"Flower of Battles";I wonder if....

[Shane Smith]

I note that in the prologue of the Getty version of Fiore's manual that Fiore himself states that he is a man that can read,write and DRAW .While this would not normally strike me as too terribly important,he mentions it as he speaks of the need to write a book to communicate his teachings to others and to be remembered for his work. <img src="/forum/images/icons/ooo.gif" alt="" />

What are the odds that Fiore wrote AND illustrated his own manual?Could this be or can it's illustration be attributed to a hireling as was often the case with other period works?

[Matt Easton]

In my opinion it is highly likely that the original treatise was annotated and drawn by Fiore himself. However, we don't know if we have the original, and it is likely we do not, though the texts to the Getty and Morgan prologues is probably the same as the original. Getty and Morgan do date to about 1410, and it is probable that the first book was made circa.1409, and almost certainly after 1404. Pisani-Dossi (which only survives to our knowledge in Novati's facsimile) is probably about 1430 in date (roughly), by which time it is likely that Fiore was dead.

Matt

[Shane Smith]

Hello Matt,
If it was determined that Fiore did indeed illustrate this work,it would seem to me that only a literal interpretation of the illustrations would be reasonable.I find some of the plates to look odd and awkward tactically when viewed in context of what we know from other sources and what we would like to think we know from hands-on scholarship.The true-cross as shown comes to mind immediately. That said,as a martial artist,I know that if I were actually illustrating techniques for the benefit of others,I would be certain to show all of the subtleties and nuances of my art in those images.Fiore would do no less I'm sure.Very interesting...

[Randall Pleasant]

Matt Easton wrote:
...we don't know if we have the original, and it is likely we do not...

Matt

Are there any documents that he signed or that we know for sure that he wrote?

[Guest]

Interesting post Shane. I would have more faith in 100% literal translation of the illustrations if I knew they were drawn by the master himself. However, even if Fiore did draw the original images, is it not possible that he may have been affected by artistic styles and protocols of the time? Or perhaps he just made some mistakes? I'll bet if we could resurect the old man and he could see some of our interpretations of what he wrote and drew, he'd have a good laugh! Fiore: "Yes, I meant to redraw that guy facing the other way, but I ran out of parchment and I had a deadline to meet."

[Matt Easton]

Hi Randall

>>"Are there any documents that he signed or that we know for sure that he wrote?"

No, not that I, Francesco Novati or Luigi Zanutto know/knew of anyway. There are contemporary documents that refer to Fiore though. For example the town records of Udine record a 'Maestro Fiori' being given the task of organising the town ballista crews and looking in the town arsenal for guns that could be used in the defence of the allied towns in the civil war that was taking place. And he is recorded in Padua and Pavia and various other places, but only in passing.
Both Morgan and Getty, speaking in first person, state that 'I' Fiore, wrote and illustrated the treatise. But as I say, we don't know if Getty was the original (Morgan and Pisani-Dossi certainly aren't). I think Getty is a close copy, but not the first. I think the author of Pisani-Dossi got some things wrong - for example, he miss-names the colpi-villano technique..
Fiore was not important enough a person to have left many records behind - he mixed in very lofty circles, from the d'Este family, the Ordilaffi, the Visconti, the Castel Barco etc etc. He was really moving in the very top circles of Italian society, but at the end of the day, he was just a dispossessed minor noble who was a reputable Master at Arms. If you don't hold land, and don't pay tax, then you can't really leave many records behind... <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Matt

[Matt Easton]

Hi Matt,

>>is it not possible that he may have been affected by artistic styles and protocols of the time?<<

Of course absolutely - we are only human and art is art. We are also bound by protocols ourselves, no matter how much we may think we are scientific. We are only animals <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

>>Or perhaps he just made some mistakes?

Well I have been working almost only with Fiore's treatise for nearly as long as Bob now, and I, and I believe Bob also, have no problems with anything shown in Getty. What do you think is a mistake?

>>he'd have a good laugh!

He may well do! But then again I think he would be honoured and impressed that we are still trying to learn from his treatise 600 years later! He would probably say "I never meant this to be a manual for beginners - I made it for Marchese Niccolo III d'Este who already completed a Feat of Arms at the age of 16 in 1399!!! But considering you are beginners you are learning quite a lot from my old book"... <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

I reiterate - given that there are three copies of Fiore's treatise to support each other, and even more that two later men (one a General and one a Master of Arms!) copied elements of Fiore's books, and added to my own experience of having no problems with what is shown, I find it highly unlikely that there are any glaring mistakes in the art, other than bad proportions, strange perspective etc etc.

Matt

[John_Clements]

Castle noted in 1911 that Fiore was supposedly teaching in 1383 as a master but he gave no source.

Even if he drew the work himself, this does not mean they are necessarily literal and not the result of artistic principles of employed at the time with all their conventions and any inherent limitations. After all, the images would serve as a guide to those already familiar with handling swords and need not address the subject in a vacuum.

When I have people today seriously misinterpret some of my own drawings from just 5 years back, where I used a computer and modern English to communicate motion, it only reinforces for me how much we all must be misinterpreting works from 400 and 500 years ago.
If we believe something is interpreted correctly because it seems to work in our modern practice, this may not necessarily always be so when we then encounter others who have a different and more effective version of it or upon whom our interpretation fails. Make sense?

Another thing that also occurs to me here...
We have to consider what the target audiences were for these various study guides. If an author was writing for the class of his fellow warriors or knights there must have been some awareness of what that audience would have already known about the nature of fighting and the dynamics of weaponry. There had to have been some minimal assumption of what experience the reader would have had in the subject. After all, these were violent times and the writers of fencing manuals surely knew they were not addressing complete neophytes without any understanding whatsoever of personal combat. They very well might have left out some obvious elements in their material concentrating instead on more profound aspects of the craft. It’s difficult for us today to know. On the other hand, we might even consider that if they were writing for a reader who they knew would never be expected to use the theories in earnest; they conceivably might not have been as forthcoming in revealing their true methods.

Thoughts?

JC

[Matt Easton]

Hi John,

>>"Castle noted in 1911 that Fiore was supposedly teaching in 1383 as a master but he gave no source."

This is almost certainly taken from Novati (1902) or Zanutto (1907), and is probably the referrence I made above - it was in 1383 that he was recorded in Udine as 'Maestro Fiori". Maestro of course denotes a fencing teacher then (without all the stigmas it has now days <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> ).

As to who Fiore was writing for - well it was Niccolo III d'Este and he was moderately belicose. He was certainly juste in a medieval sense - he had his wife and son executed when he found them in bed together... (they were not mother and son incidentally - it was a second wife). Niccolo had to perform a feat of arms when he was 16 (1399), as I mentioned earlier - against 12 swordsmen (we do not know if that was in turn or all at once!). Apart from this, Niccolo was made Captain/General of the Papal Armies and took part in festival tournaments - for example in Milan in 1404. He seems to have taken part in campaigns, in addition to which, Italian politics of the time meant he should have been prepared to defend himself from assassination and ambush.
All the evidence suggests that Fiore only intended one book, for his Lord and patron Niccolo, who he had probably been tutoring since Niccolo's teenage years.
As for the other copies of Fior di Battaglia, we really can't say why they were made, by whom, and how the hell they ended up in the diverse locations that they did (there were two in the d'Este library - and apparently none of the three we know were either of those two..).

As for the art work, and feeling uncomfortable with it, well I can really only address specific examples. Maybe if I knew which things people were having issues with then myself or Bob or some other Fiore-practitioner could help explain a bit more.

Matt

[Guest]

Hi Matt,

I don't know if there are any mistakes or not, who am I to say? Some of the postas do give me fits however. For example, in the armoured fighting section, the "Upper Snake" is shown with the sword held behind the head. This makes it very difficult (especially in full harness) to do anything from this posta without first moving the sword over your head and in front of your forehead. When held in front/right of the head to begin with, as seen in Talhoffer and other German sources, you can quickly thrust, set aside and transition to other guards. Is it possible that the crown, that obscures the sword blade, was added last, making it seem like the sword is behind the head, when it really isn't? Here's a link to what I'm looking at:

http://www.varmouries.com/wildrose/fiore/section6.html

As far as Fiore being proud of us, he might, but then again, he might be really upset that peasants like us got ahold of his book :^)

[Matt Easton]

Serpentino lo Soprano is an interesting one. The crowns were indeed added last, as they had gold and silver leaf applied to them (which is why they often appear black now). Incidentally, this is why the swords in Morgan appear black - they were covered in Silver leaf!
However, in Getty the sword is shown passing behind the helmet, as well as the crown, in this guard. I must admit that it really does appear to be slightly behind the head, but I do it with the blade above the head and put the pictures down to perspective... The picture in Morgan suggests the sword is in front of the top of the head slightly... it's difficult to tell in Morgan though.

Matt

[Matt Easton]

"As far as Fiore being proud of us, he might, but then again, he might be really upset that peasants like us got ahold of his book :^) "

Heheheh
Speak for yourself, one of my ancestors died at Agincourt <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" /> Well, same name anyway... <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

Matt

[Guest]

Matt E.: "I do it with the blade above the head and put the pictures down to perspective."

That makes sense to me and that's how I've been doing it as well.

Let's try another one that perplexes me. Here, I'm using the names from the link posted below, which I beleive you told me before were backwards, but anyway here goes:

http://www.varmouries.com/wildrose/fiore/section6.html

How about the "True Cross" (as named in the above translation) ? If interpreted literally, you would be essentially turning your back on your opponent, with your right leg stretched out towards him, looking over your shoulder. Do you interpret it this way? What sort of plays do you do from this posta? I find it very difficult to pivot quickly enough (again, especially in full harness) to respond to a determined attack by my training partner. It seems that perhaps this is a posta that invites attack, but for the life of me, I can't make an effective counter from this position. If, on the other hand, you stand the exact same way only reversed, your head facing your opponent and your left leg leading, you are in a very effective fighting position, again, much like what you see in several German sources, and much like the "Arrow" posta, only with the sword held lower. I'm not suggesting that Fiore drew the head facing the wrong way, or that I know more about armoured fighting than he did, but I'm really stumped when it comes to using this posta as drawn. It just feels really vulnerable and awkward. If your opponent rushes you, with a big traverse to his left, he can get behind you pretty easily, and that's a bad thing, especially in armour.

[Guest]

Some say Fiore was a self made noble... I mean not a real noble just one who said he was noble.

[Matt Easton]

"Some say Fiore was a self made noble... I mean not a real noble just one who said he was noble."

Who says that Carlo? As far as I can tell the historical evidence in fact points to the exact opposite! That he started off a noble and lost his rank due to his backing the allied towns against the Patriarch under which his family lands resided.....
And he says that he is 'of the noble house of Liberi', whose lands were in Premariacco, in the Diocese of Aquilegia....

Matt