Western fencing manuals

[klonk]

Big collection of online copies of historical swordsmanship manuals.

http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=25















.

[KEND]

Interesting stuff. I particularly liked the Bayeux Tapestry account of the events leading up to 1066

[klonk]

Interesting stuff. I particularly liked the Bayeux Tapestry account of the events leading up to 1066

You can also glean a little about weapons and fighting of the era from the Bayeux Tapestry, but bearing in mind that it is an artist's impression. Same benefits and problems as manuscript illuminations, in that way.

[HunYuan]

Thank you Klonk...Great resources there

[Harvey]

One real problem with any illumination is they were occasionally drawn from a stencil set which were hugely anatomically incorrect. Another issue is they rarely discuss body mechanics outside of 'Roll the hips forward'. It was a assumed you could stand and fight from Ringen or unfedered combat, plus since most knights or squires would ride horses on a regular basis, it was the middle ages after all, and would learn how to use the legs from riding. There are some in the HEMA community who advocate the hollow back stance from the illuminations but it is falling from favour as competitive results show otherwise.

[Greg J]

Great find! Thanks for sharing.

Best,

Greg

[klonk]

Western fencing informs my thinking about martial arts in general: particularly the Western categorization of moves and the analysis. It seems (to my Western mind untutored in subtleties) a more informative approach than calling things by four words or one in Chinese.

For example: a complete analysis of "prise de fer" (take hold of the other fellow's blade) with a whole chapter about it seems more informative than some Chinaman's one word advice that I "stick."

As a result I think of an outward ward off as tierce and roll back as quarte. Wrong? Right?

[Ba-men]

Western fencing informs my thinking about martial arts in general: particularly the Western categorization of moves and the analysis. It seems (to my Western mind untutored in subtleties) a more informative approach than calling things by four words or one in Chinese.

For example: a complete analysis of "prise de fer" (take hold of the other fellow's blade) with a whole chapter about it seems more informative than some Chinaman's one word advice that I "stick."

As a result I think of an outward ward off as tierce and roll back as quarte. Wrong? Right?

Right!

IMO Chinese text, the "scholarly interpretation" often goes wide of the mark due to the Chinese language itself. AND the fact that many of them were written for very advanced practitioners. To me.... whenever I "have" looked into a Chinese text, it looks transcribed or rewritten by a literate scholar totally not familiar with any martial culture. This is especially true with Chinese martial texts that were/are translated into English..

In the west... (I'm much more in the know with western fencing arts) a lot of the knowledge gained from authentic manuals is taken out of the context that it was written in.

Take the picture/text above. At no time in that era was buckler and sword the staple of the day. (as far as sword play goes...) was the manual written in a sporting context? Or was buckler depicted to better show technique (shield placement, body positioning, various cuts, various parries etc...) what context the author doesn't say...... (I have an actual copy with a full English translation)

Same goes for later period manuals that show a lot of grappling... were they written in a sporting context? Were they written for the duelist to better gain one on one skills... Eye witness accounts show warfare being very small on grappling. Armies in those day lined up in opposing ranks, maintained those ranks and used formalized group tactics.. void of one on one grappling... We know from eye witness accounts that the sword in late periods wasn't used much on the field of battle... yet a lot of later period manuals are written to instruct someone in the sword. Were these manuals designed to instruct nobles in a similar way Ivy league collage kids learn to fence?

What is the context?

[klonk]

It's a funny thing about I.33, the manual from which the picture was taken. I have suggested (and few have agreed) that some of the material, at least, is clever for cleverness' own sake. It shows intricacies and timing niceties that would be difficult to pull off in a real clang-and-bang. In any case there are simpler ways of doing business.

An example of what I mean is I.33's trick of switching off to use the buckler to control the opposing sword, freeing your own sword to use as you will. While this is an excellent idea its application can be challenging in some circumstances. Simpler: Use your shield to protect your target and cut in counter-time.

One may form a guess that the author's idea is to offer up some showy points of swordsmanship, to delight people who like such things, rather than to offer a street survival manual.

Of course a perfect counter-argument to any conjecture that I may offer is that I wasn't there, but then that rather begs the question, doesn't it?

Late era saber manuals intended to train soldiers are my favorites because there is no question about the intent. Even so there were some eccentric books:

http://shootery.blogspot.com/2013/07/si ... s-new.html

So maybe what I should say is that I like manuals intended for training soldiers that were used effectively to do so.

[wiesiek]

in case if you miss it , Klonk
~there is more of this guy on the line

https://youtu.be/vwuQPfvSSlo

[klonk]

in case if you miss it , Klonk
~there is more of this guy on the line

https://youtu.be/vwuQPfvSSlo

I enjoy that guy's YouTube videos. I do not agree with him on every point, but apparently no one interested in historical fencing is in full agreement with anyone else.