end of the day, people need to get out of this 'Italian' and 'German' rubbish - it was all part of the Holy Roman Empire, and we can see as much variation between individual masters as between regions. What we have are *master* lineages, not *national* lineages, when the nations of Italy and Germany did not even exist as concepts yet.

And as we all know, students taught by one master will quickly diverge into different variations of the original art within one lifetime - it happens in modern martial arts and it probably happened then. One of the best lineages to illustrate this is the Bolognese lineage of Dardi, leading to Di Lucca, Manciolino and Marozzo, and on to Dall'Agocchie,

Here I am in complete agreement with you. Especially about the Italian and german rubbish. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

just my 2 cents worth.

Brian Hunt
GFS

[Matt Easton]

"If there are material differences between the German and Italian teachings, I would assume that they would become evident in practice rather than hot-air theory."

That's the thing though James... In HEMAC we have people who have been working with all this stuff for quite a few years now, and there *really* are differences in physical reality.
If you go to the HEMAC site (www.hemac.org) then you'll find lots of links and galleries of events we've held together (including some ARMA people) where we have compared and contrasted the teaching of the various German Masters and Italian Masters.

I understand that people like things simple, but I have to say, unfortunately things just aren't simple... especially when you're trying to revive a historical martial art.
If we want to do that job well, then we *have* to acknowledge differences between treatises, and seek possible explanations.

If you don't want to bother with the *academic* side then don't bother studying the historical texts at all <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />.

Matt