Armizare & Co.

Musings - Don't get Lost in the Forest by Focusing on the Trees

2011-12-13T20:20:00.000-08:00

I was recently made aware of the fact that I have been focusing far too much on individual weapons (i.e. which do I prefer more: longsword, poleaxe, spear, etc.?) and losing the forest for the trees. Instead, my focus needs to be on the system as a whole - as the Marine saying goes "One Mind, Any Weapon". All of the weapons, as cool as they are individually, are just tools. I find myself wondering (and this is probably just an effect of my lack of training time) whether I should spend my time on the longsword, or the axe, or sword & buckler, or whatever and the answer is all of the above. There is room in Armizare for all of these weapons, if by no other option than by simply following the principles therein. For instance I've been playing with my homemade mace - made from one of these Brass Mace Heads from Kult of Athena, a 30" piece of an old axe haft, and some brass tacks (it ain't pretty, but it works) - using Fiore's principles. It's been an eye-opening thought experiment, shadow-boxing with my mace. I really suggest it - find a weapon that is not in your canon (or is not a "normal" HEMA weapon - flail, etc.) and play with it, making sure to follow the principles of your flavor of HEMA.

Axe videos

2011-11-26T23:01:00.000-08:00

Sweet Mary it's been awhile since I posted anything!

Anyways, here are some great videos on axe play from a group from the Netherlands (I believe)

First up is a bout between two gentlemen in harness.

Second up is more of a demo video. All of it is very good, but the poleaxey goodness starts at 3:15.

In the both videos there are some moments where blows are obviously being pulled. Of course they are! These guys are using real axes and have their visors up - this is "loose play" or slower-speed sparring. They are not trying to kill each other, just show what they can do.

All in all, these are great videos (and there are more on their youtube page) and it's just great to see people training with the greatest weapon of them all

;-)

Book Review: The Knightly Art of Battle

2011-10-23T00:11:00.000-07:00

This is a book review of "The Knightly Art of Battle" by Ken Mondschein, from the Getty Museum.

While this is not a full translation or facsimile of the Fiore manuscript held by the Getty Museum in LA, this is a wonderful introduction to the manuscript for non-Fiorists and Fiorists alike. The introduction is clear and concise, as are the brief introductions to each section.

The highlight (for me) were the high-res images included in the book. While it doesn't include the whole manuscript, most of the "important" images are: the segno, all the poste, and a hand full of plays.

For so cheap a price, this book really is a must-own for any Western Martial Artist.

Book Review: The Complete Renaissance Swordsman

2011-10-22T09:53:00.000-07:00

The Complete Renaissance Swordsman
A Guide to the Use of All Manner of Weapons
Antonio Manciolino's Opera Nova (1531)

Translated by Tom Leoni

Available from Freelance Academy Press

This book was purchased, much like Tom's translation of Giganti's rapier, as part of the "What If" section of my WMA library. As in, "what if I someday decided to teach / study, or have students who are interested in..." As most of you are aware, the Bolognese school is not in my normal area of interest (Although Manciolino does have a pretty cool section on polearms).

As with the Giganti book, the biggest value to the beginning student is in Leoni's clear introduction to the Bolognese school - stances, guards, attacks, footwork, etc. The actual translation is just as clear and easy to read as readers have come to expect from Tom Leoni.

No matter which aspect of HEMA you study, you would be smart to pick up this book.

Apologies

2011-10-01T15:27:00.000-07:00

I have been horrible about updating this blog.

My bad.

Part of it is feeling that there is nothing I can really write that will contribute to the community at the present. However, stay tuned I as I will be receiving a couple books that I plan on reviewing here.

Brief Thought

2011-09-16T16:56:00.000-07:00

It just struck me that polearms occupy both ends of the training spectrum.

More people focus on the sword, but traditionally the spear was the more common weapon throughout the Middle Ages. It can then be claimed that the spear is one of (if not the) simplest weapon to learn.

On the other end we have the pollaxe, which is viewed by myself and many others as being the "acme" weapon - the tip of the pyramid of weapons training. This is because the poleaxe combines so many aspects of the other weapons - the spear, the sword and the dagger.

Discuss.

Random thoughts & Musings

2011-08-14T18:04:00.000-07:00

Anyone ever noticed how the blows of the sword described and shown in the various Fiore manuscripts are also the same motions used when parrying? When you make the parry of the 1st Master of Gioco Largo, you make a fendente. I think most of the people who study Fiore agree on that. When you make a deflection from Dente di Cinghiaro, you make a sottano. Again, agreement. What I realized was that when you execute a scambiar della punta (especially from Tutta Porta di Ferro) you're doing a mezzano. And when you cover against a fendente with Frontale, you're doing a sottano (or a mezzano). Seriously...think about it ;-)

INTERLUDE - Footwork Article

2011-08-01T08:41:00.000-07:00

Sorry it's been awhile since I've posted but moving will kinda do that to ya.

So, here is a re-post from Jason Smith and Le Maitres d'Armes on footwork.

Forum Suckage

2011-07-12T19:08:00.000-07:00

Just a quick note to say that I am extremely frustrated by the various HEMA forums right now.

They suck.

Badly.

I am so damned tired of watching people bicker, people inflating the status of other people (including the author's of the manuscripts themselves), and people just being asses.

That's all for now.

Fiore vs. Liechtenauer

2011-06-14T11:57:00.000-07:00

There have been a couple of recent (relatively) threads on Schola Forum that deal with the differences between Fiore and Liechtenauer. A lot of the discussion has seemed to focus on specific techniques used between the two - for instance, Fiore has the rompere de punta, scambiar de punta, and the colpo di villiano. The problem is that to me the answer isn't about specific techniques, but should be about tactics because tactics determine techniques.

Here's the kicker though - there really isn't much (if any) difference in the tactics used by Fiore and Liechtenauer.

The difference is in the footwork - specifically the first step in response to an attack. While there are no absolutes (especially not in the martial arts), in general we can say that:

Fiore prefers to step into the blow (in the direction of the blow) with the forward foot. This means that you are intercepting the attack before it develops it's full power.
Liechtenauer prefers to step away from the attack by passing diagonally forward with the rear foot. This means that you are intercepting the attack after it has reached it's maximum extension.

Lets look at one example - the defense against a right fendente/Oberhau. Both authors defend my cutting your own fendente/Oberhau into your opponent's attack. The difference is in the footwork. Oh, look! I made some pretty pictures!


Both figures are left-foot forward. The attacker will be throwing a right fendente/Oberhau with a pass forward of the rear foot.


Fiore - as Defender cuts into Attacker's blade, they step diagonally forward with the left foot.

Liechtenauer - as Defender cuts into Attacker's blade, they pass diagonally forward with the right foot.

Okay, so they step differently. So what? Well, the difference in that step leads to different measures - which is what leads to the different techniques we see. Both authors agree that if you win the bind, you thrust them in the face, so no discussion there. But in a neutral bind Fiore grabs the opponent's weak with his left hand while striking him in the face. Liechtenauer instead winds, displacing the opponent's sword and placing his own point at the same time.

This idea that Fiore steps into the attack and Liechtenauer away from it is repeated throughout each author's corpus of work.

BTW, Greg Mele and Christian Tobler taught a class on this at Chivalric Weekend 2010. I don't remember how I got the PDF of their class-notes, but I'm sure they are out there. Their class says pretty much the same thing I just did so my thanks to both of them :-)

Grand Unified Theory of Poleaxe Combat

2011-05-30T21:26:00.000-07:00

This is an idea that has been percolating for sometime within the cavernous recesses of my mind. Oh, by the way, the title to this post is sarcastic – what this post is about is my process for finding common ground between the three poleaxe manuscripts I study. To put it simply, can I make the plays and tactics of the Anonimo Bolognese and Le Jeu de la Hache jive with the principles laid out in Armizare, which form the basis of how I approach martial endeavors? Yes I can.

But first some background information. The poleaxe (or pollaxe) developed from the large battle-axes of the Early and High Middle Ages into the form we see in many of the manuscripts around 1400. The weapon became a favorite weapon of the knightly class for foot combat, both for war and for tournaments. There are two principle forms of poleaxe; one with a straight, or crescent-shaped, axe head opposite a hammer face; the second with a hammer face opposite a curved, or straight, fluke. Both types were surmounted with a spear-like spike and were mounted on wood hafts, most often between 4.5' – 6', fitted with steel langets reinforcing the upper part of the haft. The bottom of the haft could be fitted with a spike, a steel cap, or simply left bare. While both types feature prominently in contemporary artwork and in surviving examples, it the hammer & fluke variant that is most common in the fighting manuscripts.

Arms & Armor Dane Axe

Arms & Armor Italian Pole-hammer

Arms & Armor Burgundian Axe

Fiore dei Liberi wrote his manuscript(s) sometime around 1409 (according to the PD, which is the only one of the four to contain a date). Fiore's system of combat, hereafter referred to as Armizare, is a comprehensive martial art covering empty-hands techniques, dagger, sword, spear, poleaxe, and mounted combat. The principle weapon of Armizare is the longsword. There are currently four known manuscripts attributed to Fiore, another by a later student of his art (Vadi), with two other manuscripts known of but missing, and two other manuscripts that feature artwork and techniques from Fiore, but may not be directly a part of the lineage.

Le Jeu de la Hache, “the Play of the Axe”, is an anonymous Burgundian manuscript that is the only known manuscript whose sole weapon is the poleaxe. Written around 1450, Le Jeu's techniques are presented in paragraph form (73 to be precise) sans illustrations. Included in those seventy-three paragraphs are advice for preparing yourself for combat, combat between right-handers and combat between a right-hander and a left-hander.

The Anonimo Bolognese, technically the Ravenna Manuscript, is an anonymous mid-16^th century manuscript that covers the single-handed sword, alone and accompanied by numerous other implements, the large two-handed sword, and is one of the last manuscripts to devote space to poleaxe combat in full armour.

Got that? Okay, now that we're all caught up, let's get to the meat and potatoes of this business.

Guards

Fiore describes four guards for the axe – well, six in the Getty, but four in the PD, Florius and in Vadi so majority rules eh? The guards are:

Posta Breve la Serpentina – Guard of the Short Serpent – Low guard with the head of the axe forward.
Posta di Vera Croce – Guard of the True Cross / Strong Cross – Low guard with the tail of the axe forward.
Posta di Donna – Guard of the Woman – High guard with the axe over the shoulder.
Posta Dente di Cinghiaro – The Boar's Tooth – Low guard with the head of the axe low & off-line.
*Posta di Coda Longa – (Getty only) Guard of the Long Tail – Low guard with the head of the axe back along the line of the rear leg.
*Posta di Finestra – (Getty only; similar position is called Posta Sagitaria by Vadi) Guard of the Window / Archer - High guard with the head of the axe forward, parallel (or greater) to the ground.

Pissani-Dossi. Clockwise from Top Left: Breve la Serpentina, Vera Croce, Dente di Cinghiaro, & Posta di Donna.

The author of Le Jeu doesn't actually describe the guard positions; he merely mentions that “when you are on guard with the queue (tail) of the axe forward...” or “when you are on guard with the dague/croix (head) of the axe forward...” This tends to leave quite a bit of wiggle room for practitioners to decide what the guard positions really are. My interpretation (and, I believe the common consensus) are that the guards are very similar to the two Bolognese pole-arms guards; Guardia Alta & Porta di Ferro Stretta (see below).

The Anonimo Bolognese follows the Bolognese tradition closely in giving only two guards for pole-arms:

Guardia Alta – High Guard – guard with right arm bent so that the axe head is held over the right shoulder & haft diagonally crossing the body, left arm held straight.
Porta di Ferro Stretta – Narrow Iron Gate – Low guard with the axe head forward, right arm straight.

These two guards, each held on either side of the body, give a functional total of four guards.

Marozzo. From left to right: Porta di Ferro Stretta (right leg forward), Guardia Alta, Porta di Ferro Stretta (left leg forward).

But here's the kicker with the axe – whenever you adopt a guard with the axe you are simultaneously in two guards, one for the head & one for the tail. Thus, from Guardia Alta you are both in a high guard & a low guard at the same time. From Porta di Ferro Stretta, you are in a point forward and point back position. Each one of Fiore's four (not including Finestra or Coda Longa) are in Guardia Alta and Porta di Ferro Stretta

Guardia Alta = Posta di Donna and Dente di Cinghiaro
Porta di Ferro Stretta = Breve la Serpentina and Vera Croce

Guardia Alta - showing simultaneous Armizare guards.

Porta di Ferro Stretta - showing simultaneous Armizare guards.

While this might seems like I'm stretching to some of you, let's look at the common defenses from Fiore's four guards:

Breve la Serpentina – used to beat opponent's point to inside, or disengages underneath to beat to outside.
Vera Croce – rising diagonal parry.
Posta di Donna – defends with a fendente, either to a middle bind (Breve la Serpentina) or binding to the ground (Dente di Cinghiaro).
Dente di Cinghiaro – rising diagonal parry.

From Guardia Alta I can: a) strike a fendente, b) make a rising diagonal parry with the tail. From Porta di Ferro Stretta I can: a) beat opponent's weapon to inside or outside, b) make a rising diagonal parry. So why does Fiore seperate each of these guards out? Because Fiore bases all of the weapons combat he teaches on the longsword. This is why the sword in armour, spear and poleaxe sections are smaller than the unarmoured longsword teachings; Fiore only needs to point out techniques that are unique to that weapon – all the principles of Armizare you learned with the longsword still apply. Go read this for a refresher on my views on that, it's okay I'll wait.

Back? Good. According to the principles of Armizare (as I understand them) you have three options when your opponent attacks. You can: Cross, Deflect or Break. I know, I know – in my previous post I had a fourth, Exchange, but an exchange is just a special crossing. So is Breaking, but that drastically changes the line so I make it it's own. Back on topic – Cross. Deflect, or Break the attack.

Let's look at a basic attack – a descending blow from the left with the head of the axe (a mandritto fendente) and see how each of the three manuscripts defend against it from the various guards using each of the three methods of defense.

Fiore:

Cross – from Posta di Donna throw your own fendente, with or without a pass. If you control the line line, thrust them in the face. If you lose the line, bring your tail up sharply underneath their axe, stabbing them in the abdomen or hip.

Deflect – from Dente di Cinghiaro or Vera Croce. From either Guard, snap your rising diagonal parry up (with whichever footwork is appropriate) and either thrust them in the face, hit them with a fendente, or throw them.

Break – from Posta di Donna (or Coda Longa) cover with a fendente and a strong pass, bearing both axes to the ground. From here either snap your point back into their face, forcibly remove their visor then thrust them in the face, or stomp on their axe then thrust them in the face.

Le Jeu:

Cross – from the high guard, strike your blow into theirs without passing, then drive your pedale up, driving their axe aside & down, the stab them in the face. Alternately, step into their blow, taking it on the haft between your hands, and while driving your axe to your right, step behind them and execute a collar throw.

Deflect – from either guard, do your rising diagonal parry with the pedale such that you drive their axe wide. Then hit them in the head.

Break – Here is where my theory runs into issues admittedly. The author of Le Jeu is adamant that you should never allow the head of your axe to stray beyond the outline of your opponent. This reason Fiore is okay with this is two-fold, in my opinion. First is that in the rompere dei punta, you have control of his weapon, lessening the risk. The other reason has to do with the fact that as poleaxes developed they got longer, and Fiore was at what we can consider the forefront of poleaxe usage, therefore it is reasonable to assume his axe is shorter, meaning it is easier to recover.

Anonimo:

Cross – The Anonimo only has two options from the crossing; either thrust your pedale underneath his haft, to the abdomen or hip, or control his axe and enter for a collar throw.

Deflect – The Anonimo features a deflection that is the same as Le Jeu's.

Break - Again similar to Le Jeu, there are no breaks in the Anonimo.

Couple of videos to watch

2011-05-12T11:10:00.000-07:00

First up is this video by a University of Oregon Journalism student about Maestro Sean Hayes and the Northwest Fencing Academy. She titled it "Maestro of Armizare" and Sean is very quick to point out (not in the video but in general) that he is a Maestro in Classical Italian fencing, not Armizare.

Second, here are six videos from the guys at Hammaborg on harness fighting from the Gladitoria manuscripts. Great techniques (some of which I am totally going to steal and try to use) and beautiful armour. In fact, I am now extremely jealous of Dierk's armour.

Speaking of armour, I've been debating recently about what type of harness I should try to compile. Basically I have worked it out to three options:

a Coat of Plates / Brigandine over a hauberk, with some simple arms, knee cops with either quilted or brigandine cuisses. Helm will (hopefully) just be a Windrose Fiore helm with the pierced steel visor.
a Corrazzina or Churburg type breastplate, over mail. Very 14th C transitional armour setup. Steel arms, steel legs, same helm as above.
Early Gothic type armour: breast & back plate, full arms, full legs, sallet with bevor.

The reason I like the first two options is that they are (relatively) light, I can put a brig or corrazzina on by myself, and they are easily "modified" - I can play light, medium, and heavy armour, can play with sword, spear and axe at all levels. The only real reason the third option is there is because it looks so freaking cool! I currently own a decent Coat of Plates (which needs a little TLC - like new straps. Oh and a new base garment so the damn thing actually fits) so I guess the real question becomes Brigandine or Corrazzina?

Chivalric Fighting Arts Association

2011-04-27T10:44:00.000-07:00

This was announced last night (at least when I saw it). Personally, I am very happy to see this organization come into existence as a solidifying of fraternal bonds that already existed between like-minded schools / instructors. This is the text from the announcement on Sword Forum:

Let it Be Known to all Who Profess the Art of Arms that we send Greetings and a Declaration of Fraternity:

Wherefore, the Art of Defence has also been known as the Knightly Art, and its study has instilled the virtues of Prowess, Courage, Justice, Loyalty, Courtesy, Humility, Largesse, Franchise, and Faith in its adherents;

Wherefore we share a dedication to not only the revival of the fighting arts of the past, but to insuring their transmission to the future;

And wherefore we also hold a deep and sincere belief that the study and practice of these arts is a tool for building character and personal discipline;

We have therefore come together to form the Chivalric Fighting Arts Association (CFAA); an international organization of schools and clubs devoted to the study of historical European martial arts, particularly those practiced in a chivalric context, used in war, the tournament, and the duel.

Just as there are many different approaches to the study of Asia martial arts, over the last decade this has become true within the Western martial arts community as well. Just as classical Jujutsu, Judo and BJJ may have common roots, techniques, and even uniforms, but possess very different emphasis and training goals, so too are there now WMA scholars whose principal interest is national pride and cultural preservation, others focused on the development of a modern combat sport, and others who focus on those elements that have pragmatic application in the modern world.

As the CFAA’s name suggests, our members’ interest is in these Arts as traditional martial arts. We define “traditional” as a focus on:

• Fidelity to the historic treaties;
• Study of our Arts within their cultural context;
• Study of and respect for the ethical milieus in which the Arts were born;
• Emphasis on honorable behavior amongst and between students and teacher alike;
• A belief that, while, competition is a worthy tool that serves to refine our understanding of the Arts, the Arts are not a tool to foster modern competitions.

We see ourselves as caretakers of an ancient heritage, and therefore the texts are the single most relevant and authoritative word on the arts we strive to reconstruct. Therefore, member schools are encouraged to apply themselves to these books with a high level of philological passion--a passion that has, in the space of a few short decades, brought to light so much reliable information about how our ancestors fought.

Equally as important is the respect for the spirit of chivalry and honorable behavior that were part of the ethical milieu in which our arts blossomed. All ethical systems, from Stoicism to Daoism, Zen to Chivalry always exist in idealized forms, but we believe that the importance lies is in the striving for these ideals. This includes favoring the scientific process of scholarship over the stubbornness of ego, healthy emulation to petty rivalry, acknowledgment of your instructor over teaching his labor as your own, and frankness and openness over squabbling and needless politicking.

We respect all other serious approaches to the study of historical martial arts, but it is our belief that this emphasis on tradition, culture and ethics is what separates a martial art from simply being a combat sport or self-defense. Those disciplines are worthy in their own right, and find a place amongst us, but the common philosophy of our member schools centers on fidelity to the arts as they were originally wielded and recorded, the spirit of chivalry in which those treatises were conceived, and the keeping these ideals alive in the study of our arts - qualities that we believe can be of benefit to the modern world as much as they were for the ancient one.

Therefore, in service to the Art of Arms and in respect to our Forbearers, we are –

Christian Henry Tobler, Selohaar Fechtschule
Devon Boorman, Academie Duello
Stefan Dieke, Alte Kampfkunst
Gregory Mele, Chicago Swordplay Guild
Terry Brown, The Company of Maisters
Mark Lancaster, The Exiles
Bob Charrette, Forteza Historical Swordwork Guild
Dierk Hagedorn & Roland Warzecha, Hammaborg
Bob Brooks, Hotspur School of Defence
Claus Sørensen, Laurentiusgildet
Jason Smith, Les Maître D'armes
Sean Hayes, Northwest Fencing Academy
Tom Leoni, Order of the Seven Hearts
Puck Curtis, Mary Dill Curtis, Kevin Murakoshi & Eric Myers, Sacramento Sword School
Guy Windsor, School of European Swordsmanship
Scott Wilson, Southern Academy of Swordsmanship
Bill Grandy, Virginia Academy of Fencing (Historical Swordsmanship Division)

Christian Henry Tobler

New Addition

2011-04-13T14:53:00.000-07:00

I've decided that I'm going to broaden my studies to include (drum roll please) .........

The Montante.

I'm going to use this translation of Diogo Gomes de Figueyrdo by Eric Myers and Steve Hick. I'm still trying to figure out a trainer (gotta be thrifty at the moment) but it should be fun. I decided to run with this because of all the solo exercises and how it will teach and impact my body mechanics. Oh, and it's a big f*&k-off sword. So there's that.

Freelance Academy Press Reviews

2011-04-06T10:38:00.000-07:00

It's a Two-For-One! I'll be reviewing two books available from Freelance Academy Press

In The Service of Mars: Proceedings from the Western Martial Arts Workshop 1999-2009, Volume I

As the title says, this book is a compilation of lesson-plans and handouts from past WMAWs - except that most of the entries have been substantially fleshed out, pictures added, interpretations updated, etc. The book is divided into four parts based on content, which makes quick finding of a particular article easy. I had originally planned on reading this book cover to cover, but wound up skipping from article to article based on my level of interest, which is perfectly fine :) I wish I had the gumption to go through and give an article by article review, but that would spoil the reading too much. Instead, I'll just give a quick shout-out to my favorite / most helpful articles.

First up is Greg Mele's article on the poleaxe techniques presented in the Anonimo Bolognese. Big surprise huh? Greg gives a great succinct background on the weapon and the manuscript, then gives translation, interpretation, and pictures of each play. It's everything a poleaxe enthusiast could want about a fascinating little piece of axe combat.

Greg's other article on Fiore's Gioco Largo & Gioco Stretto, Jessica Finley's article on Ott's Ringen, Tom Leoni's article on the Spadone were some other highlights for me. However, there are four articles that I believe make this volume worth purchasing. They are Craig Johnson's "How a Sword Was Made", Tom Leoni's "The Judicial Duel in Sixteenth-Century Italy", Keith Alderson's "On the Art of Reading: An Introduction to Using the Medieval German 'Fightbooks'", and finally the article written by John Sullins, Sean Hayes, Puck Curtis, and Eric Myers on how to use Classical Italian pedagogy to develop lesson plans.

In reality, the best part of this book is that there is something for everyone.

Venetian Rapier

I actually received this book last year, but realized I had yet to do a review of it. While I'm not a rapierist (and probably never will be) if I ever do start practicing and / or teaching rapier, this book will be the foundation of my studies. An English translation of Nicoletto Giganti's 1606 rapier curriculum. BTW, it is exactly that - an east to follow, builds upon itself, curriculum for learning the rapier. As with his other translations Tom Leoni manages to create a text that reads as if it were originally written in modern English, which enables the practitioner to read through and follow the instructions without any of the choppiness that can accompany a translation.

Specialization - Good or Bad

2011-04-01T18:05:00.000-07:00

I remember reading a blog (I forget who's) where the author was discussing whether being a swordsman equals being a martial artist. Their response was no, that it leads to being a specialist - a word which he writes with dripping scorn, much as I say "the Yankees"

It is a scientific fact.

To the author, the only way to truly practice these arts is to practice all aspects of it - he was particularly vitriolic against those who do little to no grappling.

Okay, my response to this attitude is to ask that if you consider those who only train in one weapon to not be martial artists does that mean that Ott, Leckuchner, Fabris, Capoferro, Giganti, and the anonymous authors of I.33 and Le Jeu, amongst others, are not martial artists? What about Bruce Lee? Yes he studied weapons, but he focused on unarmed, thereby "neglecting" the rest of the "systems" he studied. Is he not to be considered a martial artist?

Specialization is not a bad thing. Everyone I listed above wrote a complete martial system that was based around one weapon. Are Fiore, Marozzo, Vadi, Meyer, Mair or Liechenhauer better martial artists simply because they include more weapons? Specialization is natural and healthy because it is a simple fact that someone who trains and specializes in one aspect of an art understand that aspect better than a "Jack of All Trades" - they have a deeper understanding. Don't get me wrong, I believe in training all aspects of the art in order to put more tools in my toolbox, but it is perfectly possible for someone who only studies the longsword to be just as good a martial artist and fencer as someone who trains in wrestling, dagger, lance, poleaxe and longsword.

Two examples:

In MMA, when a fighter wants to improve his striking he goes to a boxing trainer. When he wants to improve his ground-game, he goes to a wrestler or BJJ trainer. In other words, he goes to a specialist.
Most of the instructors WMA events and seminars are specialists, even those who are capable of teaching a broad spectrum. There are people who study Armizare who only study the sword or the dagger and they teach accordingly.

Look, specialization is historical. So is the comprehensive approach. Personally, I take a comprehensive approach to Armizare, but you could say that I specialize in Armizare, with a further specialization in Le Jeu de la Hache. See how silly it is to rail against specialization?

Punch Drunk

2011-04-01T10:05:00.000-07:00

I promised at the end of my last post that the next one would be about striking - well, here it is. :)

People, myself included when I started training, are often very confused as to the lack of empty-hand striking in the medieval martial arts. After all, we know the Greeks and Romans boxed, so why not folks in the middle ages? Truth is, we don't know that they didn't. While the majority of manuscripts that feature unarmed sections do not show any striking (Codex Wallerstein is the only contrary example I know of), the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

There are many theories out there about why we are not shown any strikes. These include: Training paradigm, Ineffectiveness, and Lost Knowledge.

Training Paradigm

This is the theory that we are not shown traditional punching type strikes because the punching action does not fit the system's underlying movement patterns. For instance, the overhand dagger blow (ice-pick grip descending blow) is the same motion as a hammer-fist (striking with the bottom of the closed fist). The theory holds that simplicity of training is paramount - why train two separate types of hand motion for striking when one will do. Keep It Simple Scholar.

Ineffectiveness

This is the theory that striking does not appear because striking is ineffective against armour and, as with the above theory, you shouldn't train for something that only works part of the time. Punching a man in a breastplate = Not a good idea. In a helm = Still not a good idea.

Lost (Hidden) Knowledge

This is the idea that the knowledge of striking was there, but that it was either considered such common knowledge that it need not be included or that it was considered "secret". I tend to partially agree with the first part, but find the second utter rubbish.

Here is the problem with all of the above theories - there IS striking present in the manuscripts, not just the Codex Wallerstein. It isn't hidden at all, at least not in Fiore.

"If your opponent is not in armor, strike him in the most painful and dangerous spots, such as the eyes, the nose, the temples, under the chin and in the flanks." - Getty Prologue, trans. Leoni

"-knowing the most dangerous places in which to strike" - Eight qualities of abrazare, Getty Prologue, trans. Leoni

"As you become suspicious of someone's dangerous knife, immediately go against him with your arms, hands and elbows. Always do these five things: take his dagger away, strike him, break his arms, bind him, and throw him to the ground. None of these five plays goes without the other" - Beginning of dagger section, Getty, trans. Leoni

There you have it. Three quotes from the two unarmed sections of the Getty, describing when and where to strike. The only thing they leave out is the "How". Sort of. As I discussed earlier, one can easily take the mechanics for striking with the dagger and turn that into a hammer-fist (Hell, that's how I describe it to people). Okay but what about other strikes? The only other empty-hand strike was see is a strike to the throat that can be done either as a palm strike or as a chop with the side of the hand. There are other strikes shown in the manuscript, specifically a kick to the shin or knee, a kick to the groin and a knee to the groin. Fun stuff.

So strikes do exist in Armizare, but what purpose do they serve. They are not "fight-enders" - they are not intended to be. Instead, strikes serve three purposes:

1. They are used to soften an opponent. For example, if I am trying to secure a ligadura mezzana on you, but you are fighting me just enough to keep me from getting it. Then, I drive a hammer-fist into your left eye. Suddenly, you are not quite as concerned about the ligadura I'm after.

2. They are used as methods of entry. If you are guarding well my attempts to grapple, I can throw a strike your way in order to break you of your guard, allowing me to gain a good grapple.

3. They are used to displace some part of your opponent. Particularly in armoured combat, a strong open-hand strike (as Jesse Kulla of the CSG explained it "a bear-paw") to the side of the helm may not knock an opponent out, but it will displace their head, allowing you to gain control.

Notice that none of these three are aimed at knock-out power. Strikes are, by their nature, inconsistent things - a solid punch to the jaw may knock one opponent out cold while another my take punch after punch and simply laugh at you. This, in my opinion, is why the medieval arts focus on grappling - binding, breaking, or dislocating your opponents limbs is a more sure method of taking the fight out of them.

I personally prefer to use hammer-fists, open-palm strikes (both of which allow for an easy transfer to grappling control), elbow strikes, knee strikes, and low (below the waist) kicks, for strikes. But in a fight you use whatever you have at hand - I've head-butted more than a few sparring partners (always while wearing helmet - I'm not stupid).

But there is a bigger issue here than what, if any, strikes appear in Armizare. That issue is that it is not a big freakin' deal. If you honestly believe that you have such command over the material in the sword, lance, dagger, axe, and mounted sections, as well as the grapples shown in abrazare, that you can afford to split hairs over empty-hand strikes then I envy you. I personally doubt that Fiore would care if you struck a hammer-fist, or a jab, or a cross when he says "Strike" - the point is to strike!

Abrazare

2011-03-24T23:24:00.000-07:00

Last time I went to Eugene (March 13^th), Sean and I spent almost the entire time working through the abrazare and dagger sections, cross-checking images and text between the Getty and the PD. We ran through them at an easy pace and starting from a collar-and-elbow (C&E) setup. We do about half our abrazare drills from the C&E and the other half by having the player enter into measure. I really prefer to start people off from the C&E because it is simpler; static, clearly defined hand positions, etc. Also, it really is a fairly common position to come to while wrestling. Later on, you can add coming into measure to the drill, remembering (and reminding your students) that it will not look the same as it does on the page or as it did during the C&E drill – as the Man says, grapples are seldom identical, it is important to learn to flow with what you have/are being presented. This run-through of abrazare was really good because it helped solidify in my mind the principles that are represented by each play.

As an aside, because this opinion is out there, I don't believe that all of the plays shown are supposed to flow one-into-another. Instead, the plays are there to illustrate principles – while some may flow into each other, Fiore is usually explicit when this occurs and thus they are easy to spot.

Abrazare, to me, is the basis of Armizare simply because unarmed wrestling is the common ancestor of all martial arts. There are two main reasons I believe this to be so, but, as with so much else we do, there is room for interpretation.

The First Reason

In the Getty prologue Fiore talks about how the rest of the art will follow the principles laid down in abrazare. The problem is that he is also talking at that point about his pedagogical system of Crowned Masters & Scholars. So when he says:

“Overall, these Masters and students support the whole art of arms – on horseback and or foot, armored and unarmormed – through the principles they follow in abrazare” (Trans. Leoni)

is he talking the pedagogy or the martial art? He does say, before the bit quoted above, that the guards, Remedy Masters, Counter Masters, and Counter-Counter Masters form the four pillars of abrazare – and the rest of Armizare.

The Second Reason

“I'll start the book according to the order of my lord Marquis. I'll make sure nothing is left out, so that my lord may thank me out of his nobility and courtesy. Therefore let's start with wrestling, or abrazare” (Trans. Leoni)

There are two possible ways to read the above:

First, that it was Niccolo who decreed that Fiore start with abrazare – in other words “to the order of my lord Marquis” is to be taken literally.
Second, that “to the order of my lord Marquis” refers to the book itself, not the order in which it must be written.

Either way, it is true that the Getty and Pissani-Dossi facsimile do start with abrazare and then progress through dagger, single hand sword, two-handed sword, spear, axe, then horseback (which runs lance → wrestling). The problem is that the other two manuscripts, the Morgan and the Florius, run the opposite; they start on horseback and run through the weapons down to abrazare. Which just so happens to follow the usual course of a judicial duel. In the end, both ways of reading both of my reasons are correct – we will never really know the answer, but the fact of the matter is that the four guards of abrazare can be seen, in various forms, with all the weapons and the principles shown are true principles that apply across Armizare.

Fiore gives three very useful bits of information in the Getty prologue. First he tells us that what he will be showing us is done “for one's life, employing every trick, deception, and cruelty imaginable” rather than showing us wrestling “for pleasure”. This is important because it tells us that when we are interpreting how to perform a play there are two questions to keep in mind:

“Would I do this if my life depended on it?”

“Would this work against someone who is actively trying to kill me?”

If the answer to either of these is “No” then your interpretation is not martially sound and needs to be revised. Now, of course, abrazare can still be done “for pleasure” - in fact, that is how we have to practice it! After all, if you keep breaking your training partners you run out pretty quickly!

The second thing Fiore tells us is to observe your opponent. Are they bigger or smaller than you? Older or younger? Stronger? Do they look like they know their way around a brawl? All these add up to a very important part of Armizare, indeed of all martial arts – knowing when NOT to fight. If the person you're about to wrestle with is 6'9” and has a face like Danny Trejo, you might want to reconsider. Just a thought.

The final bit of information Fiore gives us is a list of the eight qualities of abrazare:

Strength
Speed
Knowing advantageous grapples
Knowing how to break limbs & joints
Knowing binds
Knowing where to strike*
Knowing how to throw your opponent without putting yourself in danger
Knowing how to dislocate limbs

*Earlier, Fiore tells us these are the eyes, the nose, the temples, “under the chin” (throat), and the flanks – but only if your opponent isn't in armor!

The Guards

The four guards of abrazare are pretty self explanatory and provide the basis for all the other guards in the system. They are Posta Longa, Dente di Cinghiaro, Porta di Ferro, and Posta Frontale.

Posta Longa (Long Position) – Described as a waiting position that enters into 1^st play of abrazare. Also, the straight arm is very useful for gauging the distance between yourself and your opponent.

Dente di Cinghiaro (Boar's Tooth) – Described as the counter to the 1^st play. It can also use other offenses (binds, breaks, etc.) to transition into Porta di Ferro for the throw.

Porta di Ferro (Iron Door or Iron Gate) – Perhaps the strongest single guard with any weapon, excellent for waiting. Fiore says this guard is “full of tricks”.

Posta Frontale (Frontal Position) – Used to break Porta di Ferro. As with the other three, Posta Frontale is described as “gaining the grapples” needed for victory.

These four guards appear as opposing pairs with Posta Longa vs. Dente di Cinghiaro, and Porta di Ferro vs. Posta Frontale.

The Plays

I will be describing all these plays (where applicable) as arising from the C&E.

A Basic Collar & Elbow position. I prefer to have my "short" arm on the outside of my opponent's "long" arm.

Basic Collar & Elbow Grip – Stand facing your partner, place your right hand (or left hand – I figure you've figured that out by now haha)on your partners left shoulder and hook your left hand into your partners right elbow. Foot placement is ideally long arm = lead foot, but it works cross-footed just fine.

1^st Play (first two illustrations) – Trap your partners left hand (the one that is on your shoulder) with your chin/cheek. As you lift their elbow, turn their arm and gain the bind, give their right shoulder a slight push with your left hand and then slide it down to control their right arm. The shoulder push actually helps extend and straighten their left arm, making the bind so much easier. Footwork should be a slight accreciamento with the right foot, then either a pass back with the left or a volta stabile. In reality, do whatever footwork you need to to get the bind (so long as it fits within the framework of Armizare – mezza volte, volta stabile, tutta volta, accresciameni, descresciamenti, etc.). The 2^nd illustration show the completion of the bind. This will be an inside throw – player will go down face first in front of you (to your inside).

3^rd Play (3^rd illustration) – What to do if your partner/opponent isn't willing to simply stand there and get their arm messed up. As they pull their left hand from your shoulder (however they do it – doesn't matter) transition the enveloping motion of your right arm into a throat chop (chest slap for the “Nice Training Partner” variety) and reach down with your left hand, grabbing the nearest (usually left) knee and throwing them over your forward (right) leg. This will be an outside throw – player will go down butt first to your outside.

4^th Play - We play this as an alternate to the 3rd Play - if instead of trying to fly out, what if the Player presses in? Well, you (again) turn the enveloping motion of your right hand into a press against the Player's face, twisting it to their right. As you do this, grab their arm/waist with your left hand and volta stabile to perform an inside throw.

5^th Play - This is an outside throw variation of the 4th Play with two differences; important one - the Player's left leg is forward (not the right as in 4th Play). Not quite as important one - the Player's grip is now low with both arms (not high-low as in 4th Play). Execute the play exactly as described in 4th Play except instead of a face push, grab their chin and perform an outside throw.

6^th Play - The 6th Play introduces us to the most common grappling counter in the entire system - the elbow push. Simply push on the elbow of the hand that is against your face and do whatever grapples pop up.

7^th Play - *This Play has the Player's lead leg switched between the Getty and the PD, works either way* From the C&E (right lead), use your left hand to control Player's right arm, grasping at the wrist and twisting/opening it up. Change your elevation and drive your right arm under their lead leg while stepping underneath their right arm. I like to add a shoulder to the sternum as I drive through, but I'm just mean :)

8^th Play - A pressure point counter. Simply take your thumb and press it into the soft spot below the ear. *DO THIS CAREFULLY IN PRACTICE - IT REALLY FREAKIN' HURTS!* Like the other "hand to face" plays this can be countered with an elbow push.

9^th Play - We drill the 9th Play as a counter to an elbow push. From the C&E the Player performs an elbow push against your left (long) arm. As he closes in, throw your left arm against the right side of his neck while stepping your right foot outside his left leg, executing an outside throw.

10^th Play - The Gamberola is a straight-forward play which Fiore describes a "not safe" because your opponent can just as easily throw you! To drill this, start from the C&E, but with lead hand & lead foot crossed (right hand, left foot forward). Execute an elbow push against the Player's right arm, throwing your right arm over their shoulder (or against their throat) and passing in and placing your right foot between their feet, driving your hips into their butt as you push their upper body back, throwing them over your leg.

11^th Play - This is a counter to a full nelson and it is simple and brutal - Find something (a wall, a tree, etc.), back your opponent towards it and begin slamming them into it. :)

12^th Play - This is another straightforward play - from a double waist grip, the Scholar knees the Player in the balls. That's all - Just knee them in the block & tackle and then take advantage of their indisposition to do what you will to them. The counter is to grab behind the knee they're attempting to drive into you and throw him.

13^th Play - Here we are told that if the Player has both their arms under yours (double underhook in modern grappling parlance) and is not wearing a helm (not in armor), then put both your hands against their face - fingers in eyes, etc. You counter this with...an elbow push (noticing a pattern yet?)

14^th Play - This is just an illustration of the previously mentioned counter to the 13th play. Elbow push + grabbing under the Player's lead knee.

15^th Play - If you have double underhooks, then you can also put your hands in your opponent's face. From the double underhook position, bring your arms up and around the outside of the Player's, squeezing your elbows as close together as possible to control Player's arms.

16^th Play - This is also a counter to the 13th Play and is essentially a reverse of the 15th Play - If your hands are on the inside, as the Player attempts to put his hands in your face, then keep your elbows spread and drive your hands up between his and into his face - Fiore recommends driving your thumbs into his eyes. To counter (drum roll please) use an elbow push to open him up.

Conclusions & Observations

Fiore presents us with a very concise and wonderful little wrestling primer. Of the eight qualities he mentions in the prologue, we are only shown in detail grapples and throws - Fiore saves binds, breaks, and dislocations in detail for the dagger section. In my opinion, full knowledge of abrazare will only come from studying both the abrazare and dagger sections; unlocking all the possible techniques and variables. The three principles that I believe are present in the abrazare section are:

Take advantage of opponent's extended limbs.
All throws can be reduced to two - a throw to your inside & a throw to your outside.
The elbow push can be used to counter damn near anything.

One final observation I have about abrazare is that when I look at the body positions of the figures, I see very upright body carriage - reminiscent of modern Greco-Roman wrestling, where attacking the legs is illegal so the fighters tend to stay very upright. Compare this to the body positions of collegiate style or some folk style of wrestling - even some of the German manuscripts so very low, torso leaned forward positions, which makes it much harder for your opponent to attack your legs. See Jessica Finley's article on Ott in "In the Service of Mars" from Freelance Academy Press for a wonderful exposition of German wrestling. Now, we can go back and forth about why the different torso leans are shown, but I believe that because Fiore is showing a complete system he expects your body to remain the same. A sharply inclined torso is great when you aren't wearing armour, but in armour is a great way to a close-up of the ground in front of you.

Tune in next time for "Why the Hell Don't They Just Punch Each Other!?!"

Tinker Handle Mod 1.0

2011-03-06T15:51:00.000-08:00

Finished up wrapping my Tinker longsword handle with waxed linen thread. The process was extremely simple:

Start at the small end of the handle, I started on one of the thin sides of the handle but it's your preference, by placing a dab of superglue / epoxy (I used Gorilla SuperGlue). Let dry.
Keeping tension on the thread, begin wrapping. I recommend wearing gloves for this otherwise your fingers wind up waxy and raw (Thanks for the warning Mike!)
OPTIONAL - if you want, every now and again you can use a drop of glue on the thread. I did this once then realized it wasn't necessary IMO.
To finish, more glue 8-D

If I putz around with this handle again it will be to put a leather wrap on over this layer of cord. This will help fatten the handle a bit (and wind up with a wood -> cord -> leather -> cord -> leather construction). Eventually I might even make my own wooden core for a new handle, but we'll see.

I didn't think to take progress pics, so here are two finished shots (crappy quality = cell phone)

I caught myslef today.

2011-02-20T18:58:00.000-08:00

I was watching the movie "Machete" - if you haven't seen it, do so - and I started thinking about how I should get a decent machete for camping, backpacking, etc. I currently have a nice little tomahawk my father-in-law made me for larger camp tasks, but a machete or billhook would be cool. My train of thought hurtled down the tracks until it came to rest on "machete = messer = machete is a cheap substitute for a messer". I then lamented the fact that I don't study the messer and it's too bad Fiore doesn't deal with the... AH-HA! That's when I caught myself. No, Fiore doesn't deal with the messer, but he does deal with single-handed weapons. So I grabbed my copy of "In St. George's Name", which has an article on Paulus Kal's messerfechten and you know what? Every one of those techniques can be found in Fiore, between the sword in one hand section, the Zogho Stretto, and the horsey sections. I had fallen into the same trap I've watched other practitioners of weapons-based martial arts fall into - focusing too much on their particular type of weapon an not on the fact that the particular weapon can be seen as an archetype. Clear as mud?

I've covered this in other posts but the basic idea is that by training in the comprehensive systems available to us, be it German, Italian, what-have-you, you are essentially training nearly all variations of weapons - unarmed, knives & small sticks, single-hand weapons, two-hand weapons, long pole weapons.

And now I go back to watching "the 13th Warrior"

:D

Updates, updates, updates

2011-02-16T17:59:00.000-08:00

Finally got myself a Hanwei Tinker longsword. It was an...interesting experience with a particular Hanwei distributor that was 20% my fault, so I won't publicly bash them for their lack of customer service.

Anyways, now that I have it, I am planning a simple project to re-wrap the handle, making it a bit thicker and more durable, and a more in-depth project where I'm planning to make a new handle that with be a leather wrap with a wire wrap on the lower 3", with a wire Turk's head over the join between the leather and wire.

The other major update is that I am trying to make a habit of practicing with my sword (or axe) at least 5 minutes everyday.

A Few More Video Links

2011-01-22T19:11:00.000-08:00

Here are some links to some interesting and fun videos about daily life in the Middle Ages.

Link the First

Link the Second (w/ subtitles)

Also, another good thing to come out of the National Geographic show the other day is that it made me look up the 1459 Talhoffer and re-introduced me to this image:


Yes, a take-down poleaxe

Oh...my...God...I WANT!

Reviews, Observations, and Ramblings

2011-01-21T22:11:00.000-08:00

Today will be a jam-packed entry featuring observations, reviews, training updates & bitch sessions! Woo-hoo!

In case you missed it, this week the National Geographic channel aired a show called “Medieval Fight Book” all about Talhoffer's 1459 fechtbuch. The show, sadly, mostly focused on bits from the rest of the hausbuch that featured designs for war machines, etc. rather than the actual fighting plates. The show features Terry Jones (yes, THAT Terry Jones) and Mike Loades as experts, and also features John Clements and Aron P. from ARMA. All in all, I thought that this is one of the better medieval documentary out there between the Discovery Channel, National Geographic, and the Hitler...er...History Channel. I just had a few quibbles (other than the lack of focus on the fighting techniques):

-The tone of the show was more “The DaVinci Code: Talhoffer style” rather than a serious documentary. Descriptions of the manuscript as being “violent, secretive, spiritual and packed full of knowledge, an obscure and mysterious manuscript called the Fight Book”. Sigh.

There is a scene featuring a potential device to approach a besieged wall, and the device is made of boiled leather. Mike Loades testes this by having somebody fire a “VERY heavy 80lb draw bow”. Now, while I could barely draw an 80lb bow , describing an 80lb bow as heavy is simply exaggeration. A 120lb or 160lb war bow is heavy. Just saying.

-The gents from ARMA did a very nice presentation job, including Aron running, vaulting, and somersaulting in harness. They film a scene featuring an unarmoured man (JC) fighting an armoured man (Aron P). First problem, people who know a heck of a lot more about Talhoffer than I do say that that is not what the plate is actually showing – the artist simply didn't want to have to draw a bunch of harness over and over again (kind of like another Talhoffer where you have unarmoured guys fighting with the poleaxe). Second problem, Aron is using half-sword techniques. Against an unarmoured opponent. *blink* *blink* Why in God's name would you do that? The only reason to half-sword is because your opponent is wearing armour – if he isn't then hit him like normal. Third problem, when JC throws his Murder Strokes he does so by gripping the flat of the blade and flicking the hilt toward Aron P. Seriously, it looked like something you'd see in an Olympic fencing bout. Nevertheless, it connects hard. Which brings us to the my biggest problem with the whole production – Aron gets hit so hard by the pommel that it dents his helm and makes him sick to his stomach. Ever look up the symptoms of a concussion? Yeah, nausea is right up there on the list. I accept that what we do is dangerous (it is a martial art after all) but still, national tv and someone gets a concussion. Awesome. I know that this is an over-reaction on my part, but just worry that for as many people as were attracted to HEMA because of this show, some were turned away because of that one shot.

Here is a link to the show on youtube (it's in 4 parts) and to Clements' blog about the production. Oh, and I had forgotten about those funky poleaxes in Talhoffer with the crescent hooks on the queue end. I want one. :D

Just look at those things...brutal...and pretty.

An observation I wanted to make about the community in general is that there seem to be a lot of threads of various forums regarding how to execute moves that are “basic” to the Liecthenaur tradition – the Zornhau, Shielhau, etc. This has also led to discussions on Silver's “True Times” and simply put, what is the proper way to attack. I have mixed feelings on these posts. First, I feel that these types of questions are important to an individual's understanding of the manuscripts. I know that I have, and still do, ask serious questions regarding the basics of Armizare. The difference is that I usually pose these questions to a few folks via e-mail, not on a public forum. The reason I do this is that when I asked my first real question, I was too shy to post it online, so I e-mailed it to a few instructors. They told me that it was great that I was thinking critically about the manuscripts, but that these questions had been hashed out long ago. While I still e-mail out questions now and then, I accept that there are others who have come before me and that there is no reason to re-invent the wheel. Second, the negative reaction I have is because a lot of these issues have “accepted” answers within the majority of the community. Unless there is new, radical manuscript evidence, why re-hash how to form the guard Posta di Donna? We will never know exactly how to do it, we can only take our best shot, and I am content with that. The cool part is that we will all take slightly different shots at the same thing. This is our evolutionary mutation to HEMA, I may not do things exactly like my instructor, nor will my future students do things exactly like I do. But there is a funny thing about mutations, they can be beneficial and harmful. In thinking about writing this, I decided that in my opinion, a healthy mutation in a martial art is a change that remains within the system. An unhealthy mutation is a change that pushes outside the system. For example, if my instructor finds that he fights better out of front-weighted Posta di Donna and, perhaps unconsciously, primarily teaches front-weighted Posta di Donna to all his students (including me). Now, I find that I fight better out of rear-weighted Posta di Donna, so when I go on to teach my students I mostly teach rear-weighted Posta di Donna. That is a healthy mutation because both versions of Posta di Donna exist in the system. Instead of Posta di Donna you could use depth of stance. Both a low, deep stance and a high, narrow stance are used in Armizare (in Fiore and Vadi, respectively). If I teach a high stance that is still a healthy mutation. Now if I decide that Fiore's stances make no sense, so I will substitute a karate cat-stance for all high guards and a horse stance for all low guards, that is an unhealthy mutation. And guess what? Mutations within the tradition have historical precedent in HEMA. I've already used Vadi and Fiore as an example, so I'll use them again 'cause I'm lazy. Vadi is regarded as a student or successor of Fiore's Armizare and I use him as a source and place him firmly within the Armizare lineage. Yet some of his guards and plays are either slightly changed or entirely brand-new. Bu they still follow the rules of the system. Similarly, the German tradition evolved and changed over the 200+ years it was being practiced. Kind of like a martial version of the telephone game.

Last weekend, January 9^th, I finally got down to Eugene to train at the Academy for the first time since October. Far, far too long. To my surprise, and delight, Devon Boorman of Academie Duello was in town. During the morning session, the three of us played with a plethora of things; a poleaxe posta dance, abrazare drills, traded dagger flow drills, and Devon showed us some really, really cool fühlen exercises with dagger and sword. The second half of the day the majority of the Academy's students showed up (which was just cool to see honestly) and we played with the 1^st Remedy Master of dagger, then moved on to some zogho largo fun. All in all, it was a great day – it was great to see Devon again and it was absolutely awesome to see so many students there!

The problem, however, is the mind-numbing realization that 3 months of little to no physical training with sword in hand means one thing – I now suck. I suck hard. I feel like my understanding of the manuscripts is much better than it used to be but now my physical implementation has suffered. It is akin to not playing a musical instrument for a long time, then picking it up again. Your brain knows exactly what to do but your body is unable to keep up. It's frustrating and depressing, especially when you are holding yourself (and being held to) a standard. Oh well, time to shut up and train I guess.

Book review - "Meditations on Violence" by Sgt. Rory Miller

2011-01-03T21:03:00.000-08:00

"Meditation on Violence: A Comparison of Martial Arts Training & Real World Violence", written by Sgt. Rory Miller, a veteran corrections officer in the Pacific Northwest, is an excellent look at martial arts training and the preconceived notions about violence that inhabit almost every school, system, what-have-you.

The book is broken up into seven chapters: the Matrix, How to Think, Violence, Predators, Training, Making Physical Defense Work, and After.

The Matrix introduces the idea of using a matrix to "describe and analyze a multidimensional event in a multidimensional way" (Miller 2). Miller explains that a fight can arise in four different ways: you were Surprised, you were Alerted, Mutual combat, & you are the Attacker. There are also three levels of force: No Injury, Injury, Lethal. What you wind up with is a 3x4 "Tactical Matrix" for examining techniques, arts, etc. in abstract situations. He also gives you a "Strategic Matrix" which is an 11x7 grid showing different arts vs the different types of violence.
In How to Think, Miller challenges you to attack your own assumptions about violence and pay attention to the four common sources of knowledge: Experience, Reason, Tradition, & Entertainment and Recreation. Miller explains that the quality of the learning gets worse as you go down that list. Experience is the best teacher - I know that if I punch a person in this spot, they go down, so why should I listen to this "expert" who is telling me that they won't? etc. This chapter is also where Miller discusses strategy - you need to decide, now, before the shit hits the fan, what will or will not make you "flip the switch" - and when it is time to "go" you go and you go hard. Also discussed in this chapter is the "Observe, Orient, Decide, Act" (OODA) loop by which we make decisions, and how to exploit your opponent being caught in it.
Chapter 3, Violence, breaks violence into two main categories: the Monkey Dance and Predatory Violence. The Monkey Dance is the hierarchy establishing violence that is seen throughout nature and is, by design, non-lethal - think about two elk "fighting" for the right to mate with the head, lots of noise and head-butting, but no life-threatening injuries. Predatory Violence, however, is a very different ballgame. In Predatory Violence, the victim is not seen as human - they are seen as a resource and Predatory Violence almost always happens as an ambush - think lions taking down a wildebeest. Miller dissects the various aspects of violence, including the various chemicals that effect the body, and gives the reader four basic truths about violence that should impact our training: Violence happens Closer, Faster, More Suddenly, and with More Power than people usually train for.
Chapter 4 examines Predators - why they do what they do and how they do it. Kind of difficult to describe, you just have to read it.
Chapter 5 is what I considered to be the meat-and-potatoes of the book - Training. This is exactly what I, as a martial artist, want to read about. Yes, I am intrigued by the the "Why's", but get me to the "How to Train for It". The first section describes the flaws that exist in drills - when the drill sets an unrealistic expectation about violence (see chapter 3), when the drill allows unsafe techniques (punching with gloves, etc), and when the drill is based on the flaw - using medium speed techniques to counter slow speed attacks. His most interesting complaint that hit close to home - training to pull your blows is training to miss. The second section of this chapter discusses some of the benefits to solo and two-person katas - specifically that solo kata are wonderful for training your body to move as a unit, and that two-person kata, when done with intent & allowing the uke (player, "bad guy") to do one very counter-intuitive move, allow you to practice at a very high level without protective gear. The remainder of the chapter deals with how to respond to the challenge of the four basic truths about violence (chapter 3).
The penultimate chapter is based around the five stages to defend yourself - Movement (blocking the movement), Opportunity (blocking the opportunity), Intent (blocking the intent), Relationship (altering the relationship), & Terrain (the use thereof). Other gems include Miller reiterating his discussion that you need to set parameters upon which you will flip the switch, the Golden Rule of Combat ("Your most powerful weapon/Applied to your opponent's greatest vulnerability/At his time of maximum imbalance"), and the 4 effects you can have on your opponent - move him (or part of him), cause pain, cause damage, & cause shock.
The final chapter is perhaps the most important chapter in any martial arts book I've ever read. Miller describes, in detail, how to handle the aftereffects of real world violence - your own feelings and worries, dealing with other's perceptions of you, etc.

It is really, really hard to write a decent review of this book. My only suggestion is to read it. Then read it again. Then wait a few months and read it again. I know I will.

Here is a link to Sgt. Rory Miller's website, including his blog.

Poleaxe Tactics

2010-12-21T23:18:00.000-08:00

This is another of Tyson's requested topics, he requested that while many people talk about techniques, few give advice on tactics.

Well first off, I really don't have much experience to be talking from. After all, I've only had 3 bouts with the axe. That's it. You can read about them here.

So instead of trying to bullshit ya'll with my "immense" knowledge and experience, I will simply repeat a few gems from the Anonimo Bolognese and Le Jeu de la Hache.

Aim for the weak spots in your opponent's armour - usually the armpits, insides of elbows, palms, throat, etc.
Use a stop-thrust to the face, throat, chest or arms whenever you can get away with it - when your opponent changes guards, telegraphs a blow, or enters into measure without covering themselves.
Use feints.
Use the head (hook, hammer, axe, whatever) to hook your opponent's haft, arms, legs, collar whenever you can - if you throw a blow at their head & overshoot, pull back HARD!
Don't forget the feet! Yours or theirs. Queue thrusts to the feet can be very sneaky.
Keep whatever end you have facing your opponent moving, especially with thrusts to the face or feet. This way they can't find it and put it aside
Control your weapon - don't open up too much space between you & your axe. Don't let your blows go too far outside your opponent's silhouette.

With all these bits of advice, the opposites hold true:

Protect your own weak spots - don't give your opponent an easy shot to your palms or armpits.
Do not enter into measure without covering yourself with your axe & don't telegraph your blows.
Be careful of over-commiting yourself while parrying.
Whenever you can, use your axe to control theirs & set it aside.

That really about sums it up.

Why I love pole-arms

2010-12-21T10:37:00.000-08:00

Every now and again I have a weak moment.

I look at all the gear I have/want and despair.
I look at my lack of sufficient training space and despair.
I despair and wonder "Why, oh why, can't I be into I.33, rapier, English backsword, messer - basically ANY single sword system - that requires a smaller weapon and thus less gear & less room."

After all, the basic weapon of Armizare is the longsword - you need a high ceiling to practice indoors. I live on the bottom floor of an apartment - not gonna happen. I could practice outdoors, but it turns out that my part of the communal backyard is the low spot of the lot. And it rains in Portland. A lot. Which means I often have a lake for a backyard.

And poleaxe? Oh boy. The needed room is greater, the needed gear is greater. Basically, everything needed is greater.

I will sit and honestly consider seriously taking up the rapier or single-hand sword in some form. But then I pick up my axe and all doubts cease.

When I first started down the WMA road, I thought (and still think) that the longsword is the most versatile weapon in the HEMA arsenal. It plays close, wide, against armour, against no armour, one handed, two-handed, etc. But I still remember the first time I saw the axe in Fiore's MS. Sean had brought his copy of the Getty (or maybe it was the PD) and was doing a little show-and-tell with the class. He got to the axe section and as I listened to his description of the weapon, I knew I was hooked on this Swiss Army knife of the knightly class. I proceeded to find out any info I could about this weapon, including looking into other manuscripts and traditions to find out more. But I really stayed focused on the poleaxe until, honestly, I got Waldman's "Hafted Weapons of Medieval and Renaissance Europe" and read his study on halberds, bills, vogues, poleaxes, etc. I had an epiphany - I didn't just love the poleaxe, I loved pole-arms. All of them. I knew this, but I didn't "know" it.

So why do I love pole-arms so much? Their versatility. While the longsword is the most versatile single weapon, pole-arms are the most versatile class of weapons. From the simple staff to the spear to the halberd to the poleaxe, no single weapon type has the amount of cross-over pole-arms do. Train with the staff and you're 70% of the way to using a poleaxe. And it's not just me saying so - masters like George Silver and Achille Marozzo agreed that techniques learned with one pole-arm would transfer easily to others. You only need to adapt specific techniques to specific weapons - there are three attacks that can be made with pole-arms: Strikes, Thrusts, and Hooking actions - but not all pole-arms can make all three attacks. It's tough to hook with a staff or spear, for instance. There is also the versatility of pole-arms in regards to armour - all pole-arms can be used with or without armour, but some are more specialized to armoured combat (the axe).

What is the point of all this rambling? That while the longsword is the most versatile single weapon, pole-arms are the most versatile class of weapons. Therefore, if you want to train with the poleaxe but don't have the armour or poleaxe, then train with a staff.

The Best Definition of What We're Trying to Do

2010-11-28T21:26:00.000-08:00

Greg Mele, of the Chicago Swordplay Guild, has written an article that describes what I consider to be the best way to approach out art. We will never "do Fiore's art" - we can only use Fiore's principles and concepts to do our own version of that art. Heck, I don't even do the same art as my instructor. Really, really, really, really (x15) similar, but not the same because our bodies are slightly different and we have different backgrounds. Great further reading for this is anything Bruce Lee wrote about Jeet Kune Do - ground yourself in Principles, but adapt techniques to your abilities.

Reconstructing a Martial Lineage; not Resurrecting the Dead

A Brief Rant

2010-11-24T22:45:00.000-08:00

A brief rant here -

It seems that too many questions creep up on various forums (fora? forae?) that can be solved by a very simple rule I learned in Scouting and from the military.

When in Doubt, Read The F&*king Manual -> or RTFM

Seriously, I don't see how people can debate or question the interpretation of one of the few things Fiore clearly tells us.

However, if you are going to use Fiore's words to support your interpretation - use the ENTIRE F&*KING SENTENCE!!!! I hate this in religion, I hate it in politics, and I hate it in WMA. Do not simply lift out half a sentence that supports your hypothesis when the rest of that sentence completely invalidates everything you are saying! Especially not when I can easily find the transcription and translation(s) and read for myself that you are mis-using the resource.

If you wonder what the "correct" interpretation is - there isn't one. Get over it. Find the interpretation that you agree with and that you can find support for in the text and use it. If people don't like it, fine.

Training

2010-11-23T11:36:00.000-08:00

Managed to make myself go out in the cold (no comments Teague) and do some sword work. Sadly, it was a very short time because my dog- when he was outside kept thinking I was trying to play (a fun test of your elephant - have an 80lb dog jump on you exactly half-way through a mezza volta) ans when I put him inside he drove my wife crazy because he wanted to be out with me. Hopefully the more I start training a little bit each day, he will become more used to it.

Anyways, here's what I did:

Northwest Fencing Academy's Posta Dance - Here is a Video. The nice thing about this exercise is that it combines learning the poste with their tactical applications. As you learn those applications, the drill allows you to change what actions you perform while remaining in the "guide" setup by the series of poste.

Cutting drill - fendenti, sottanti, mezzani, punte. All starting from Posta di Donna (left and right). Alternating sets between half cuts (ending in Longa) and full cuts (ending in another guard position). Starting at what Guy calls "treacle speed" (aka molasses speed, or Tai Chi speed) and slowly speeding up, focusing on smoothness of action and balance (especially fun with all the roots, pine-cones, etc. in my backyard) at all times. Whenever you feel out of control, slow down.

These two drills comprise the bulk of my solo training program. The Poste Dance allows me explore what can be done from each guard and the Cutting Drill works me on all seven blows of the sword, flow, balance, & speed. In this way, I work on everything in the Segno - the blows, Judgment, Quickness, Strength - Courage is a tough one to practice by yourself but it can be said that the act of practicing everyday regardless of weather, etc. takes courage *shrug*

Oh BTW, I use my Purpleheart waster for this practice. As soon as I solidify what drills work best for me with the axe I'll put those up as well.

Reviews

2010-11-17T21:04:00.000-08:00

Here is a list of all the various resources I use for my studies:

SWORDS
I've used a bunch of different swords over the years (and I'm very proud of that actually), but here is my list of the best.

Albion Liechtenauer - regarded by many as THE training sword. Good balance, good flexibility, tough price. Really, the price is the only reason I don't own one yet.
Arms & Armor Spada da Zogho - one of A&As three options for longsword trainers. All the A&As share the characteristic of having a tank-like blade. Darn-near indesctuctible, but still pricey.
Arms and Armor Fechterspiel - similar to the Spada da Zogho, but with more flexibility, making it more ideal for sparring. Based on a historical design for a training sword. Just like the Spada da Zogho and the Albion, pricey.
CAS Hanwei Tinker Longsword - perhaps the best mid-price sword available. Comes with a scabbard and the ability to replace blades. Some have complained because it's thin edge profile tends not to last when put against Albions or A&As thicker edges, but the Academy hasn't had any problems with ours.
CAS Hanwei Practical Bastard - not a bad offering from CAS Hanwei. Comes with a natural colored (read - dye able) leather handle and soft leather scabbard. I've only used one of these for a short time, but I was impressed. It has a thicker edge than the Tinker longsword, but is thinner than an A&A. I like it because it is a little bigger and heavier than most of the swords on the market, but some may not like it.
CAS Hanwei Federschwert - ordered two of the first series for the Academy and really did not like them - way too whippy. I've heard that the new versions are better, but I haven't handled one yet.
Valiant Armoury Atrim I-Beam - another sword that I've only handled sparingly. Great design gives you a lot of strength without the weight. My only complaint is that they always seem back-ordered.
CAS Hanwei Practical Hand-and-a-Half - almost universally regarded as the "if you have to" sword. If you can spend the money for one of these and really want a steel sword, you are better off saving a little extra and buying one of the other swords listed above.
Purpleheart Armoury waster - a lot of people poo-poo on the idea of a wooden waster (mostly because the price of decent steel longswords is pretty reasonable) but I like them, you just have to know that they have their limitations. I use one for my solo training.
Various synthetic swords - the new nylon or synthetic swords are getting a lot of buzz but honestly I haven't handled any enough to form an opinion.

AXES

Arms and Armour - A&A offers three pollaxe varieties now: the Knightly Poleaxe, the Burgundian, and the Italian pole-hammer, as well as offering customs. These are the choice for solo drills or in order to have a usable poleaxe - my Burgundian is sharp and can do some real damage! Paired drills with steel should be very closely supervised.
Purpleheart Armoury Pole hammer - this is my preferred axe training tool. Even if you plan on making your own hafts, their heads and thrusting tips are worth it. But be careful, in the words of Christian Tobler "As soon as you make a trainer that is enough like a poleaxe, it becomes a poleaxe". These trainers, even with the rubbers heads, hit HARD.

ARMOUR
Armour is not cheap and my own kit is a hodge-podge of various makers works. Here is a list of those makers whose websites I frequent and drool over. These are not all of the websites, just the ones I frequent the most.

CLOTHING, ETC

Revival Clothing - the recommended choice for everything - arming clothes, soft kits, shoes, belts, hats, etc.
Matuls - I believe it was Dvid Teague who pointed these guys out to me. They make a lot of nice stuff.

DVDS
Honestly the only DVD I've checked out is Christian Tobler's German Poleaxe DVD, which, by the way, is awesome! See my review here.

BOOKS
I'm going to break the books section into three parts; WMA, History, and General martial arts.

WMA - the best resources for WMA books and translations are Freelance Academy Press, Lulu, Amazon, or check your local bookstore, you might be surprised what you find.

Tom Leoni's Getty Translation - simply the best translation of the Getty Manuscript available.
Massimo Malipiero's book on the Getty - be warned, this book is in Italian. Features good resolution images of the Getty manuscript, a very god transcription, and many chapters worth of analysis.
Arte Gladitoria Dimicandi by Greg Mele and Luca Porzio - a great transcription/translation/reproduction of Filippo Vadi's treatise. Vadi's introductory chapters deal with many matters on which the four Fiore MSs are silent.
Fighting with the German Longsword, by Christian Tobler - a great book on the German tradition.
Guy Windsor's Swordsman's Companion - a good overview of Fiore's system along with some really useful solo drills and exercises.
Guy Windsor's Duellist's Companion - a good overview of Italian rapier work along with some really useful solo drills and exercises.
In Saint George's Name by Christian Tobler - an anthology of articles dealing with the German tradition, including MS KK 5216, a sweet little poleaxe manuscript. See my review of the book here.
Venetian Rapier by Tom Leoni - A translation of Nicoletto Giganti's 1606 rapier curriculum. Essentially, one giant lesson plan for learning rapier.
The Medieval Art of Combat by Dr. Jeffery Forgeng - this is a reproduction and translation of Royal Armouries Manuscript I.33
Polearms of Paulus Hector Mair - another German tradition book, this covers the pole-arms sections of the magnum opus of Paulus Hector Mair. This book gives a good impression as to how the techniques changed very little between halberd and poelaxe.
Fighting with the Quarterstaff - a great book containing translations from many European masters regarding staff combat. While the pictures suffer somewhat in quality, the book itself is a good window into staff usage in the West.

While that is not all of the WMA books on the market, these are the ones that I own that I feel are worthwhile. Needless to say, I also own many that are not worthwhile.

HISTORY - These are books that I own and use for their research value. Many of them are WMA related.

The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe by Dr. Sydney Anglo - this is really a must have. Much of Dr. Anglo's opinions and findings must be taken with a grain of salt (his views of poleaxe combat especially) but it is still a great resource.
Hafted Weapons of Medieval and Renaissance Europe - the Holy Grail of pole-weapons study. While the book focuses on halberds, there are significant articles on almost every other variation of pole-arm. Chock full of information and pictures. If you can, buy it or get it from a library, it's well worth the trouble.
Teaching and Interpreting Historical Swordsmanship - a nice collection of articles about how to do what we do.
Both SPADA Anothologies (link to SPADA II) - two great collections of articles.
A Distant Mirror by Barbara Tuchman - a revealing look into the life of one family during the 14th century.
Land and Power in Late Medieval Ferrara - a dense slog of a read but provides a lot of background information on Ferrara and Northern Italy in Fiore's time.
Arms & Armour of the Medieval Knight
The Last Duel
Anything by Ewart Oakeshott

General Martial Arts Books

The Little Book of Pushups by Guy Windsor - ebook that contains many fun variations on push-ups
Book of Martial Power by Stephen Pearlman - an interesting read on the how to use principles that occur in many martial arts.
Wrestling for Fighting by Randy Couture - a great book that features many Freestyle and Greco-Roman wrestling techniques.
Dan Millman's Body Mind Mastery - may be a bit too new age for some people, but talks about good ways to approach training. Also check out his Peaceful Warrior Workout DVD

Definitions and Why I Do What I Do

2010-11-12T18:43:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Tyson for this topic (and the next few).

What are the "Western Martial Arts"?

Western Martial Arts are simply that - the martial (militaristic) arts of the West. "West" being defined as non-Oriental in an attempt to differentiate what we do from the Asian arts that typically spring to mind at the mention of "martial arts". This includes European (East & West), American (North & South), as well as Near-Eastern arts. In this I am perhaps taking a more liberal tack than most, but I use WMA as my "big picture" definition - encompassing any martial art developed in the "West" - everything from the images on the Beni Hassan tomb to modern day military combatives (both armed & unarmed). Most folks tend to set the upper limit of WMA as the 19th century, but I consider modern stuff just as valid in the terms of being martial arts. Ideally, Western Martial Arts would mean arts that developed in the "West" but are not just based off, or off-shoots, of Asian arts (i.e. Brazilian Jiu-jitsu, Kenpo, etc.)


Wrestling images from a tomb at Beni Hassan. You can see a larger version by following the link posted above.

Other common terms for what we do are "Historical European Martial Arts" and "Historical European Swordsmanship". The problem with "Historical European Martial Arts" is that that is just another way of saying Western Martial Arts - just specifying Europe as the point of origin rather than "the West". So instead, let's look at "Historical European Swordsmanship" - simply sword-based arts developed in Europe. The "historical" part is kind of a misnomer - any art not developed in the last 20-50 years is technically "historical". So my definition of "Historical European Swordsmanship" includes everything from I.33, the various longsword traditions, sword & buckler, saber, rapier, classical fencing, & even sport fencing (like I said, I tend to be liberal in these "big picture" definitions). The term "Historical European Swordsmanship" works quite well if your art focuses on using the sword. For someone studying an Early Modern (Renaissance) or Modern system of swordplay, this works quite well because, for the most part, the teachings are focused on the sword, or the sword and various off-hand bits. Even strictly following I.33 falls under "swordsmanship" (get it? I.33? "falls under"? Sometimes I kill myself!). I don't like using that term for Fiore because Fiore has so much more than "swordsmanship" in it. If you try to explain what we do to an average person and you start with the term "swordsmanship" you get some real funny looks when you start showing them wrestling and dagger and spear plays. Heck I've even had a training partner complain because we were doing a wrestling action sans sword - his complaint was that the class was called "swordsmanship" so shouldn't we be learning the sword the whole time. Needless to say, I showed him how this play directly translated into wrestling with the sword, but he still didn't last too long in the class.
So if "Western Martial Arts" and such are all too broad, then what terms should we be using to describe what we do? Well, I see two options: first is to use the term "Medieval (or Renaissance or Early English or whatever) martial arts" as a broad definition. Ideally, you could tell someone you study a "Medieval European martial art based around the use of the sword & buckler". Try saying that to most people and you get a "Huh?" response. So something short and sweet like "I study a medieval Italian martial art" is what I usually tell people when they ask. If they press I come to option two - I name the thing. For instance, I study the system of Fiore de Liberi, so I call it "Armizare" (It. "Art of Arms"). If I studied the German stuff I'd call it "Kunst des Fechten" (Ger. "Art of Fighting"), etc. I personally think this is the way we need to go. After all, nobody says they study a 20th century Japanese wrestling art based off of earlier Japanese wrestling arts - they say "I study Judo" and people know what they're talking about. Just remember that whatever term you choose to call your art that term is what the public will identify you with. Call it Armizare, Kunst des Fechten, Sword & Buckler, Italian rapier, or Medieval Art of Death (>.<) - you will just have to live with the consequences of your name.

Like, you know, naming your art after a female horse. Just sayin'

Why Do I Study Armizare?

    I seem to get this question quite a bit from my wife every time I come home with bruises...or that time we had to go to Urgent Care... Like most questions asked of me, I have a simple answer and a lengthy in-depth answer.

   In-depth Answer: I study Western Martial Arts, and Armizare specifically, because I enjoy martial arts and history. Believe it or not, I was a Medievalist before I began studying medieval martial arts - I grew up reading T.H. White's The Once and Future King which I blame for sparking my love of European history. I study martial arts for the same reasons most folks do: Increased fitness, balance, self-confidence, discipline, as well as the more practical aspects (throwing people, hitting people with objects, etc.) Well I guess that wasn't such an in-depth answer after all!

Quick Answer: Because swords are freaking cool!
   Come on folks, let's not kid ourselves here - we do this because swords are awesome and we look awesome when we practice. 'Nuff said.

   I'll add to this my story of how I got started studying Armizare - not that it's a long story really. During my freshman year at the University of Oregon, 2004, I needed one more credit to be a full-time student and therefore receive my full allotment of student aid. Using the University's online course catalog I searched for 1 credit classes during the times I had open in my schedule and my eye caught on "15th Century Italian Longsword" - a PE class. I went to the first day, heard Maestro Hayes' lecture (which I can now recite verbatim haha) and then we ran through some very simple drills - mostly learning poste. Well, the rest is history - I bought my own Purpleheart waster after 3 weeks and proceeded to only miss 3 terms (the UO runs a 3-term schedule Fall, Winter, Spring) during my next 3 years. I have been training with the Northwest Fencing Academy since that Winter term 2004 and am now an assistant instructor with the school. My studies focus on Armizare and pollaxe combat, mostly looking at Fiore's axe material and Le Jeu de la Hache. My primary goal is to teach these arts and continue their progression.

Hopefully I've answered the two questions: What is Western Martial Arts, and why do I practice them?

Clear as mud?

Help!

2010-11-10T12:29:00.000-08:00

Having a brain fart so I'm going to open the boards here: I am looking for suggestions for topics to write about. Anything goes: questions, arguments we've had, more evidence to back up my interpretations, etc.

After Action Report - My Pollaxe bouts at the 600

2010-10-28T17:54:00.000-07:00

I had the privilege of fighting in the Armoured Feat of Arms at the Fiore 600 event this September. It was a day of two firsts for me:

1.    The first time I'd ever fought in armour outside the Academy.
2.    The first time I'd ever fought with the pollaxe.

As one of the four Challengers, along with Maestro Sean Hayes, Scott “the Earl” Wilson, and Bob Charrette, I faced three Defenders from the Chicago Swordplay Guild, Leopoldo Lastre , Jesse Kula, and Dave “Sparky” Farrell. Bouts could be fought with the sword, the lance, or the axe and were fought to 5 points – me being who I am, I decided to play all three bouts with the axe. In two of the three bouts, I used my own axes – being shorter (~4.5 feet) they provided a different style of play than the other axes (~6 feet). The short axes performed wonderfully (Thanks Mike!) but the bouts with them provided two insights:

1.    After talking to other folks, I am starting to prefer a slightly longer axe than my short axes – I'm thinking that the tip of the top spike should come just under, or at, the user's nose.
2.    The Revival rubber spear heads we used for my axes and for the lances? Not so good. They are too floppy – there were numerous instances of a solid blow being landed with them and the person on the receiving end not even noticing. For pollaxes, much better to go with the Purpleheart tips.

So here is my play-by-play and analysis of my three bouts with the pollaxe:

First Bout – Me vs Leo with short axes

First pass (00:25), I feint a thrust with the queue and throw a fendente in behind Leo's parry, hitting his arm with my haft (not a point). Leo then fends me off with one hand (Jacques de Lalaing anyone?) and gets his queue into my armpit for a point.
Leo 1 – Alex 0

Second pass (00:46), Leo enters with either a dague thrust or a fendente and I cover with my croix, get the open line, and thrust him in the face for a point.
Leo 1 – Alex 1

Third pass (00:56), Leo enters with a fendente which I parry with my demy hache. We close and scuffle around until I decide to drop my axe and pull my dagger – except that I can't find my dagger! (Watching the video, and therefore seeing where my stupid dagger actually was, I wish I had hunted out my dagger a bit longer before giving up that point, but fine finger movements just do not happen in mitten gauntlets.)
Leo 2 – Alex 1

Fourth Pass (01:30), after fixing my equipment – the tip had come off my axe – I feint a fendente and then strike again to his head after Leo's parry for what I consider my best move of my three bouts.
Leo 2 – Alex 2

Fifth Pass (01:46), after much posturing (I am proud of myself for moving my queue around and threatening thrusts – even if I was out of measure), I enter with a queue thrust to Leo's face that barely misses, we close and scuffle before I can get a minor blow to Leo's face (no power in it), then I'm able to shove Leo's arms up and get my demy hache in for a good shove, preparing, but thankfully not having to, take Leo out of the lists.
Leo 2 – Alex 3

Second Bout – Me vs Jesse with short axes

First Pass (00:29), Jesse enters with a fendente that he change-through into a thrust (which, BTW, I think hits my unarmoured upper arm – sorry Jesse). I “parry” the thrust with my croix, and bring the axe around to thrust with the queue, which Jesse parries by coming into a hanging guard. In response, I bring a fendente down on his haft, moving it, and thrust him in the shoulder, pushing him back.
Alex 1 – Jesse 0

Second Pass (00:43), Jesse, from Coda Lunga, gets a nice shot to my rear hand against my thrust.
Alex 1 – Jesse 1

Third Pass (00:55), After a fendente by Jesse and a follow-up thrust by me, we come to grips, during which I apparently fall to my knees – I have absolutely no recognition of doing so! - and Jesse gets his dagger into my collar. It takes awhile for the Marshall and myself to notice, but Jesse gets the dagger in at ~ 01:10.
Alex 1 – Jesse 2

Fourth Pass (01:55), I attempt to use the feint I used against Leo, except I miss! I attempt a dague thrust and Jesse brings his axe down on my head.
Alex 1 – Jesse 3

Fifth Pass (02:12), Jesse enters with a queue thrust which parry with my demy hache. I attempt to hook Jesse's lead arm with my croix, fail, bring my queue around and thrust at his shoulder. He grabs my queue (I don't know if I hit him with the queue or not) and I use the leverage to shove him towards the edge of the lists.
Alex 2 – Jesse 3

Third Bout – Me vs Sparky with long axes

First Pass (00:25), I decide to go lefty for the first pass, Sparky throws a fendente that I take on my demy hache, bring my croix around, missing Sparky's shoulder with my fendente. Sparky tries to knock my axe away with his queue and as he kayaks his croix around, I take advantage of the tempo to thrust him in the face. Too bad I just then realized that his first fendente had hit me in the shoulder.
Alex 0 – Sparky 1

Second Pass (00:45), Sparky attempts to feint a fendente and thrust with his queue, but I jam his axe with my demy hache and hit him with my croix.
Alex 1 – Sparky 1

Third Pass (00:56), Sparky attempts a change-through, but I stay just out of measure, parrying his dague thrust with my haft, then closing in with a backhanded fendente which misses. We become locked at the demy hache and push and shove each other until I pull my dagger and stab him in the collar.
Alex 2 – Sparky 1

Fourth Pass (01:35), This is my favorite moment in all of my bouts! Sparky executes a picture perfect change-through (I was trying to close in for a collar-throw) and thrusts me in the chest hard enough to move me back a few feet. That voice you hear laughing and saying “Yes!” is mine. It was awesome.
Alex 2 – Sparky 2

Fifth Pass (01:52), Sparky enters with a fendente which I parry with a fendente of my own, following it up with a thrust to his face (I was ready to hook the back of Sparky's neck and pull him forward, but he had already called the point to me).
Alex 3 – Sparky 2

Conclusion

I was proud of how I performed in my first axe bouts. Granted, at a Fiore event I mixed Fiore, Le Jeu, and the Anonimo, but hey it's all good! I left the lists with a few more friends and some good insight into axe combat, which will help my interpretations. My enduring thanks and regards to all those who participated in the Feat of Arms, those who ran the Feat, those who assisted the combatants during the Feat, and those who generously allowed me to stumble around like a drunken orangutan in front of them.

:p

Sick - bleh

2010-10-13T16:06:00.000-07:00

At home sick for the day. Just spent the last couple hours scouring the web and putting together a folder of Spadone / Montante material. I may start playing with this, a little outside my normal area of interest (15th century) but come-on - it's a big freakin' sword!

In a few days I will probably be finished with a post about some thoughts on axe combat based on the axe bouts from the 600 - especially my three bouts.

The 600th - a Review

2010-09-14T18:28:00.000-07:00

Got back last night from the best WMA event I've ever attended. Okay, so I've only been to three, but my previous statement still stands!

The event, which was a celebration of the 600th (ish) anniversary of the setting down of Fiore dei Liberi's "Fior di Battaglia". Hosted by the Chicago Swordplay Guild at the beautiful DeKoven Center in Racine, WI (home of WMAW), The 600th was designed to be a small (only about 50-60 people) event focused on Armizare, thus allowing the classes to be more in-depth than at a larger conference. The instructors for the event included Greg Mele, Sean Hayes, Bob Charette, Guy Windsor, Mark Lancaster, & Scott Wilson. Every class I attended was well taught and the students were respectful and attentive.

The even also included three "bonus events":

A martial challenge between the United States, represented by Sean Hayes & Jesse Kulla, and the Commonwealth, represented by Guy Windsor, Jason Smith, and Mark Lancaster. The challenge fights were a joy to watch and were displays of both prowess and gentlemanly conduct. Oh yeah, the Commonwealth won ;)
An Unarmoured Tournament which featured three rounds, each with a different weapon - the longsword, the lance, and the arming sword. The rounds were fought with a modified version of the Belgian rules - each bout was to 3 points, with blows to the head & sword-arm being worth 3 points, all other targets worth 1 point. The winner remained in the lists and became the King, thus having the right to make an After-Blow (a response to a blow struck against them). Double hits were either a) given to the higher (literally) blow or b) if there was no discernible advantage, both combatants were out and two new ones entered the lists. That all being said, this was my first tournament of any type and I thought I fought quite well at the longsword. The arming sword and lance rounds showed my lack of training with those weapons, but now I have a baseline from which to improve. Just like the Martial Challenges, the Tournament contestants showed nothing but chivalry to one another and made my first tournament a happy one.
An Armoured Feat of Arms between four Challengers; myself, Sean Hayes, Scott Wilson & Bob Charette, against three Defenders of the CSG; Jesse Kulla, Dave Farrell, and Leo Lastre. Each Challenger fought a bout with each Defender with one of four weapons: the dagger, the longsword, the lance, and the poleaxe. I fought all three of my bouts with the axe (go figure right?) - twice with my "short axes" and once with the "long axe". This being only my second tournament (see above), my first time fighting someone outside the Academy in armour and my first time fighting with axes I can honestly say that this Feat of Arms was the highlight of my weekend! My thanks go out to the Defenders for providing me with such wonderful bouts (Sparky, my best memory is of that beautiful change through you caught me with!), my fellow Challengers, Nicole and Greg for the wonderful experience, and most importantly, to all you good folk who assisted us in and out of our armour, fetched weapons, and made sure we had water after each bout - I humbly apologize that I cannot remember each of you who by name.

Besides the Armoured Feat of Arms, my other highlights include Greg's axe class and the many wonderful conversations I had over fermented beverages.

To Greg, Nicole, the CSG who helped staff the event, to the DeKoven staff, and to both my rides - my warmest thanks!

To Jason, Dan, Bernard, JF, Rachel, Theresa and many, many others - it was wonderful to finally meet you!

To all the instructors, thank you for sharing your time and knowledge!

In the end, this event has provided some of my happiest WMA moments and I can only hope that I comported myself as well as I saw those around me do so. And of course, I hope I didn't embarrass myself or the Academy too bad :)

Alright Boys! Whip 'em out & Measure!

2010-09-03T11:16:00.000-07:00

I hate politics.

I mean that I REALLY hate politics.

I hate politics almost as much as I hate the Yankees and USC.

So it really pisses me off when things I love get caught up in loads of political bullshit. What set all this off is this thread at SwordForum ("US puts in a good showing at Fightcamp 2010") discussing the results and aftermath of a Backsword Tournament held at that event. If you really want to read all 7 pages of it, be my guest, but here is a synopsis:

Guy who ran Backsword Tournament posts to congratulate American for competing.
Someone makes a crack about said American being banned from SFI.
Moderator responds that above person does not know the whole story and to let it drop.

This is where is gets interesting and people start makes insinuations that US instructors and certain "names" don't have the courage / balls / gumption to risk their reputations and enter into "real" tournaments. Begin the Flame War!

The main argument that follows is based around two camps:

One that says that tournaments are the closest we will ever come to a real swordfight and should be the acme of our training.
One that says no, tournaments suck.

Here's the fun part, just like any religious argument, this one boils down to two extreme camps (who are actually the minority) overwhelming the middle-of-the-road people (who are the majority). If, for instance, you say that "properly done tournaments are all well and good, but they should not be the focal point of our training, because then we risk sportifying the art" you are slammed by one side as being anti-tournament and by the other as being pro-tournament. >.<

Needless to say, I was willing to let this "mine is bigger than yours" crap slide by with very little involvement on my part.

Then I saw this thread on another forum:

SFI fucktards..

I am not making that title up, click on the link.

So here we have one of the main instigators of the "discussion" on SFI bitching and moaning on his own forum about the "nasty atmosphere" on SFI and how stupid the people who are arguing with him are?

Really?

Especially because one of the people he questions as being...ahem..."mentally handicapped" we'll say, is upset by the fact that the tournament was won by a person who had never studied historical European backsword or single-handed sword techniques.

*blink* *blink*

To which those who ran the tournament replied that "Well, it wasn't a 'backsword' tournament, it was a...uhhh...singlestick...no wait...a single-sword....uh....ish...tournament" Yeah, that's the ticket. When they are called on the fact that that original post included the phrase "Backsword Tournament" they responded by.....you guessed it....attacking the questioner and proclaiming that he had obviously never fought in a "real tournament" and that he should "put his money where his mouth is".

Why? Because he called you on the fact that you held a Backsword Tournament where you could use whatever style you pleased? Remind anyone else of this?

"Welcome to first annual Pacific Northwest Longsword Tournament where all style are welcome! Ready?" *insert sounds of guns cocking*

This is where I got pissed off. I can accept:

You trying to asses penis size over the internet. Whatever.
You trying to assert that tournaments are the "purest form" of WMA. Okay, your opinion.

But when you start pissing and moaning and changing your story because somebody caught you with your pants down? When you start arguing about semantics and minutiae? When you start arguing with people, not because of what they're saying but because of who they are? Then:

Really.

Please.

And now for something completely different -

Hardware vs. Software

2010-08-12T13:19:00.000-07:00

It hit me the other day just how long it's been since I went shooting - just over 2 years to be exact. This realization got me thinking about firearms and then thinking about getting my Concealed Carry permit, so I started reading all sorts of information on defensive handgun shooting I could find on the web. At this point, my regular readers (do I have regular readers? haha) will wonder why I'm talking about firearms on a sword-related blog. Well here's why: An interesting aspect of all the quality articles about defensive handgun shooting I read was their assertion that it is not about what pistol, sights, grips, gadgets, etc. you are carrying, but about the training you've received. In other words - Software, not hardware.

I realized, reading this over again, that this is what I tell customers in the cutlery shop where I work this all the time. They ask what the best survival knife or self-defense knife is and my response is always "The one you have on you when you need it". A $400 custom fixed blade survival knife does you no good when your car is broken down in the middle of nowhere and it is at home in your camping gear.

The same applies in Western Martial Arts. There has been lots of talk about gear lately on various WMA related forums - discussing sword length or what training sword is better, etc. My opinion is - it doesn't matter. I've talked about this before, but when I do solo training I use a Purpleheart armouries wooden waster. When I train at the Northwest Fencing Academy I will use a Tinker longsword, an A&A Fectherspiel or Spada da Zogho, a Purpleheart synthetic, or a Swordcrafts aluminum. In the long run, I believe I am better off because of this - by training with a variety of wasters I learn how to express my art despite the tool being used. That is the ultimate point of martial arts - to give you a series of principles that can then be adapted to whatever is at hand.

In the end, the sword, poleaxe, pistol, knife, etc. is a tool - you are the weapon.

Proper Measure for a Sword Part II

2010-07-30T18:29:00.001-07:00

Did a little number crunching & manuscript gazing and here are some numbers I came up with. I picked a few guard positions and plays out of the Getty, the Florius, the Pissani-Dossi and Vadi and measured the length of the sword shown. I then measured (as accurately as possible) the body of the figure. The final step was coming up with the ratio between sword length and body height - sword length divided by body length. This was not very scientific, but it works for me.

Fiore Getty ratio = 0.66
Fiore Florius ratio = 0.66
Fiore PD ratio = 0.74
Vadi ratio = 0.66

The average ratio comes to 0.68.

Of note is that it is the Pissani-Dossi that shows the greastest ratio, not Vadi, which I expected given Vadi's instructions for sword length - ground to armpit. On me (6' tall) that creates a sword which is 54" overall, creating a ratio of 0.75 - so that fits.

Again, I am 6' or 72" tall. If the average ratio, based on the illustrations is 0.68 then my "ideal" sword would be:

72" x 0.68 = 48.96"

Let's look at some of the swords I've used for training:

A&A Fectherspiel - 48.5" overall
A&A Spada di Zogho - 46.5" overall
Albion Liechtenauer - 47.5" overall
Tinker Longsword - 47" overall
Purpleheart waster - 48" overall

I just found it interesting that, contrary to some assertations given in the SFI thread, many of the reproduction trainers available today are proportionally correct for a person of "average" modern height.

NOTE: I know that the illustrations are not exact and it is a mistake to take them as photographs, but they are not drawn by complete amateurs either. Given that several samples from the guards and plays yielded extremely similar (i.e. more consistent than I can draw) sword & figure lengths, it is also a mistake to discount the illustrations (and the illustrators).

LINK TO PART I

Proper Measure for a Sword

2010-07-30T18:09:00.000-07:00

This post is a response to this thread on SFI where the majority of the discussion is now on the proper length a sword should be, with quite a few people asserting that a “proper” blade needs to be longer than we typically see because we are taller (on average) than our medieval counterparts. I'm responding here rather than on SFI because most of those involved over there are Liechtenauer-ists where I am a Fiorist – so my comments are aimed more at the Italian tradition than the German.

First, to get this out of the way – folks in the Middle Ages were not as short as people think. To the average person (including most of those I talk to in my store), “medieval man” was tiny – a good 10-12” shorter than we are today. However, the evidence shows that the difference is more like 2-3”, still a significant variance, but not as crazy as people seem to believe. Here's a good article on the subject.

The first thing we have to do is ask what we are really trying to accomplish. Are we trying to discover what the “Medieval Masters” believed to be the proper measure of a sword? Or are we trying to discover what we believe to be the proper measure of a sword? These may seem like the same question – after all, if we base our beliefs on sword length on our interpretations, then aren't we doing both? Yes and no. Why? Because even the masters can't agree.

Silver describes his ideal one-handed sword as being a yard in length (assuming a modern yard = 36”) plus or minus an inch or two, depending on the person. He then says that his ideal longsword will have the same blade (34-38”) but with a longer handle. It's interesting that these are the dimensions seen on the majority of modern training longswords.

Vadi describes the ideal sword as being proportional to the user, extending from the ground to the armpit and with a hilt as long as your forearm. For myself, at 6', that means a length of 54” and a 14” hilt, which isn't a longsword, it's a true two-hander (spadone, montante, etc.). Indeed, if you look at Vadi's illustrations versus Fiore's, taking into account the somewhat questionable reliability of the illustrations, it is obvious that Vadi's sword is bigger than Fiore's. It is also telling then that Vadi does not include any one-handed or mounted plays whereas Fiore does.

Here is a listing of some modern training swords with their blade and handle lengths:

Arms & Armour

Spada di Zogho Blade: 35.75” Handle: 10.75”
Fechtbuch Blade: 37.75” Handle: 10.75”
Fechterspiel Blade: 37.75” Handle: 10.75”
Spadone Blade: 47” Handle: 16”
Montante Blade: 45” Handle: 14”

Albion

Liechtenauer Blade: 36.5” Handle: 11”
The Meyer Blade: 36.5” Handle: 11.25”

CAS Hanwei

Practical Hand & a Half Blade: 34” Handle: 9.75”
Practical Bastard Blade:38” Handle: 11.5”
Federschwert Blade: 37” Handle: 14.5”
Tinker Longsword Blade: 35” Handle: 12”
Tinker Bastard Blade: 33.38” Handle: 9.38”

The key (and on this many of the folks at SFI agree) is that the sword is proportional to the user, the argument is what that proportion should be. And that is where personal preference comes in. As we've seen, not even the master's could agree on what the ideal sword is. And neither should we!

So, does it really matter? Does it really matter if I use a sword with a 38” blade or one with a 36.75” blade? It depends. Yes it is an issue because you want to make sure that you are using an accurate tool for your art (i.e. using a Viking style sword to do Fiore longsword – yeah, not so much). That being said, I think far too many people get caught up in the importance of the tool – that is all a sword is – over the importance of the art. During large classes at Northwest Fencing Academy, it is not unusual for me to use 2 or 3 different swords – we like to match swords (Tinkers to Tinkers, A&A's to A&A's, aluminum to aluminum, etc). In addition, my primary solo trainer is a Purpleheart Armories waster. So while training my sword length varies between 35-38”, with different length handles and different balances. But this is a very good thing because it teaches me to adapt – I do not get caught up in getting a tool to fit my art but in making my art fit the tool. But trust me, even though I firmly believe this, that doesn't stop me from pining away for a beautiful custom longsword trainer to call my own!

A great example of this is a pair of modified shinai that the Academy used to use for free-play. One shinai had about a 36” blade and the other a 34” blade – and boy did it make a difference! We would use the disparate lengths to, in my opinion, our advantage – constantly training with, and against, a shorter or longer sword gave me some of the best free-play lessons I've ever received. Nothing teaches you to work on gauging distance and following your strikes like deceiving your opponent's parry and snapping out a beautiful thrust – that falls 1” too short!

To sum up, whatever sword you want to use for your practice is okay by me, so long as it fits within the parameters of your art (no I.33 with a spadone). Many medieval masters, including Vadi, tell you that, in a judicial duel type situation, you should make sure that the swords used are equal (“sisters”), but I think that in order to be well-rounded students of Armizare (or KdF or whatever) we need to practice with, and against, a variety of weapons. No, excuse me, with and against a variety of tools.

LINK TO PART II

Analysis on Armizare Armoured Combat

2010-07-05T21:50:00.000-07:00

This week let's take a look at the four defensive methods in Armizare and just what that means for interpreting the armoured sections of the manuscripts, specifically the axe section.

The Four Ways to Defend

In Armizare there are four ways to defend against an opponent's attack:

• Cross it
• Deflect it
• Exchange it
• Break it

Let's look at these four things a little closer.

Cross It

Crossing your opponent's attack mean just that; parrying your opponent's blow such that your weapons cross to your advantage. He divides the sword in two hands section by where the cross occurs; at the point (weak), at the middle, and at the strong. The importance of crossing in Armizare is clear from the fact that what to do after the cross has been achieved encompasses the majority of Fiore's art. Vadi is even more explicit on the importance of the cross:

"The art of the sword only consists in crossing / putting both strikes and thrusts in their rightful place / bringing war to those who oppose you." - Porzio & Mele 19

Deflect It

Deflections are an interesting beast in Armizare because they appear throughout the manuscripts but only singly – never as a series of plays (like the cross does). Why is this? The first, and most obvious answer, is that if your deflection is done properly, there is no follow on other than hitting the other guy. If your deflection does not go well (either you mess it up or they bind against it) you are now in a cross. The deflections are scattered throughout the manuscripts; it appears at the beginning of the sword in one hand section, the end of the sword in two hands section and in the mounted section. In the first two instances, the master is described as using the same defense against several different attacks (cuts, thrusts, thrown swords/spears) on foot, while in the last he is shown as being on foot against horsemen. In all of these instances we are given the same tactical advice:

“I'll advance the right foot, which is in front, off the line, pass at an angle against the opponent's weapon and beat it to his left side. After making my parry I'll instantly attack” - Leoni, 64

All of the illustrations show the master in a left side guard, Dente di Cinghiaro with the two handed weapons. Fiore explicitly says that you could hold any left side posta – Posta di Donna & Finestra and that the plays would work just as well as from Dente di Cinghiaro. Why only on the left side though? Because the majority of people in the world (just as true in Fiore's time as ours) are right handed. Why does this matter? Why, gentle reader, that is a wonderful segue into...

When to Cross & Deflect

“Right-sided guards will parry and, while parrying, pass and strike with a thrust. Left-sided guards will parry and beat aside, and strike with a cut – but are not as good for answering with a thrust” - Leoni 78

The general rule as to when to cross and when to deflect is this:

If your sword is on the opposite side as your opponent's attack, cross it.
If your sword is on the same side as your opponent's attack, deflect it.

That is why Fiore shows all the deflection coming from the left side – 9 times out of 10 a right-handed person will attack from their right side, so in order to deflect properly, your sword must be on your left side.

Exchange It

The exchange and break of thrusts can be seen as subsets of crossing (they are) but because Fiore calls these out as being defenses against the thrust, I separate them as well. The especially handy thing about these two techniques is that the exchange can easily flow into a break if needed.

The exchange of thrusts is just that: an exchange of attacks. In modern fencing parlance it can be viewed as a thrust with opposition (or a parry followed by a riposte with opposition). Here is what Fiore has to say about it:

“This play, called exchange of thrusts, is done this way. As your opponent attacks you with a thrust, step out of line with your front foot, then pass obliquely also offline, crossing his sword with your arms while thrusting in his face or chest with your point high” - Leoni, 55.

Break It

The break of thrusts is another option for defending against a thrust. The footwork is the same as for the exchange, but instead of exchanging with a thrust, you cut a fendente against their blade, driving it to the ground, then executing numerous follow on plays.

While it is possible to break a cut after crossing it (for instance crossing in Frontale, then driving their blade down) it is more difficult to exchange cuts (although you could consider the 1st play of Gioco Largo as an exchange of cuts...).

Interpreting the Armoured Sections

Because the longsword is the basis for all weapons techniques in Armizare, you can find all four defense methods in the sword in two hands section. However, the armoured sections of the manuscript are arranged differently – instead of including all four methods, Fiore focuses on one option per weapon. Which method is shown is based on the nature of the weapon when fighting in armour.

• Cross it = Sword in Armour
• Deflect it = Axe
• Exchange it = Spear
• Break it = Axe

Sword in Armour – Crossin' It Up

The longsword, when used against armour, is held in the half-sword grip – one hand on the hilt the other about halfway up the blade. This grip allows the sword to be used like a very short spear and/or dagger. Because of the relatively light weight of the normal longsword (Fiore and Vadi do show specific armoured combat swords – essentially the bastard child of the longsword and poleaxe. Yes, I want one!) blows made with the sword would be ineffectual against most armour, hence the focus on the thrust to get into all the little gaps in armour.

The parries described in this section use the bit of the sword between your hands to parry an opponent's attack, leaving the point and the hilt free to attack. One effect of the half-sword grip is that your weapon is shortened, so you have to get in close. The result is that after the initial parry & thrust, all of the plays in this section are Gioco Stretto plays, including collar throws with each end of the weapon and the ligadura sottana.

Axe – I Will Break You

“I am the axe, heavy, cruel and lethal, and I deliver bigger blows than any other handheld weapon.” - Lenoi 77

The major difference between the axe and the spear and sword when used against armour is that the axe has sufficient weight to make effective blows against armour – possibly puncturing but more likely crushing it. Even if the axe blow does no external damage, the transfer of force will likely cause broken bones and/or severe trauma. As such, for the first time in the armoured sections, we have a weapon throwing blows, and guards that have to deal with that fact. As one would expect, the primary guard for blows in the axe section is Posta di Donna and so she is faced by Dente di Cinghiaro, who's forte is deflecting right-handed blows. But the axe is also a very efficient thrusting weapon, with the potential to pierce breastplates and other armour.

The primary focus, however, of the axe section is what happens when you break your opponent's attack – as often happens because the heavy heads tend to...ah...encourage a low bind :) Accordingly, we see the canonical follow up to the break, complete with stomping on your opponent's axe, as well as a thrust adaptation, a between-the-legs trip, a disarm and a ligadura.

The final two plays feature “unique” axes that, as far as I am aware, are only found in Fiore. The first has a weight attached by a rope or chain to the axe head, the play being exactly what you would expect – you wrap that thing around their legs, drag them around for a bit, then beat them senseless. The other unique axe that has a hollow head for delivering an “eye-melting powder”.

Seriously:

“This axe is hollow all around and filled with a corrosive powder that makes it impossible to open the eyes as soon as it comes into contact with them – and may even cause permanent blindness.” - Leoni 77.

How awesome is that!

Spear – The Exchange of Pain

The spear shown in Fiore is approximately 5-6 feet tall with a pointy end and a (usually) iron shod end. Like the sword in armour section, your opponent's armour limits your targets and the nature of the spear makes blows ineffective against armour. All of the techniques in this section are exchanges of thrusts – three from right side guards, three from left side guards.

From the right:
“I will pass obliquely out of line with the right foot, and crossing his lance I will beat it away to the left.” - Leoni 78

From the left:
“We pass out of lone by first stepping offline with the foot that is forward. And all of us (mandritto or riverso side) come together with a thrust after the parry, since the lance can only strike this way.” - Leoni 80

The spear section also includes Fiore's “common” polearm counter – which, in truth, is nothing more than an adaptation on the advice given in the two hand sword section – If your opponent parries such that your point is taken offline, strike him with the butt of the spear.

Putting it All Together

So, know we've reached the meat & potatoes part of the post where, if you've read this far, you're asking what the point is. Well here goes.

When I first started studying Armizare, I was intrigued as to why the sections in the Getty seemed to get shorter and shorter. The longsword section is the longest (22R – 31V); the sword in armour (32V – 35R), the axe (35V – 37V), and the spear (39R – 40R) each being shorter than the last. The reason is that the foundation for Armizare weapons combat is found in the sword in two hands section and the armoured sections simply represent sub-sets of that section. Because of the limitations of certain weapons against armour the three sections all address different aspects of the four defenses while in armoured combat.

To get a clear picture of armoured combat with the poleaxe, which combines attributes of the sword and spear, it is therefore necessary to take all three armoured sections as one. When you do so, you will naturally find techniques such as the collar throw, playing around with the butt end of the axe, etc. that you find in many of the other axe treatises out there. Much like the unarmoured longsword features all four defenses, so too can the poleaxe use all four in armoured combat.

I've talked about this before (here) but what is new is that rather than looking at them as high crossing, middle crossing, low crossing, I know look at the three armoured sections in Fiore as exemplifying one of the four defenses; cross, deflect, exchange & break.

Fiore's system, Armizare, is just that – a system, a series of principles that does not merely address the art of fighting with specific weapons, but the art of fighting.

DVD Review

2010-06-18T18:20:00.000-07:00

Today's review will be on Christian Tobler's new DVD “German Medieval Martial Arts Vol. 1: The Poleaxe” available from Freelance Academy Press. As the title suggests, this is the first in a proposed series on German Martial Arts.

First off, the production quality is excellent! As someone who dabbled (briefly) in the video production world, I can appreciate the obvious hard work that Speaking Window Productions put into this DVD. There was only one point during the Drills section where the sound editor missed an audible “cut” - and I only caught it because I was paying very close attention. Wonderful job guys! The music adds a very nice ambiance to the video without being too distracting.

The DVD opens with a re-enacted judicial duel, which is just great fun!

Following this is the Introduction, a mini-documentary detailing just what a poleaxe is, the etymology of the word, as well as interviews with Christian Tobler, Dr. Lee Jones and Dr. Jeffery Forgeng.

This is followed by a section covering the Guards and an overview of what can be done from each guard. In this section, Tobler finds the perfect medium between being too brief and going into too much detail. The participants are in period clothing and armour (of which there is a wonderful variety!) which adds to the experience. Each guard is shown simultaneously in a side and front view, which is very helpful, and all the actions are clear and precise.

The Drills section covers handling the axe (i.e. being comfortable moving the axe around and using both hands as leads) – I would have liked a mention of the importance on practicing this while wearing gauntlets, because gauntlets do change things about how you grip (and Christian is shown wearing gauntlets during this spot). Then the DVD moves into paired drills for practice, which highlight in greater detail the actions shown earlier.

The Special Features include the trailer for this volume, as well as a video trailer for Tobler's book “In St. George's Name” (my review here) and a quick video about the Selohaar Fechtschule. Also, be sure to check out the Special Features menu very carefully ;)

This is perhaps the best instructional DVD I've ever seen – clean, concise, & informative without trying to do too much. It is a great volume for beginners and long-time WMA students. For those well-versed in the axe, don't expect any ground-breaking, brand new techniques here – a poleaxe is a poleaxe after all. That said, fighting from Nebenhut is a little different than anything in the Italian system (although you could use Vera Croce the same way).

The only negative I have about the DVD is the massive amount of “toy-envy” I developed after watching the copious amounts of beautiful arms and armour parade across the screen!

Updates

2010-06-09T21:49:00.000-07:00

It's been a while and it's been an absolute pain in the ass for me to try to come up with something worthwhile to write about here. It's been an interesting couple of weeks: Celebrating accomplishments with one friend, mourning the loss of another, my work schedule being jimmied around, and battling my inner... well “inner demons” is rather cliched but it fits here.

On the WMA front I've been:

- Attempting to decide whether or not to pick up a steel waster. Scratch that. I want to pick up a steel waster, but am deciding how much I am willing to spend at the moment (not exactly Scrooge McDuck here).

My preference would be for the Arms & Armor Fechterspiel, which is what I use(d) training with Maestro Hayes. However, monetary concerns mean that I have my eye on the A-Trim I-beam trainer, which is considerably less money but still has what I'm looking for: Thick edges ( I really like the Tinker longswords, but the edges are too thin compared to A&A's and the I-beam). My goal here is to pick up a waster that can travel with me to various events & face various swords without too much worry on my part. I got to handle a couple of the I-beam trainers at 4W and liked the feel of them, not as much as the Fechterspiel's but hey. :p And A&A's are kinda like Subaru's; damn hard to find cheap used because they don't depreciate in value :)

- Still trying to get classes set up or at least to find a training partner here in Portland. My somewhat-erratic work schedule makes this difficult, but I am also really good at making excuses (see, inner demons).

- Had a great training session with Sean at his in-law's vineyard, Winter's Hill Vineyard, near Dundee, OR. Swords followed by wine = A really good day! It was more of a theoretical workout; we started by going through each of the twelve poste & figuring out the “easy” defences against attacks from all the other poste. When faced with an attack you only have four choices: Cross it, Deflect it, Exchange it, or Break it. In fact, Exchanging & Breaking can be seen as sub-options after you've crossed their blade. But that's it. Those are the four things that get you to the bind, from whence the majority of Fiore's plays take off. Sean then showed me an abrazare flow-drill based the 1^st play & the ligadura mezzana and sottana – it's pretty cool. The drill works (and has been used I guess) to introduce students to abrazare (touching & being touched in close quarters) as well as learning body mechanics. Then Sean & I (oh, and his son. Can't forget Patrick.) got out the axes and I ran Sean through some things I'd worked out, for instance, what Fiore means in the Getty description of Posta Finestra:

“They call me the left Posta di Finestra, and I keep the right arm withdrawn. We have no stability. Each seeks deception: you think I'll attack with a fendente, but I pass back instead and change guards. So, while I started to the left, I will enter to the right, and I can quickly perform the plays we will now see." (Leoni, 2009).

I know that that's a teaser, but I will try to take some video and do a full write-up on this, along with some video of how to approach some of Fiore's plays – the hint is K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Scholar) :p

- Along those same lines, I have some axe projects I've been working on, at least one of which will be put up here after I make it look all pretty. The other project is big. Very big. I don't know if it will be useful or if the community in general needs it, but I want to do it. But because of my lack of easy-to-get-to training partners (see above) it will be rather slow going – at the moment I can work up a bunch of theory stuff that I feel very confident about, but haven't really tested. Oh well, updates on those projects as I can.

- Finally, is anyone else freaking excited for Christian Tobler's new poleaxe DVD? I know I am!

What it means to be a Warrior

2010-05-19T17:47:00.000-07:00

“A warrior is still a warrior, even if they're naked.”

I honestly can't remember what the title of the book that statement comes from. I do remember that it was a rather unremarkable piece of alternate history fiction where a guy, who happens to be an engineer & ex-military, goes back to Middle Ages Poland & “sets them straight”. The scene in which the above phrase is utters is a gem – the Hero beats up a bunch of knights because....(drum-roll please)...he disarmed them & they couldn't fight without their weapons! Like I said, an unremarkable piece of fiction. But for some reason that phrase stuck in my mind and the more I study Western Martial Arts, the more I realize that it's true. The treatises are full of principles and demonstrations on how to apply those principles across various setups & with various weapons.

The impetus for this installment comes from far too many discussions with customers at the knife shop I work in about what type of sword/knife/gun/[insert weapon here] is better and why. I'm sure you are all familiar with the Knight vs. Samurai threads that pop up on various forums about once a year. The point that I always try to get across is that weapon type does not play that big a role in a fight. Instead, it is the mindset, the intention, that defines someone as a warrior, not their weapon. I'm more afraid of someone with a 2” blade who knows what they're doing than an untrained person with a machete. Yes, the untrained can be trouble for the trained (for instance the panicked thrust that has no martial quality whatsoever & so takes the accomplished duellist by surprise), but I'm not talking about training per se, but mindset. It's about the warrior, not the weapon.

So what is a “warrior”?

A warrior is defined as “1. One who is engaged in or experienced in battle. 2. One who is engaged aggressively or energetically in an activity, cause, or conflict”.

But it can be difficult in our society today to be at ease with the idea of being a warrior, simply because too many people focus on the combative definition of the word. But being a warrior can have very little to do with fighting or combat. In fact, the term I use for myself is "Peaceful Warrior". What the heck is a Peaceful Warrior? Well, the phrase was coined by the author Dan Millman and refers to his philosophy of living. According to Mr. Millman, "I call myself a peaceful warrior because the battles we fight are inside". Another way he phrases this is "Peaceful heart, warrior spirit". Personally, I really like this approach and I feel that it fits the needs of the "modern warrior"; of whom there are far too few.

A warrior needs to cultivate a good "Warrior Mindset". This mindset involves knowing that diplomacy is usually a better tactic than force, but if force is necessary, they can apply it as needed. There is a world of difference between just knowing how to fight and knowing when to fight. One makes you a fighter, the other a warrior. Think of Teddy Roosevelt's famous quote "Speak softly, but carry a big stick". Or from the Boy Scout Law: "A Scout is Brave. A Scout can face danger even if he is afraid. He has the courage to stand for what he thinks is right even if others laugh at him or threaten him". While the Boy Scouts no longer feature "violent" sports among their activites (much to the detriment of the program in my opinion) in both it's original English form and the American version, the BSA featured a Master at Arms merit badge that included Singesticking, Fencing, Quarterstaff play, Boxing, Wrestling, & Jujitsu.

Fiore dei Liberi discuses these aspects as well. Well, I think he does :D Fiore's segno features four animals (which I won't go into detail about here - see my previous post ) which exemplify the virtues Strength, Quickness, Courage and Judgment. If I may permitted to go a bit esoteric for a moment:

Strength means the physical strength needed for successful fighting, but also the mental and moral strength needed to make NOT fight. Likewise, Judgment refers to all the details of physical combat; observing your opponent, understanding distance & time, etc. but it also means knowing when to use less-than-lethal force or just not fight at all. And courage is... well, courage!

What it means to be a warrior changes in accordance to societal norms, but one thing that remains is that a warrior is willing to fight (physically & verbally) for what they believe is right. If it comes to the need to defend themselves, it doesn't matter whether they are armed with a longsword, katana, messer, folding knife, or a BiC pen - a warrior will always strive to prevail.

Fiore's Spear - Dente di Cinghiaro

2010-05-13T21:22:00.000-07:00

This one has been bugging me for awhile. The one real outlier as far as guard position correlation in the Fior di Battaglia are the spear guards. Of the six spear poste, only the two Posta Finestra (right & left side) resemble their sword equivalents.

Tutta Porta di Ferro is held with the left foot forward, spear held on the right side of the body. I suppose this has a passing familiarity to the sword guard, but really the spear Mezza Porta di Ferro looks closer to the sword Porta di Ferro.

As for the left side guards, the Vera Croce looks like the sword in armour and poleaxe Vera Croce.

So we come back to the Dente di Cinghiaro, which is held rear-weighted, right foot forward, spear held to the left side of the body. This looks completely different to any other Dente di Cinghiaro shown in the MS.

Every other Dente di Cinghiaro is shown right foot forward with the point of the weapon held forward at an angle, to facilitate the "standard" play from Dente di Cinghiaro - a rising deflection to the right with a step offline of the front foot. Now the play described for the spear Dente di Cinghiaro sounds very similar -

"[I] pass out of line by first stepping offline with the foot that is forward." -Leoni 2009

Now, the fancy thing about the spear section is that the play from all six poste is the same - step offline with the front foot as you parry opponent's spear, then pass forward and thrust. From the right side this results in a rather low crossing of the spears. From the left the crossing is high - this follows Fiore's advice about parrying thrusts; from the right parry & thrust (exchange), from the left parry & strike.

The only conclusion I can draw is that Fiore calls this position Dente di Cinghiaro, even though it does not follow the form for that guard, simply because it is the left-side equivalent of the Tutta Porta di Ferro position. It might just be as simple as that.

That will teach me to ant f#$k the problem :-D

Impressions of Anonymous German Pollaxe treatise (MS KK 5126)

2010-05-11T19:08:00.000-07:00

In Christian Tobler's new book “In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts” the author includes a translation/interpretation of an anonymous pollaxe treatise from the late 15th Century. The treatise is found in a series of text-only treatises at the back of the Paulus Kal Fechtbuch, MS KK 5126, held in Vienna's Kunsthistorisches Museum. It features two guards and seven techniques.

So what? Why add these seven techniques to a study that, from an Italio-centric point-of-view, has Fiore's, Vadi's and the Anonimo Bolognese's axe sections? Not to mention the entirety of Le Jeu de la Hache?

Because it's there.

The poleaxe is, arguably, the acme of knightly weapons – it combines the spear, dagger & sword into one weapon. As with all pole-weapons, there is an apparent set of “universal” techniques/principles that I find intriguing. By studying various axe treatises you can learn, not new principles of axe-play, but new ways in which those principles can be expressed. What are the “universal” principles of axe-play? Well, as soon as I figure them all out, I'll let you know :-)

While reading this “new” axe treatise I was struck by what I can only call a “flipped similarity” - there are plays that are extremely similar to those that appear in Fiore, Le Jeu, & the Anonimo but with the axe flipped. That is, whereas the latter three manuscripts have the cross-parry (you parry the incoming blow with the part of the axe that is opposite it – i.e. your opponent throws a blow from their right shoulder, you parry with the part of your axe that is to your right. Clear as mud?) done with the head (business-end) of the axe, this German text does it with the other end, the foot/butt/queue/tail. This is accomplished from the guard Nebenhut (held on the left side) – stand right foot forward with your left hand near the head & with the head down, near your left leg. While at first my Italian trained mind went “Huh?” I realized that this position is akin to Fiore's Vera Croce.

Now, in Fiore, Le Jeu, & the Anonimo there are three basic options from a crossing at the head of the axe:
-Strike to the head with the tail of the axe (with or without clearing their axe first)
-Stab to the foot or abdomen.
-Execute a Collar Throw

With the reversed position of the crossing in KK 5126, tail to head, we can add another option that is impossible in a head-to-head crossing:
-the Knee Hook

But this guard position and it's added technique are only two cool things you'll find in KK 5126.

There are two interesting techniques from vom Tag vs vom Tag. One is essentially an axe version of the Colpo di Villano (for you Fiorists out there) but instead of striking in the opposite line as your parry (parry from your right, strike from your left) – because that is extremely difficult, if not impossible, with a pole-weapon, you strike along the same line as your parry.
The second vom Tag technique is a kind of counter-thrust. After a hard counter-bind, your opponent attempts to thrust you in the armpit, but you are able to place your point into their armpit & use the angles to your benefit such that you can hit them but they can't hit you.

The other nice thing in this treatise is the advice that to learn to fight with the axe, you should learn to fight with the staff, which echoes Peter Falkner & George Silver (amongst others) in regards to training pole-weapons. My own feelings are that since the pollaxe combines the dagger, spear, and longsword, it is extremely helpful to know these weapons (plus wrestling, all in your given tradition) before taking up the poleaxe.

So, why add KK 5126 to your axe studies, either German or Italian? Because, it is another source document on this awesome weapon and studying it will provide you with more tools for your toolbox. Would I teach these techniques in a class entitled “Italian Pollaxe Combat”? No, but if the class were titled “Medieval Pollaxe Combat” I would.

Pan-European Swordsmanship or The One True Art of the Sword

2010-04-29T11:42:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking about the idea of “Pan-European Swordsmanship” lately. I first came across this idea on the “Lessons of English Swordsmanship” site and this website. Here are my thoughts on this:

One of the best defenses I have for this theory is how I feel about martial arts in general – in the end, it is just a person with a stick. All martial arts must be based on the human body; how it is put together, how it moves, it's strengths and it's weaknesses. All weapon-based martial arts will be variations on how the human body uses a stick. This stick may be short, long, really long, pointed, sharp, straight, curved, etc. but it is still a stick. Any martial arts based on the human body (all of them) and on the same type of stick (a Medieval longsword) must, at their most basic level, be similar, if not identical.

As a follower of the Italian tradition, the techniques and principles of the German and English traditions are not alien to me. In fact, I have made it a point to study German longsword through books, seminars, and events, in addition to studying Italian longsword. I believe this kind of cross-training in similar arts to be extremely useful to more advanced students. (I say “more advanced” because it is necessary to have a solid base of experience with your chosen weapon or art before you begin to explore – otherwise you will be attempting to stand your art on a pillar of sand. Even the modern exemplar of mixing-and-matching in martial arts, Bruce Lee, recommended a solid grounding in one art before expanding.) However, I would never teach the 5 Meisterhau in a beginning Italian longsword class – they are simply not in the Italian system. Are they cool? Yep. Would I ever use one of the Meisterhau in free-play? You betcha, because they have been added to my “tool box”. Fiore tells us that he studied with German and Italian masters – so do I.

Studying other traditions gives you extra tools not only in technique but also for interpretation. Sometimes, looking at the way another tradition handles a certain situation can kick-start your own interpretation by acting as “Frog-DNA”. The challenge is to remain honest – if you borrow a technique from another system, make sure when you teach that technique to explain where it comes from. The same applies to any technique which you extrapolate.

But it is a very long step to say that these separate traditions are all the same Art. We know that medieval people traveled around, both in peace and in war, and that a cross-pollination of ideas occurred. But there is no denying that the longsword art of Fiore looks different than the longsword art of Liechtenauer; that Italian rapier looks different than Spanish; that Bolognese sword and buckler looks different than Silver's, and that both look different than I.33. This is because these arts were developed in different geographical regions, with their own cultural quirks and biases. One should expect Italian, German, English and French swordsmanship to differ just as the culinary arts from each of those areas differs. This cultural diversity is what makes what we do so freaking cool! If we all practiced the same art, life would be depressingly boring.

Is there “One True Art of the Sword”? Yes! But each tradition will be unique in how it approaches that ideal (I'm being very Platonic aren't I?).

So what is the “One True Art of the Sword”? To quote the 1998 movie “The Mask of Zorro”:

“The pointy end goes in the other guy”

For once Hollywood got it right!

Medieval Movies

2010-04-17T17:57:00.000-07:00

So I decided to do a little movie review post. I will keep my opinions limited to those movies I actually possess. My ratings will be based on the quality of the movie itself (primary) and, if it is based on a book, how good an adaptation thereof the movie is. Of course, these are not actual movie-critic quality reviews, just my thoughts on various movies.

The 13th Warrior (1999) * * * * *
This is one of my absolute, all-time favorite movies! Based on the Michael Crichton book Eaters of the Dead, this movie is a Beowulf-esque story about an Arab diplomat (Anotnio Banderas)who embarks on a mission with a band of Viking warriors to save a village terrorized by an ancient evil. While the armour and weapons carried by the various characters looks like some production assistant raided a storeroom somewhere and just grabbed whatever they could carry, and there are some gaping plot holes (like how an Arab manages to learn the language of his companions so quickly) this is still one damn good story.

Kingdom of Heaven (2005) * * *
This movie really was saved, in my opinion, by the cinematography and the acting skills of Liam Neeson, Jeremy Irons, and Edward Norton (because he portrays King Baldwin, you never actually see his face, but he still owns his scenes). Ridley Scott over does it a bit, making the Evil Templars and the Good Saracens into cartoonish caricatures, not compelling characters. The funny part about this movie is that the best and worst scene are the same. In the beginning, there is a scene where Liam Neeson's character, a Hospitler knight, is training his son, Orlando Bloom, how to fight with a sword. First he tells him to "never adopt a low guard; hold your sword like this" and grips his arming sword above his head, blade upright, and gripped in both hands; a position, he claims, "the Italians call Posta di Falcone". Well first off, the Italians will call it that when Vadi calls it that. In 1490-ish. (That one had me actually slap my own forehead in the theatre!) So, it is the worst scene because the information they dole out is horribly incorrect, but it is the best because it shows that Hollywood is actually starting to realize that knight's did have organized training. No if we can only get them to get it to within the proper century.

Timeline (2003) *
This one was a HUGE disappointment. I loved the book, which dealt with all the problems associated with time-travel - which the movie completely glosses over. To be frank, the acting sucks, the editing sucks and the "historical accuracy" really sucks. The fictional battle of Castlegard takes place in 1357, which makes some characters walking around in 15th century full plate really damn funny! Or when the knights are "sparring" by simply swinging their swords at each other while they are still in the scabbards! But, by far, the best piece of trash in this steaming pile is the night-time seige, when the attacking force ceases loosing flaming arrows (a Hollywood favorite) and looses a non-flaming flight - in response to which a defender cries "Night arrows!" >.< All in all, read the book, skip the movie.

A Knight's Tale (2001) * * * *
Funny story about this movie - when I first went to see it in theatres, I went with a good friend of mine. As soon as Queen's "We Will Rock You" come on, he got so disgusted he got up and left while I got excited and sat forward in my seat. This movie is under no circumstances historically accurate, but it doesn't claim to be. Maybe it's because it combines two of my favorite things (Classic rock and knights), but I really enjoy this one. Once again, it shows knights actually training (although not very systematically) and brings the proper attitude to late Medieval tournaments as a pure sporting event. Also, the inclusion of Geoffery Chaucer in the main characters is just too cool! In fact, in the deleted scenes there is a great one involving Chaucer and his wife.

First Knight (1995) * *
Oh boy! This Arthurian movie, starring Sean Connery as King Arthur and Richard Gere as Lancelot, is...interesting at best. From the American Gladiator's-esque obstacle course, completing which allows Lancelot to join the Knight's of the Round Table, to the mini shoulder-shields worn by Arthur's knights, to the bad-guy's pistol crossbows, to Prince Malagant's (the bad guy) giant, half-serrated sword (I shit you not), this is one random movie. Not even the normally compelling Arthurian story-line can save this one. But, I admit, I still watch it occasionally. Why? Because it stars Sean Freaking Connery, that's why.

Excalibur (1981) * * * *
Even though this film features some of the absolute best sword-piercing-breastplate, after having previously bounced off helms, etc., scenes in all film history, it is a wonderful film. Beautiful cinematography combined with the Arthurian story, presented in such a way that you know it is a myth (lots of sparkles) make this a must-own, must-see movie. Oh, BTW, keep your eye out for a very young Liam Neeson.

King Arthur (2004) * * *
This is a rather disappointing attempt to tell "the real" story of King Arthur. It's a good flick to watch, but there isn't much real content behind it. Tristan uses what is essentially a Chinese Dao and Lancelot uses two gladii. Could have been really great, but ends up so-so.

Lord of the Rings Trilogy (2001-03) * * * *
Had these been more faithful to the books, I would have given them five stars. Still, this trilogy makes almost as big an impression as the book trilogy does. I can, and have, watch these over and over. Pretty cool tid-bit is that Tony Wolf (of Bartitsu fame) designed the various fighting styles for the races of Middle Earth. SO, in the "Return of the King" when Aragorn rushes the Orcs and holds his sword in what looks like Vom Tag, it probably actually is.

HBO's "Rome" (2005) * * * * *
No, not medieval, but one of the absolute best historical tv shows I've ever seen! Sadly, it only lasted two seasons. The thing I love the most about the show is a comment made by the producer during a "Behind the Scenes" featurette - "We did not strive for historical accuracy because too many of our viewers wouldn't have gotten it. Instead, we strove for historical authenticity; keeping it as accurate as possible, but where we had to change something, we tried to keep the feel of it." And you know what? It works. I think Hollywood could take a page from the producers of "Rome" and learn that lesson - it is not about historical accuracy as much as historical authenticity.

Book Review

2010-04-14T22:05:00.000-07:00

Review of
In St. George's Name
An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
by Christian Henry Tobler
Published by Freelance Academy Press, Inc. 2010

This latest offering from Mr. Tobler is a compendium of articles, lesson plans, and translations, including a complete translation (the first in English) of Codex 44 A 8, the “Peter von Danzig” manuscript. In general, the book is well written with a clear, clean layout that makes reading it a joy.

My favorite article has to be the transcription/translation/interpretation (accompanied by photos) of the anonymous pollaxe treatise from the Paulus Kal Fechtbuch. I know, big shocker right? The text itself consists of seven techniques, with five of the paragraphs dealing with a high guard vs low guard combination and the remaining two having both combatants in a high guard. The techniques themselves are straightforward and easy to understand. The most common being, after the initial bind, using the free end of the weapon to strike the opponent in whatever manner works best.

The opening article, “Chicken and Eggs: Which Master Came First?”, asks the question “What do we really know?” It is an excellent piece of scholarship about how we need to look at the manuscripts and any dates they contain.

The article “Hot, Wet, Cold, and Dry: The Four Guards” provides an intriguing journey into the way the “medieval mind” might have viewed the four primary guards of the German tradition as a connection to the classical four elements. Though this is all speculation, as no medieval author explicitly draws the connection between the guards and the elements, the scholarship is wonderful and leaves the reader with a lot to chew on.

The other article that caught my interest was “Lance, Spear, Sword, and Messer” in which the author puts forth two claims: First, that students of the Chivalric Arts should study more than just one weapon, and Second, that certain basic techniques can be applied across different weapons. Regarding the first claim, I wholeheartedly agree! If you are going to study an art that encompasses many different weapons, you need to study all the weapons you can in order to gain greater knowledge of your art. As for the second, this article follows the same premise as the author's class at 4W 2010, entitled “As Above, So Below”, where over three days we explored similar techniques with the longsword, sword & buckler, and dagger. While some may view the author's extrapolation, and inclusions, of techniques not included in the actual manuscripts as being detrimental to the study of historical martial arts, I disagree. So long as the extrapolated plays follow the principles of the Art and the practitioner has a solid knowledge of that Art, I see no problems with extrapolated plays. That is, after all, the whole-freaking-point of martial arts – to train certain principles until they are second nature and I can utilize them, no matter the situation, no matter the weapon.

As to the rest of the articles and the “Von Danzig” translation, they deal with specific weapons in the German tradition and read as fleshed out lesson plans. As I don't study the German stuff, I can't really comment on the technical aspects other than to say I will definitely be playing with this material.

This book is a must-have for any WMA practitioner, German, Italian or otherwise!

WMA Spectrum

2010-04-12T21:43:00.000-07:00

In the world of WMA/HEMA, as with any activity, there are numerous divisive topics. One only has to cruise the numerous WMA-centric forums to note that these topics never seem to die, but are constantly revived, either by unsuspecting newcomers or long-time proponents of one side or the other who believe they have “new” information that can sway the masses. As with most arguments, it seems that those who inhabit the extreme ends of the spectrum are the most vocal, resulting in a skewed vision of “the divided community”. The reality is that the majority of the community lies somewhere between the two extremes, with most right in the middle, “straddling the fence” as it were (Bell curve anyone?).

The point of this post is not to call out individual persons or groups for their beliefs. Rather, I will try to present as objective a rundown on a few key arguments as I can, while also providing my (usually) middle-ground view of the argument.

Edge vs Flat parry This argument, without fail, appears at least once a year. The question is whether in the Western Martial Arts one parries with the edge or flat of the blade. But the question is a lot more complicated than that. Are we talking longsword, sword & buckler, rapier, Bolognese, Silver, etc. Given that I am a longsword guy primarily, I will refer to only that weapon. This whole argument comes from looking at the often imperfect artwork in the manuscripts. These illustrations attempt to show 3D actions in a 2D medium, without that wonderful invention of perspective. Swords tend to be shown flat-on so that you, the reader, can actually see them. The biggest problem whenever this argument pops up is the lack of definition: What does “flat parry” mean? What does “edge parry” mean?

To the Flat-Only people, an edge parry seems to describe any action where you consciously bring your sword into the other guy's at a 90º angle, thus chipping the crap out of your blade. And this is always their biggest argument; that you are needlessly damaging your blade, where parrying with the flat saves your edge from nicking and chipping.

The Edge-Only people view any parry with the flat of the blade the same as Flat-Only view edge parries; two blades clashing at a 90º angle, with your opponent's blade crashing into your flat.

The argument from the Edge-Only folks is that this type of parry is structurally weak – if you parry with your flat like that, all the force of your opponent's blow goes into your wrist. In contrast, an edge parry aligns your edge, with your wrist, forearm, upper arm, etc. allowing you to deal with your opponent's energy better.

But the truth of the matter is that blades very, very rarely meet at a 90º angle, most often meeting at an oblique angle. And both Edge-Only and Flat-Only people will tell you this. So both camps perform parries that look.....pretty much the same honestly.

My view: I have always been an edge parry guy, because that is how I was taught and I agree that anything other than an oblique flat parry causes significant wrist problems, even pain, and that aligning the edge with your bones is the way to go. But I don't depend on just my teacher's word; I parry with the edge because my studies of Fiore tell me that this works, and it works well. As for the damaging your sword argument – yes, my sword will get damaged. But better my sword than my head. The sword is a tool and a tool has a specific purpose. Just because the nails I pound in mar the head of my hammer does not mean that I begin hitting them with the side of the hammer-head. I do try to keep an open mind on this and am perfectly willing to be proven wrong, but in the end it's personal preference – my personal interpretations of Fiore, as well as bio-mechanics, tell me to parry with an oblique striking of edge-on-edge and this works for me.

Free-play vs Non Free-play

This argument is really about who is “Doing It For Real”.

The Pro Free-play folks believe that we can only really understand these arts by strapping up and trying to beat the snot out of each other, with the extreme version of this being involving people who do little-to-no technique drilling, instead receiving basic course in the art and then being thrown into the lion's den, so to speak.

The other end of the spectrum are those who believe that because “Doing It For Real” would involve sharp swords and actually trying to kill each other, it is therefore an impossible goal and we should instead focus only on paired drill exercises to understand the arts.

Let's get this out of the way right now: This is nothing but a “Mine is Bigger Than Yours” game, with those who on the the extreme Pro end of the spectrum accusing their counterparts of not doing free-play because “they suck at it” and the latter accusing the former of being uncultured imbeciles playing a sport, “sword tag”.

My view: Right smack-freaking-dab in the middle. I love paired drills and I have given out (and received) my fair share of butt-wallopings during free-play. I disagree with participating in free-play without a solid understanding of your art, which is learned through paired drills.

However I do believe that pressure testing your interpretations through free-play is important. As to the sporting aspect, people love to compete. We're hard-wired to compete. What really bothers me is that many of the extreme Pro Free-play people regard people like me who occasionally free-play the same as those who don't, with disdain.

Historical clothing vs Modern clothing

The argument here is whether we ought to practice our arts wearing period-correct clothing or if modern clothes are fine. This usually revolves around footwear.

The extreme end of the Historical Clothing people will not practice in anything less than turn-shoes, hose, and a gambeson/doublet and require their students to purchase the same.

The extreme end of the Modern Clothing people say that period-correct clothing doesn't matter. Why bother wearing turn-shoes when I wear modern athletic shoes most of the time?

This is a relatively low-anger argument, with most people openly acknowledging that their in the middle. The problem with saying that period-correct clothing does not matter is that...well, it does. One example is that Fiore's wrestling is much easier against someone wearing a long-sleeved shirt or coat than it is against a t-shirt, because it was designed to be used against someone wearing long-sleeved garment. The plus side to wearing modern workout clothes, especially in demonstrations, is in the audience's perception. The Northwest Fencing Academy's “uniform” is: solid black, long workout pants or sweats, a plain white t-shirt, or school shirt. This uniform is augmented by gambesons, etc. where needed. With no offense to the SCA, LARP groups, or Historical Recreation groups around the world, my school is not one. Many of the students, and many of my good friends in the WMA community, are (or have been) involved in those groups. So our uniform tends to make us look like a modern martial arts school, which is how the general public views us. To some this is a cop-out – we should wear period correct clothing and change public perception. The problem is that Joe Public associates period correct clothing with Renn Faires, SCA, LARPing etc. and so WMA gets lumped in with the rest.

My view: I want people to understand that WMA is it's own entity and I will dress according to the audience I am speaking to. Asked to teach at a local SCA event? Where full kit and live it up! Asked to participate in a local martial arts conference? Where a more “modern” looking uniform and impress with your skills and knowledge, not your dress!

Traditionalist vs Holistic

The Traditionalists (for lack of a better term) believe that each sword tradition must be viewed on its own, with the techniques studied coming only from that tradition. Individual traditions can be compared, but are not compatible, with other traditions, even those that use the same weapon. In other words, a practitioner of the German tradition of longsword can learn nothing by studying the Italian or English longsword traditions and, in fact, will only dilute the “True Art” they study.

The Holistics, on the other hand, believe in the “One True Art of the Sword”, which they believe to have been Pan-European, thus why many techniques look similar between the German, English and Italian traditions. They have no trouble using another tradition to fill in the blanks left by their own.

My view: This is kind of a tricky one. On one hand, a Pan-European sword art makes a ton of sense. After all, we know that medieval peoples traveled throughout Europe constantly, trading ideas and techniques. We also know that many of the masters who wrote their systems down acknowledge studying with, and teaching, swordsmen of other countries. Fiore, for instance, tells us he studied with both German and Italian masters. But if the Pan-European hypothesis is true, then why is Fiore's longsword system not simply “Liechtenhaur in Italian”? All students, in my opinion, should study another tradition (at least take a few classes in it). But only after they have a secure grounding in their tradition. The key is being able to “empty your cup” while still being able to analyze what you're learning in the light of your tradition. Yes, all sword arts are related because they all start with the same basic building block – the human body. The biggest advantage to me in dabbling in the German tradition is that when I'm teaching at an event, where some of the students may come from the German tradition, I can explain a technique using different terms. I have more tools in my toolbox.
Tying it All Together

In the end I can only give a few pieces of advice:

1) Remember that while those on the extreme's of an argument will be the most vocal, the majority of people will be somewhere in between the two extremes.
2) Remember that everything I've talked about (and the arguments I left out) come down to personal preference. If you don't like what I do, don't pay attention to me. If you don't like what I say, don't listen to me.

Meditations on Fiore's Segno

2010-03-31T21:56:00.000-07:00

DISCLAIMER: This is not an attempt to discover “The Fiore Code” or anything like that. This is just my musings and meditations on Fiore's Segno.
Symbols in General

A symbol, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is “something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention [or] a visible sign of something invisible.” A well-thought out symbol must be able to portray maximum information in a minimum package. Symbols are extremely efficient and surround us in our daily lives. They range from the simple, such as arrows telling us direction, to the complex, representing elements on the periodic table of elements. At the most basic level, our alphabet and number system are nothing but symbols; representing sounds and quantities. Symbols may portray universal (or nearly so); a red cross or red crescent moon on a white field symbolizing the International Red Cross, or a circle with lines coming out of it is indicative of the sun, or how a particular swoosh brings to mind the Nike company. This brings up another point; while the meaning of a symbol may be universal, the connotation of that symbol will vary from culture to culture, and person to person. Take Nike for example; to me it brings to mind the University of Oregon where the company was created (and where I received lots of free Nike swag as a member of the marching band). To someone else, that swoosh represents athletic prowess and power; and to yet another it portrays child labor and human rights violations. But it's just one little swoosh, right?

The beautiful thing about symbols is that while their meanings may not be universal, their use is universal. Symbols are used by every culture (remember that our alphabet is nothing but symbols) because of how efficient they are at storing information. I would even argue that symbols are so prevalent because our brain is wired to use symbols for memorization. One of the most popular memory training systems in both Ancient History and the Middle Ages involves the use of a “mansion” with many “rooms” in which are stored the defining symbols of a memory (for a very interesting, and very dense, book on memory and memory training see The Book of Memory by Mary J. Carruthers). Basically the way our minds store information is the same way we've designed our computers to, by condensing information on a subject into a small package, represented by an "icon". When we "click" (of focus) on this icon suddenly all the pertinent information comes to the fore.

The exciting thing about teaching with symbols is that the more you learn the system represented by the symbols, the more information is "present" in each symbol. When I look at the Periodic Table of Elements, for example, and see the symbol "Au" I know that this represents the metal gold (mostly because of the titular villain from the Bond movie "Goldfinger" - Auric Goldfinger. I'm a geek, I know.) However when my sister, the research chemist, sees the symbol "Au" she not only knows that it means gold, but also knows the atomic number, the atomic mass, etc. because she has more training in the “system” of the Periodic Table of Elements. So the more you train, the more information you're adding to the file represented by its icon.

Fiore's Segno

The Segno

The primary source for symbols in Fiore's Armizare is the Segno (It. "sign"), a full page diagram showing the seven sword blows and the four virtues required for the Art, all surrounding the figure of a man, sometimes with a crown on, or hovering above, his head.

The Seven Sword Blows

The seven blows of the sword are shown in the Segno as individual swords; two coming down from each side at a 45° angle, two rising from each side at a 45° angle, two coming in horizontally from each side , and one coming up the center-line from below. These swords form an inverted seven point star. This is a nice memory device for remembering what and how many blows are in the system. I will also suggest (and this has been put forth by Fiorists before me) that the seven swords also represent a compass for footwork directions; diagonally forward, diagonally backward, sideways, and forward and back. We know this was done by other authors of fechtbuch, in the German, Italian and Spanish systems (albeit, most of them were later authors than Fiore) so it would not completely out of place. But why seven? After all every blow shown has an opposite, except the thrust Wouldn't eight swords be more symmetrical? Yes, but there are two very good reasons for only seven blows. The first is the simplest; because the thrust covers the entire center-line, it does not require a downward counterpart. The second, and more esoteric, reason is because in the medieval mind, seven was a very important number. There are seven deadly sins, seven virtues, seven sacraments, and seven known planets in medieval Europe. The number seven can also be seen as the combination of the number of elements (four) with the number of divinity (three). There is also an allusion to the representation of the Virgin Mary as Our Lady of the Seven Sorrows, also called Swords, where Mary's heart is pierced by seven swords arrayed in a star pattern (my thanks to Maestro Sean Hayes for pointing this out in his lectures on the correlation between the fight manuscripts and contemporary artwork).

The Four Virtues of the Swordsman

Fiore describes four virtues that the swordsman (or swordswoman – for simplicity I will just write swordsman) must posses: Quickness, Courage, Strength, and Judgment. In the Segno, each of these is represented by two related symbols; one an object, the second an animal from the medieval bestiary.

First a quick note on the bestiary – the depictions of the animals in the bestiary were not meant to be literal, but allegorical. For instance, the bestiary description of the pelican claimed that it pierced it's own breast to feed its young on its own blood. The authors of the bestiaries knew that this isn't how the pelican fed her young, but dang it, it makes a great allegory for Christ doesn't it?

At the bottom of the figure we have Strength (or Fortitude), represented by an elephant with a tower on his back. In the bestiary, the elephant is depicted without knees (as it is in the Segno) meaning that if it lost its footing or fell over, it would die. The elephant, along with the tower (then, and still, a symbol for power and strength) admonish the swordsman to keep upright and have good footwork.

At the figure's right (left side of the page) is Quickness (or Speed), represented by a tiger holding an arrow, both of which indicate speed. This tiger looks an awful lot like a greyhound, which is a good modern analogy for this virtue. For the swordsman, quickness is required both in the motions of the body, but also in the motions of the weapon.

Above the figure is Judgment (or Caution or Prudence), represented by a lynx (or stag-hound) holding a geometric compass. All of these symbols deal with sight and distance; the lynx was purported to see into the future, the stag-hound hunts by sight, and the compass measures the distance between points. The ability to judge, and understand, distance is crucial to the swordsman. But Judgment does not simply cover the distance between fighters - the true master of Armizare must also be able to judge whether or not to fight, or to what degree to fight. Many techniques in Fiore's manuscripts can have either lethal or non-lethal applications. After all, it just wouldn't do to kill the favorite nephew of the Medici, even if he was drunk and tried to stab you. So, understanding the application of lethal force also falls under the jurisdiction of the stag-hound.

The final virtue sits to the figure's left (page right) and is Courage. The symbols which accompany it, the lion and a heart, are the easiest to interpret by modern viewers because we still use them today! (The Cowardly Lion from the Wizard of Oz anyone? And how was the courage he so desperately wanted manifested? In a heart-shaped medal. Ahh the universality of symbols). Courage is important to the swordsman because, well, they are facing severe bodily harm in what they do. In the prologue to the Getty, Fiore claims that in a fight with sharp swords, one missed cover can mean death. Even for modern students (who will never in their life fight with a sharp sword) courage is still necessary – even training swords can hurt! Just ask the missing tip of my pinky! While every good teacher and student will do their best to ensure they don't occur, accidents will happen. We practice a martial art – bumps, bruises, scrapes and even the occasional broken bone are par for the course.

The Figure

At the center of the Segno is the most obvious symbol, but one that I tended to overlook due to it's simplicity. It is the figure of the man. In the Pissani-Dossi and Florius versions, the figure is shown wearing what appear to be basic arming clothes – a gambeson or cotte and hose. In the Getty, the figure is shown wearing scholar's (student's) robes. So the figure in the center is a student of the Art. In the Getty and the Florius the figure is shown with a crown hovering above his head and wearing a crown, respectively. The crown, as used in Fiore's organization system for the manuscripts, indicates mastery. Thus, in the Florius we are shown a master while, in the Getty we are shown a scholar who has yet to attain mastery. I prefer to use the Getty's Segno as I like the combination of the scholar's robes with the yet-to-be-attained mastery implied by the hovering crown.

A final point to consider about the figure is that without him, the Segno lacks focus. The seven swords all point to the center of the figure (interestingly enough, seemingly near the body's center of gravity) and the animals locations around the figure are not accidental; the lynx (sight) appears above the head, the lion (heart) on the figure's left (heart) side, the tiger (speed) on the figure's right (weapon hand) side, and the elephant (footwork) under the figure's feet. Without the figure, these locations on the page would make no sense. So, the student is the framework on which the Art itself is built.

New blog

2010-03-09T23:09:00.000-08:00

I found a new (to me anyways) blog about axes. The axe in question is the Carpathian sokyra (also called Her Grace sokyra), a type of mountain axe. Check it out!

http://oprishki.wordpress.com/

Handedness

2010-02-24T18:05:00.000-08:00

For this week's installment (I am going to try and be better about updating this blog with useful discussions) I wanted to talk a bit about handedness, both in general as it applies to Western Martial Arts and, in particular, handedness in Le Jeu de la Hache.

General Remarks on Handedness in WMA

Most, if not all, of the manuscripts studied by Western Martial Arts practitioners today are right-hand dominant. That is, they show the use of weapons with the right hand alone or as the dominant (fore-most) hand of a two-handed weapon. While there may be many theories that try to explain this, the answer is very simple: There are more right-handed people than left, about 80% right to 20% left. Sorry Lefties! The funny thing is, no one knows why there are more righties than lefties. One possible source is societal pressure, forcing people who are naturally left-handed to be right-handed. In many cultures left-handedness has been (in some cases, still is) considered a negative thing. For example, in Islam the right hand is used for eating, etc. while the left is used for cleaning oneself after defecation. Someone important is considered your "right-hand man". Correct answers are "right". A WMA example: in Fiore de' Liberi's Fior di Battaglia certain guards can be taken on the right or left side. The Italian word for left, "sinistra" (or "senestra"), is derived from the Latin "sinister,-tra" and is the basis for the English word "sinister". So what does this all mean? Is it all a vast right-hander conspiracy? Maybe.

But seriously, the reason that the manuscripts only show right-handers is that most of the people writing them, or those learning from the masters, were right-handers. When teaching, I've often been caught by a left-handed student because I describe everything in right-handed terms. It's only natural!

But does this mean that if you study these arts you will be unable to handle a left-handed opponent? No. While left-handers do have the advantage in terms of familiarity with right-handers, the opposite holds true for right-handers. Remember that 80-20 ratio? In any group, let's say a fencing class, the left-handers will fight a right-handed opponent 80% of the time. A right-handed fencer will also face a right-handed opponent 80% of the time. They will only rarely (20% of the time) face a left-handed opponent (so will the left-handed fencer for that matter).

When it comes to learning to face a left-handed opponent you have a few training options:
1. Read (or re-read) the manuscripts you study to see if they contain specific advice on dealing with left-handers (or ask your instructor). Then, learn to adapt your techniques to handle the different body/hand positions and different openings that will crop up. Often times, you will find that the underlying principles of your art will be true whether you face a righty or a lefty.
2. Learn to be ambidextrous! If you have a left-handed student or training partner, switch it up and try your hand at being left-handed! This has two main benefits: First, it lets you exercise your brain and second, it lets your partner experience what the technique is supposed to be.
Of course, when training you should practice both of these options because they are both important. Learning how to apply the principles of your art no matter the situation is a vital skill. That way whether it's a dominant-hand blow from a right-hander (from the right shoulder) or a back-hand blow from a left-hander (also from the right shoulder) it's all the same from your point-of-view!

The best skill to learn is ambidexterity. This is not always easy and is best left until you have a solid understanding of your art with your dominant hand. Also, if you injure your dominant hand in such a way that you cannot train, take that as an opportunity to develop your off-hand.

But why would I want to Switch?

The question of why one would care to switch their grip is simple: Tactical Advantage. Remember that both right- and left-handers will face a right-handed opponent 80% of the time. Being able to switch from right- to left-handed provides you the tactical advantage of surprise; you are presenting your opponent with something they have only dealt with 20% of the time! When your opponent thinks they've got you pegged as a righty, switch grips and surprise them with your left-handedness! But be careful - they could do the same to you!

I had to toss a Princess Bride pic in here somewhere!

This tactical advantage is not confined to the world of swordsmanship. Many others use pursue antagonistic activities take advantage of being ambidextrous. In baseball, for instance, you will often see left-handed batters sent up against a good right-handed pitcher to shake him up a bit. Or a left-handed pitcher sent in to shut down a left-handed slugger. In boxing a Southpaw is a difficult opponent to face. I know one boxer who's coach, after the boxer had a solid base and a few fights under his belt, made him train both Orthodox and Southpaw simply because it gave him more tools in his toolbox. A co-worker of mine who is ex-military explained to me his own trials with teaching himself to shoot left-handed. His reason for needing to learn to shoot left-handed? Going around corners. "If, while doing a tactical entry on a building, I go around a corner to my right, my weapon is the first thing that appears. If I go around a corner to my left [still holding the weapon right-handed] the first thing that appears is my hand. And that's not good!" So, whether in baseball, boxing, military operations, or swordsmanship, being ambidextrous offers a tactical advantage.

Handedness in Le Jeu de la Hache

The majority (48 of a total 73 paragraphs, or about 66%) of Le Jeu de la Hache is a section designed for combat between right-handers. The phrase "If he would give you tour de bras right-hander to right-hander" opens the description of the very first technique and is often repeated, in some form, throughout the manuscript. If you think about the fact that 80% of people are right-handed, this makes sense. The left-handed section at the end of the manuscript comprises 23 paragraphs, which bounce back and forth between the point-of-view of the righty and the lefty (this is simply the way the manuscript is set up; showing play, counter, counter-counter, etc.). What that means is that if you were to play through the manuscript paragraph by paragraph you would, at some point, be expected to perform as a left-hander. What this boils down to is a same-hand lead (right vs right) section and a cross-hand lead (right vs left) section. So, Le Jeu de la Hache has everything you need to be a well-rounded, and at least mildly ambidextrous, axe-fighter. Obviously, if you switch to a left-hand lead and your opponent is also in a left-hand lead, then you are back in the same-hand lead situation, just mirrored.

Switching Your Grip

Now let's look at the lead hand change. Talhoffer, Fiore and Vadi's manuscripts all show guards where it is apparent that a change in lead hands has occurred, but we are not told how.

From the Getty MS. Guards: Breve la Serpentina (left hand lead) and Vera Croce (right hand lead). Getty Museum.

From Vadi's "Arte Gladitoria Dimicandi". Right hand lead for the left figure and a left hand lead for the right figure.

In all the Italian and Burgundian sources that deal with the pollaxe, there are only two detailed grip changes; one in Le Jeu de la Hache and the other in the Anonymous Bolognese (I don't know enough about the German sources to make these statements for them). The simple explanation for this lack of detailed grip changes is that the majority of these grip changes happen outside of measure. When you are not actively engaged with your opponent, you can change your grip at your leisure, without the need for special techniques.

The grip change described in the Anonymous Bolognese is a method for combining attacks along different lines. In Le Jeu de la Hache, the grip change occurs late in the manuscript (paragraph 59) in the cross-hand lead section and is a counter to a grappling attempt. What do these two techniques have in common? They occur in context. The only reason these two techniques are detailed is because they occur in situations where they are needed.

To claim that there are no grip changes in Le Jeu de la Hache because only one is described (and in special circumstances) is to ignore the fact that handedness, when examined, is really not that much of an issue. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Why aren't there more grip switches described in pollaxe sections? Because the only point at wich you have time to easily execute a grip change is while outside measure; if you change your lead-hand in measure you allow your opponent a tempo in which to act against you.

Conclusion

In Western Martial Arts, the issue of handedness can be solved by:

Learning that the principles of your art do not change whether your opponent is right-handed or left-handed.
Learning to adapt the individual techniques of your art to the varieties of cross-handed encounters.
Learning to be ambidextrous.

4W review

2010-02-16T10:29:00.000-08:00

This past weekend (Feb. 13-15) I attended the Western Washington WMA Workshop (or 4W) in Seattle, WA hosted by the wonderful folks from Academia della Spada. The highlights of the three day seminar were:

1. The martial challenge between Christian Tobler & Sean Hayes. They fought 5 passes with longsword, sword & buckler and spear. The only word I can think of to describe the bout is "Wow"! It was a display of control, understanding of the Art, & it was an excellent example of a friendly bout fought with martial intent. I was unable to video the bout (as I was busy acting as Maestro Hayes' second) but I'm sure the videos will be all over the net in the following week.

2. Taking Christian Tobler's German Longsword class was a great experience! Not only was it fun from the standpoint of being the first time I had ever studied the German system, but also because I was able to experience Mr. Tobler's teaching style.

3. As with WMAW two years ago, the best part of the weekend was all the wonderful people I met and worked with.

The downside to the weekend was that my thumb injury got aggravated again. This meant that I was doing less and less drilling as the seminar went on. Oh well. Eventually I will learn how to keep it from getting hurt.

Long story short, if you ever get the opportunity to attend a WMA seminar, do so. Getting out there and meeting others in the WMA community is an experience you can't miss.

PacMac Review

2010-02-01T13:00:00.001-08:00

As usual, PacMac this year was awesome!

For the Northwest Fencing Academy's demo we did our dagger flow drill - essentially playing from 1st Master, 3rd Master and 9th Master. What is great is that two of the previous classes did most of our work for us! They dealt with a straight or round punch by either blocking to the inside (1st Master) or from the outside (3rd Master). We had the usual questions about disarms ("Wait!- are you grabbing the blade of the knife? Won't you cut yourself?") and there were some technique issues with people who used their own knife trainers which were too floppy for proper disarms, etc. Afterwards there were lots of comments about how cool our demo was, so I'd say mission accomplished!

It is always exciting to work with practitioners of other arts and realize that a lot of what we do is similar to a lot of what they do (we're dealing with the same basic tool -the human body- after all). I had a lot of fun and learned a lot as well. Like the fact that:

Joint locks aimed at the thumbs + 2 year old tendon injury to thumb = Pain. Lots of pain.

PacMac

2010-01-28T16:11:00.000-08:00

This Saturday, January 30th, will be day one of the Pacific Martial Arts Conference in Eugene, OR. This is a wonderful event that brings together instructors and students of various martial disciplines together to get a quick taste of other arts.

The conference consists of two days full of 30 minute demonstrations covering arts as diverse as Aikido, Kenpo, Karate, Judo, Kung Fu, Jeet Kune Do, and Historical European Martial Arts with instructors ranging from all over the Pacific Northwest.

This is the fourth year of the event and The Northwest Fencing Academy has been lucky enough to participate since 2008. Our demos have covered abrazare, dagger and even armoured sword techniques! This year we will be running the participants through our dagger flow drill - should be fun!

Even more than the good press it gives WMA and the Academy, this event is important because it places WMA in the heart of the local martial arts community and helps build understanding about us and what we do.

If you're in the area and have the chance to attend, please do so! There is recommended $10 donation and the event is designed so that you can participate for as much or as little as you want.

Two web updates

2010-01-03T19:13:00.001-08:00

First off, check out the new look to the Northwest Fencing Academy's website! It looks wonderful and has a lot of good information.

Second, if you haven't already seen it, you should read and order Guy Windsor's "Little Book of Pushups". It's a great little book with a lot of different pushup techniques - my favorites right now being the Tiger pushup and the Staggered pushup.

Remember to breathe!

2010-01-02T20:43:00.000-08:00

Hey folks!

First off, holiday (whatever they were) salutations! It's been awhile since I've put anything of substance up here, but such is the joy of working retail during the holidays.

So I'm not promising anything, just letting ya'll know that I have no more excuses!

Whew

2009-11-29T23:32:00.000-08:00

Started, for my own edification, listing all the plays in the Getty. Essentially I am making a list: Weapon, Remedy Masters, Remedy Master's plays. I'm doing this because I know that I memorize things better when I list them out, which is why I am a compulsive list writer (just ask my wife!).

No doubt about it though, it is a lot of work. Up to 5th Master of dagger and my word document is 4 pages long. Whew

Thanksgiving!

2009-11-26T14:04:00.001-08:00

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Understanding the role of the manuscripts

2009-11-17T22:17:00.000-08:00

Medieval combat manuscripts present an interesting dilemma for their modern students in that they are not “How To” manuals in the modern sense. If you were to pick up a modern book on Western Martial Arts (or any martial art) the first physical lessons taught are usually stance, footwork, and how to grip the weapon (if there is one). Of these three basic elements, the manuscripts attributed to Fiore de’ Liberi only expressly teach one.
That one thing is footwork. Fiore describes three types of footwork; the volta stabile, the mezza volta, and the tutta volta. In the Getty MS it appears “A volta stabile lets you play forward or backward (from one side only), without moving your feet. A mezza volta is when you pass forward or backward, letting you play on the opposite side forward or backward respectively. A tutta volta is when you use one foot to describe a circle around the other foot; in other words, one foot stays in place, the other circles around it” (Leoni 46). There are no images of the footwork patterns. Furthermore, Fiore states that “there are four more concepts in this art: pass forward, pass backward, extension of the front foot (step forward) and withdrawal of the front foot (step backward)” (Leoni 46). So, in total we are presented with four separate pieces of footwork; the volta stabile, mezza volta, tutta volta, and the step, which we are to combine in countless variations to execute the techniques. The most common footwork directive Fiore gives is to “Extend your front foot off the center-line and pass at an angle with the back foot” (Leoni 49), in essence a step followed by a mezza volta.
Stances are taught, but not like they are in modern books. In a modern martial arts book the stance will be described in detail; where the feet are in relation to the body, how much weight is placed on each foot, whether the knees are straight or bent, the alignment of the feet, the alignment of the spine, etc. The “basic stance” (which most Fioreists assign to Porta di Ferro from the abrazare section) is never described in detail, but details, such as foot placement, have been discerned by looking at the images. Each guard is represented by an image and text that is descriptive only of that guard’s capabilities and what to do from that guard, not how to achieve each it.
There is absolutely no discussion of how to grip the various weapons in any of the Fiore manuscripts. Instead, we the interpreters must look very carefully at the images: Do the figures have both hands facing the same, or opposite directions on the weapon? Where are they gripping the weapon? These questions must be asked of every image and correlated between all known Fiore manuscripts (and Vadi – See Below).

So why are these seemingly simple and “basic” elements mostly missing from medieval combat manuscripts? Because these elements were assumed to be “common knowledge”. Remember that these manuscripts were created not as “How To” manuals but as memory aids. Fiore states that Galeazzo da Mantova, a student of his, convinced him to write his knowledge down because “there is so much to this art that even the man with the keenest memory in the world will be unable to learn more than a fourth if it without books. And a fourth of this art is not enough to make someone a Master” (Leoni 8). There is the Old Man himself telling us, his modern students, that this manuscript is not intended to teach us the art, but to help us remember it. That is the true purpose of the Fiore manuscripts, indeed of the majority of medieval combat manuscripts: To be portable memory devices. Much like any modern student does not write down the lecture verbatim in their class notes, much of the information in the manuscripts seems to be lacking, because it was “common knowledge”. What exactly is the Player attempting to accomplish prior to the play of the First Master of Abrazare? Is he coming into grips or is the technique supposed to happen from an already established grip? We don’t know. I can take my wrestling background and extrapolate what I think is going on (as others have done and continue to do) but until we have Fiore’s words as to what the Player is trying to achieve we will never know. For us, that is not common knowledge. These manuscripts were written for men who had been fighting and training for the majority of their lives; they did not need to write down the basics – they knew the basics. The challenge is for us as interpreters to re-discover those basics. Here is the beauty of this art – all of our answers will be different. While there is a base, common denominator in how the human body is designed to move, every individual will bring a different “common knowledge base” with them to training.
The problem with this approach is the introduction of “Frog-DNA”. In the movie Jurassic Park, the scientists are attempting to clone dinosaurs from incomplete bits of DNA material, so they use frog DNA to fill in the gaps. The problem is what they cloned were not dinosaurs in the purest sense; they were a dinosaur/frog mix. This is the challenge facing those of us working with these manuscripts; every piece in our “common knowledge base” is Frog-DNA because we do not live in the mid-14th century and for many of us, this is not our first introduction to martial arts. The majority of our “common knowledge base” is cultural influence; to my grandfather fighting meant boxing, pure and simple. To me, growing up during the tail end of the heyday of B martial arts movies, such as Enter the Ninja, fighting meant lots of jumping around and screaming. Now, if you witness two young Americans fighting, they will more than likely try to emulate various mixed martial arts moves they’ve seen.
So should we just give up, accept the fact that we will never produce a “pure” form of armizare, and just make stuff up when confused? Of course not, not if we openly acknowledge and attempt to keep our Frog-DNA to a minimum. When interpreting a manuscript there is a hierarchy of sources, so to speak: the primary source, other works by that "author", works by other authors in the same lineage, other works in other lineages, finally, other works in similar styles of combat. As an example, my hierarchy runs something like this:

Fiore, Getty MS
Fiore, Pissani-Dossi, Morgan, and Florius MSS
Vadi
The German Tradition
The Bolognese Tradition
Catch & Greco-Roman wrestling
Aikido, Judo & Jiu-jutsu

That is by no means all the sources I use for longsword study, just a highlight.

To sum it all up, the medieval combat manuscripts need to be understood as study guides to aid the student's memory, not "How To" manuals. Much work has to be done in order to extrapolate the very basics of a combat system, examining many images and deciphering pages of text. This process becomes even more fun when dealing with a manuscript like Le Jeu de la Hache, which has no images nor provides any indication of stance, footwork mechanics, or guard positions. Is it a bad thing to use one system as the basis for another, if that other provides no support structure for itself? No, not so long as you (the researcher) are very clear about your sources and reasons for using one system as a basis for another. It is ideal to use as many basics as are provided in your primary manuscript, but if you must use another, do so knowingly and openly. I know that some will agree with me, some will not care, and some will disagree.

Clear as mud?

Wrestling Jackets

2009-11-06T10:18:00.000-08:00

This weekend I got to go back to the Northwest Fencing Academy and have a marathon training session - which was nice! The day was spent on abrazare and dagger materials. The most pleasant surprise of the whole day was trying out a few wrestling jackets made by various companies/persons. While I will not go into a detailed review of each jacket, I did just want to say that I now not only have the intellectual understanding of why such a jacket is necessary for abrazare, but a very visceral understanding as well. I am not usually one for claiming that it is impossible to understand medieval combat techniques if one is not wearing medieval clothing - I practice in sweats, a t-shirt, and tennis shoes (I won't get into the shoe issue here, maybe I will have another entry in a few days to discuss it). I honestly don't believe that wearing hose or turnshoes will drastically alter technique; the reason being that the techniques do not depend upon what type of foot-wear or leggings I am wearing. With abrazare, however, the case is different. I have felt (and so has Sean and many others) that it is inadequate to practice abrazare in t-shirts. It can be done (I've done it for almost 6 years now) but the practitioner will be left feeling like something is missing or like some techniques "just don't work". The two big issues with grappling in t-shirts is that:

a) two bare arms, when in contact with one another, will slide and slip around due to a lack of friction and sweat.
b) there are some techniques which require, or are greatly aided by, gripping your opponent's sleeve, jacket, or belt.

Not only are long sleeves, IMO, necessary to medieval wrestling, they also provide a greater understanding of dagger techniques. I have had more than one friend or acquaintance who has commented on the "silliness" or "stupidity" of attempting some of the disarms (Fiore's 1st Remedy Master of Dagger for instance) against a knife. Usually after a discussion of how sharp a rondel dagger really was (see point number 2 today) I also make a point about the type and amount of clothing worn. Sean will sometimes quote Bram Frank, from a seminar years ago, saying that "teaching knife defense in Florida is different than teaching knife defense in Maine." How true! I would be hard pressed to attempt the 1st master disarm against a sharp knife (even a rondel) in a t-shirt, but while wearing a heavy flannel long-sleeve shirt? You betcha! Cloth is amazingly good body armour. So, whether providing a little extra grip or protecting the arm, I think a wrestling jacket a necessity. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing a decent quality, inexpensive ($150 or less) wrestling jacket as the top half of the Academy uniform.

Fiore dei Liberi's pollaxe material

2009-09-17T18:58:00.000-07:00

Fiore’s Axe Material

Plenty of real and digital ink has been spilled over the effectiveness of the poleaxe techniques shown in Fiore dei Liberi’s four manuscripts (well, three, the Morgan has no axe section) because at first glance they do not look anything like the techniques described/shown in German manuals or in Le Jeu de la Hache, the only known manuscript that places the poleaxe as the primary weapon. The two main complaints are the paucity of techniques shown and the apparent lack of “signature” axe moves, such as displacements and thrusting with the butt of the weapon, or hooking actions with the head. I will address these concerns and give evidence for why they are misguided.

Armizare
First a little background information on Fiore’s system. The four known manuscripts detail the art of Armizare, a 15th century Italian martial art. Armizare is a martial art in both the original meaning of the term, as an art of war (martial arts = the Arts of Mars) and in the modern sense, as a complete system of self-defense that encompasses empty hand and weapons techniques. The manuscripts are divided into sections; wrestling, knife defense, sword in one hand, sword in two hands, spear, sword in armour, poleaxe, and equestrian techniques (which encompass’ spear, sword and wrestling) and are dated to circa 1409. The primary weapon in the manuscripts is the long sword, a weapon with a ~37” blade and a handle long enough to be gripped by both hands. The art is based upon simple principles and is highly self-referential; once you’ve learned a particular technique, i.e. the Middle Bind (introduced in the wrestling & dagger sections), Fiore does not then later feel the need to detail how to do it. He simply says something like “Now do the Middle Bind, which you already know.”

Figure 1. Middle Bind, 1st Master of Dagger, Getty Museum.

Figure 2. Entry into Middle Bind in Sword in two hands section, Getty Museum. The text reads: “

This is still sound pedagogy; when teaching someone how to swim, after they have learned how to do the Front Crawl Stroke you can simply say “Do Front Crawl for 100 meters” not “For the next 100 meters I want you to lie prone in the water, arms extended, alternate pulling one hand down to the waist and back, while kicking, etc.” It simply is not necessary.

Martial Arts
Fiore’s system is based, like every other martial art on the planet, on two things:
1. The human body. No matter how hard you try you will never invent a new way for the human body to move. Thus, all martial arts systems have the same foundation; the ability for movement in the human body. I am not saying that because I know armizare, I know Hung Gar or karate or Taekwondo. That’s silly. What I’m saying is that at their most basic level, all martial systems are the same. In fact it’s easy (and fun!) to look at armizare and other martial arts and see all the techniques that similar enough to be called the same thing. An arm-bar is an arm-bar is an arm-bar, no matter how you get there or what you call it.
2. The stick. After empty hands techniques, any weapon in any martial art can be viewed as a variation on the stick. These are my five common categories of stick:
• Small Stick – dagger, knife, kubaton
• Medium Stick – arming sword, escrima stick, bolo machete, axe
• Large Stick – long sword, katana, broom handle, axe
• Extra Large Stick – spear, poleaxe, naginata
• Moving Stick – arrow, javelin, anything that is thrown.
After size, the only differences in technique occur because of adaptation/specialization of the stick. If I have a plain ole stick, I can hit and I can bluntly poke. But adapt that stick by sharpening one end, and suddenly I can stab too. Even better, make the stick out of steel with a point and two sharp edges. Now I can hit, cut, slice, stab, etc.

But what does any of this have to do with answering the complaints about Fiore’s axe play? Everything.

Complaint #1 – Lack of Techniques
At face value, this complaint has some merit. After all, in the Getty MS there are 12 guards and 44 total plays illustrated with the sword in two hands. The axe section has 6 guards and 10 plays, two of which can be considered “tricks” requiring specialized axes. But this is the problem with only looking at the pictures, if you include textual advice given in the descriptions of the axe guards, the total number of plays jumps to: 14. Still pretty underwhelming, especially considering that Le Jeu features 68 paragraphs full of techniques, counters and counter-counters. But remember that the axe is the only weapon described in Le Jeu.
Remember what I said earlier about the system being self-referential? Also remember that I said the long sword is the primary weapon? Remember the talk about sticks? Good, because here is where those three ideas come together to form the core of weapon techniques in Fiore’s armizare. In order to understand how to use the poleaxe in Fiore’s system you must look at the axe section AND the spear section AND the sword in armour section AND the sword in two hands section. The sword in two hands section is, as previously mentioned, the foundation for weapon techniques in armizare. The other three, poleaxe, spear and sword in armour, are specialized techniques to augment those learned with the sword in two hands. Let me repeat that, the other weapons augment the lesson and principles learned in the two handed sword section. The best description of this comes from Greg Mele of the Chicago Swordplay Guild. The three sections (axe, spear, sword in armour) represent a specialized sub-group of techniques from the basic two handed sword, because being in armour changes what you can do (it alters your movement abilities.) The spear represents a sub-group of techniques for when your weapons are crossed at a middle height, the sword in armour for when they are crossed higher and the axe for when they are crossed lower (because of the mass of the heads, axe crossing tend to go to the ground). They are all interchangeable techniques of armoured combat. Adding the spear and sword in armour plays to that of the axe we now have, in the Getty MS, 22 total plays for the poleaxe. If we continue and add those from the sword in two hands section as well (because it is the basis of weapon combat in the system) we have 66 total plays. Now, because of differences in mass, etc. not all of the plays may be the most reliable, but they are all possible.
The two clearest pieces of evidence of this combining of sections both occur in the text accompanying the illustrations of guard positions with the axe. The first appears in the text for the guard position Vera Crose, where Fiore states “Trà pur ché ben t'aspetto ché zò che fa lo scolar primo dello magistro remedio della spada in arme cum lo modo e cum lo passar, tale punta cum la azza mia ti posso far” “With my axe, I can perform the same thrust with a pass as the first student of the Remedy Master of the sword in armor.” (English translation courtesy of Tom Leoni). Here Fiore is directly telling us that one play from this guard position is that of the 1st scholar of the Remedy Master of the sword in armour.

Figure 3. Posta Vera Crose with the poleaxe. Getty Museum.

Figure 4. Posta Vera Crose with the sword. Getty Museum.

Figure 5. Play of the 1st Scholar of the sword in armour. Getty Museum.

The second example is in the description of Posta Porta di Ferro Mezana or Posta Dente de Zengiaro (it is the former in the Getty and the latter in the Pissani-Dossi. I will henceforth refer to it as Dente de Zengiaro). In the text Fiore calls attention to the fact that Posta di Donna and Dente de Zengiaro have “faced each other numerous times” and that you should know what to do from here, i.e. a deflection upwards with a pass offline. This same advice is given in the two handed sword and sword in one hand sections as a good defense against any straight line or same side attack.

Figure 6. Posta di Donna vs. Dente de Zengiaro poleaxe. Getty Museum.

Figure 7. Dente de Zengiaro, sword in two hands, vs cut, thrust, or thrown weapon. Getty Museum.

Figure 8. Dente de Zengiaro di un man, vs cut, thrust, or thrown weapon. Getty Museum.
Complaint #2 – Lack of “Standard” axe plays
The other common complaint about Fiore’s axe material is that it lacks some of the “standard” axe plays found in other manuals. The “standard” plays referred to are displacements, thrusts, and/or deflections with the butt of the weapon and hooking actions done with the head. The simplest and very first defense featured in Le Jeu is a queue (butt) parry, yet Fiore does not show this technique anywhere. Why? One answer is that while he does not show it, but he expects his student to know it. Refer again to Figures 6, 7, and 8 above where Fiore advocates, repeatedly, that if your weapon is on the same side as the attack, you deflect it with a step offline. From Dente de Zengiaro with the axe, where the head (the heavy end) is off to your left, you must deflect with the head. If, instead, you were in Breve la Serpentina with your right hand leading, then the head would be on your right, with the haft crossing your body, and your opponent throws their blow, you will be unable to deflect it your head. Instead, you can still follow his directions by passing forward and parrying with the butt of your axe.

Figure 9. Posta Breve la Serpentina. Getty Museum.

Here is the text from Le Jeu de la Hache describing the first queue parry from that system:

When one would give you a swinging blow, right-hander to right-hander and you have the croix [head] forward, you can step forward with your left [rear] foot, receiving their blow on the queue of your axe…from there you can thrust at him with the queue…or strike a blow to his head.

You can see that the actions described in both of these manuscripts are very similar, if not identical. Additionally, in the spear section, Fiore shows the counter to his spear plays as driving forward with the butt of the spear, either striking or thrusting. Fiore does not discuss initial attacks with the butt of the axe because if you are holding the axe with the butt forward and thrusting then you are executing a spear or half-sword play, which are covered in their respective sections.
Hooking actions with the head are a little harder to track down in Fiore’s system, mainly because many of the hooking actions in other manuscripts occur at the knees and Fiore is very reticent about low attacks. In the two-handed sword section, Fiore specifically advises against low attacks with the sword. Fiore does, however, understand the tactical advantage of taking out your opponent’s knee as this technique appears in both the wrestling and dagger sections of the manuscript, and is even hinted at in the axe section where Fiore show the Scholar gripping the visor of, and throwing to the ground, the Player, who is attempting a low grab, possibly something akin to a single or double leg take-down (Figure 10).

Figure 10. Wrestling in the axe section. Getty Museum.

However, it is quite a jump, even for such a self-referential system, to go from a supplementary wrestling maneuver to a straight out attack. Does this mean that Fiore did not know how to use the head of your axe to hook your opponent? No, other hooks, usually of the opponent’s neck, are mentioned in the sword in armour section and can, as shown above, be extrapolated into the axe section. I would argue that he knew, he just did not find the low hook the most martially sound technique, so he did not include it. Fiore himself admits, in the introduction to the Getty, that his book does not contain every technique, just those he deems most worthy of knowing.
A further issue I have with this complaint is the use of the term “standard axe plays”. Medieval martial arts, indeed all martial arts, are deeply personal. Remember, above all else, when you read a manuscript, or a modern translation, or even this blog, that you are reading one person’s opinions. There is no “Italian Swordsmanship”, nor “German Swordsmanship”. There is the sword art of Fiore, that of Liechtenauer, etc. Every work on swordsmanship differs from the others. Even if the author uses an earlier author as the basis for his work, there will be differences. Filipo Vadi, whose manuscript has some illustrations that are almost direct Xeroxes of Fiore’s material, still advocates a unique method and style of swordsmanship. This applies even more to those of us now recreating these arts. It is impossible for us to practice “Fiore’s art”; we practice our interpretation of Fiore’s art. But the differences in interpretation are usually subtle things; one can usually tell a practitioner of an Italian system from that of a German system. I can even tell the difference between students of the Chicago Swordplay Guild, the School of European Swordsmanship and the Northwest Fencing Academy, all of which teach Fiore’s art, but with some subtle differences in execution. I do not teach or practice the art the exact same way my instructor does; but anyone who watches me can tell I am a student of Sean Hayes. When people ask, I claim that I teach armizare, the art of Fiore dei Liberi, as interpreted by myself, and influenced by Sean Hayes, Greg Mele, Guy Windsor, and others.

Conclusion
To make the claim that Fiore dei Liberi’s poleaxe material is incomplete, or somehow lacking, is to misunderstand Fiore's art. I hope that this can help clear up some of these misunderstandings.

Stay Tuned...

2009-09-05T17:38:00.000-07:00

Having successfully moved to Portland, stay tuned for the eventually announcement of the opening of the Northwest Fencing Academy - Portland, a satellite school of the Northwest Fencing Academy

As soon as I find a space....

And students....

So what the h@ll is "Armizare"?

2009-08-29T08:54:00.000-07:00

In response to some friends who've asked me this recently, here we go:

Armizare is a 15th century Italian martial art that encompasses unarmed grappling, knife, sword, spear, poleaxe, and all of the above on horseback.

That's it. It's a martial art - just like Karate, Aikido, Krav Maga, etc.

Abrazare as Foundation for Armizare

2009-06-27T23:22:00.000-07:00

I’ve been focusing on grappling recently. I personally believe that his grappling (including the abrazare & dagger sections) is the foundation upon which Fiore’s armizare is built. Of the four manuscripts, two begin with abrazare (the Getty and Pissani-Dossi). The other two, the Morgan and the Paris, seem to follow the order of a judicial duel (horseback -> lance on foot -> pollaxe -> armoured sword -> sword -> dagger -> grappling). Any explanations for this difference in format are purely speculative at this point, but I believe that the format and order in which the sections appear is somewhat irrelevant. All four manuscripts are self-referential in a manner similar to a modern hyper-texting; the captions consistently include statements such as “as shown before” and “my play is that of the 3rd scholar of the 1st master of the sword in armour”. So in a system where the manual refers you to other sections, the order of the sections doesn’t necessarily matter, just that you can find the other sections.

But how is grappling the basis for the whole system of armizare?

1. All of Fiore’s poste can be seen as derivative of the four basic abrazare guards.
2. It encapsulates all of the principles of measure, proper body mechanics, and timing that are the core of armizare.

1. Fiore describes four basic grappling poste:
• Posta Longa - Lead arm well extended, with the hips turned slightly to allow further reach. The other arm is held in some fashion to help protect the body and is not as extended as the lead arm.
• Posta Dente de Zengiaro - Lead arm is extended from the shoulder with the elbow bent at a 90˚ angle. The other arm is held in some fashion to help protect the body and is not as extended as the lead arm.
• Posta Frontale - Both arms extended forward, elbows down. The body is more squared than in Posta Longa.
• Posta Porta di Ferro - Both hands held low, in front of their respective thighs.

If we examine Fiore’s 12 unarmoured sword poste (the largest set of guards in the manuscripts), we can see that they all derive from these four.

LONGSWORD GUARD -> ABRAZARE GUARD

Posta Breve -> Porta di Ferro
Posta Tutta Porta di Ferro -> Porta di Ferro
Posta Porta di Ferro Mezana -> Porta di Ferro
Posta Dente de Zengiaro -> Porta di Ferro
Posta di Coda Lunga -> Porta di Ferro
Posta Frontale -> Longa / Frontale
Posta di Donna (Left and Right) -> Dente de Zengiaro
Posta di Finestra (Left and Right) -> Dente de Zengiaro
Posta Bicornu -> Dente de Zengiaro
Posta Longa -> Longa / Frontale

So, all of the low sword poste can be seen as variations of Porta di Ferro and the high guards vary, depending on whether the leading arm is straight or bent or by the rotation of the hips. The four abrazare poste are given as basic positions to hold in the system, with variations depending on the weapon used.
In addition to the guard positions themselves, many plays and actions with weapons are derived from grappling actions. The dagger strike, the sword thrust and thrust, etc. are all examples of moving out into Posta Longa of Frontale. The basic motion of the pommel strike, from a crossing of the swords, is a transition to Dente de Zengiaro.

2. That fact the many of Fiore’s initial Remedy Masters plays have a correlation to abrazare or dagger plays is very telling. For instance, the 1st Remedy Master of Giocco Largo, as interpreted by the Northwest Fencing Academy, is a strong parry against a fendente mandritto that:
• intercepts the attacker’s blow part way through its “power arc”
• redirects it away from the defender
• simultaneously threatens the attacker
• is usually accompanied by an accressciamento to the left

Now if we look at the 1st Remedy Master in the dagger section we see a defense against a mandritto that, in terms of what it does and how it is done, is almost the same thing. After the left arm parry, and subsequent bind, redirects the attacker’s strike, while the right hand is poised to, and does, strike. Obviously, this is only one example.
Fiore lays out his seven requirements for grappling in the prologues of the Getty and Pissan-Dossi:

Also I say that wrestling requires seven things; which are strength, speed, knowledge, that is,
knowledge of binds of advantage, knowing how to fracture, that is how to break arms and legs,
knowing binds, that is how to bind arms so that the man has no defense anymore, and can not leave
freely, and knowing how to injure the most dangerous points. Also, knowing how to put someone on
the ground, without danger to himself. Also, knowing how to dislocate arms and legs in different
ways. Which things I will write and draw in this book, step by step, as the art requires.
(dei Liberi, c.1409, trans. Easton and Litta, 2003)

I list these as:
1. Strength
2. Speed
3. Knowledge of Binds
4. Knowledge of Dislocations
5. Knowledge of Striking
6. Knowledge of Breaks
7. Knowledge of Throws

While these are given before the abrazare section, we can see them echoed in the dagger section:

And I shall do these five things always. Namely I take the dagger and strike, I break the arms and I
bind them and I force him to ground. And if of these five plays one or the other I will not abandon.
(dei Liberi, c.1409, trans. Lovett et al. 2002-2005)

The five things are: Disarm, Strike, Break (Dislocate), Bind, and Throw. So in the dagger material, which is built on and combined with the abrazare material, we are given key principles that are the same as those given for grappling. The additive, disarming, makes sense; now you are dealing with a weapon as opposed to empty hands. These principles are further distilled down into the segno, where Fiore shows all seven blows of the sword (and the four dagger strikes) plus the four main virtues of a swordsman, shown as animals, surrounding a figure (in the Getty the figure is dressed in scholar’s robes - this is significant) above who’s head floats a crown. The Elephant, at the bottom of the figure, represents strength and fortitude and carries a tower on his back. The Tyger, to the left, signifies speed and quickness and holds an arrow. The Lion, to the right, represents courage and holds a heart in his paw. The final animal, the Stag-hound (or Lynx) represents Prudence and holds a compass, an instrument used for measuring distance. In this figure you can find the whole of armizare distilled - a practitioner needs strength, speed, courage, an understanding of measure and timing, and knowledge (remember that the figure is wearing scholar’s robes). The image shows all of the possible strikes that can be made as well as footwork directions. The most telling piece of symbolism in the segno, however, is the crown that floats above the figure’s head. The crown, throughout the manuscripts, is the symbol of Masters. That the figure is not actually wearing the crown has, in my opinion, a two-fold meaning:
1. The way to mastery of armizare is through assimilating all of the requirements and virtues shown here in the segno.
2. Perhaps more esoteric, it shows that true Mastery of the art is the pursuit of perfection - it will always be just out of reach.

Why is this important?
Understanding that Fiore’s grappling and dagger material forms the base for the rest of his system allows the student of armizare to from a minimum number of positions, very useful in situations where a combatant needed to switch between weapons or improvise a weapon. Knowing that all the guards (sword, spear, dagger and pollaxe) are derived from the four abrazare poste means that the armizare student can pick up a sword, baton, cudgel, spear, staff, baseball bat, katana or BiC pen and fight effectively.

Ultimately, this is all just my own humble opinion, but it is based on understanding of the system, practice and research. I could “wake up” in a month and consider this all bunk, but for now, this is my understanding of the basis of armizare. Your opinion and mine will most likely be different which is exactly what I find so cool about this art! Please leave comments as you see fit, but remember that we are all human beings. Be polite. Constructive criticism is welcome, destructive is not. Thanks *steps off soapbox*

New-ish Blog direction

2009-06-24T16:21:00.001-07:00

So I have decided to take this blog in a new direction -sort of.

After a pseudo-epiphany I will expand my musings to cover armizare in general as well as my working through Le Jeu de la Hache and other pollaxe material.

So not really a new direction, but simply one that allows me to talk about all of my training, given that my training at the moment is 90% Fiore, 10% pollaxe. Once I receive my second axe from Purpleheart Armoury (sometime this week hopefully) I will be able to train with axes more often and then I will have more to add.

So what exactly is armizare? Simply put, it is a late medieval (14th and 15th century) Italian martial art. The particular version I study is based on the four discovered manuscripts attributed to Fiore de Liberi of Cividale, with supplements from Fillipo Vadi and Le Jeu de la Hache. It encompasses wrestling, dagger, sword (in one hand & two), armoured lance, armoured pollaxe, armoured sword, and wrestling, lance and sword work on horseback. But those are just the main sections - sub-sections include pole-arms against cavalry, cudgels, and mis-matched weapons (i.e. dagger vs sword).

The Fiore MS's are magnificent in their ability to constantly refer to themselves. For instance, in the Giocco Stretto (Close Play - wrestling with the sword) Fiore often says things along the lines of "From this crossing of the swords, do this play from this master of dagger". For me, the constant referencing of other sections within the MS is truly amazing and demonstrates that this is a complete martial art that is built on simple principles.

Systemization

2009-05-11T21:08:00.000-07:00

So, I've been thinking of doing something very controversial in HEMA. A little background on this; having done about 5 years of longsword work, I am starting to realize that being strict about studying "Italian longsword" is a mistake. My main studies are the longsword art of Fiore dei Liberi, with supplemental studies of Vadi. I believe that I have just started to truly understand the principles beneath this art and in doing so have realized that there is nothing wrong with borrowing a technique from the German arts, so long as it fits within the "Fiorean" framework. Let me say that again, so long as it fits within the "Fiorean" framework. After all, the man himself (Fiore) tells us in the prologues that he studied with many Italian and German masters and has included in this manuscript only those techniques he found especially useful. He is not claiming that his manuscript includes all the possible techniques for the longsword, just that the ones he is including are useful as teaching tools for the deeper principles. As a training partner and fellow researcher said "Once we start doing that, [I think] we are closer to what Fiore's students would have done." Now, I am not advocating blindly combining Italian and German longsword systems. They are two different systems that developed differently because of differing social and contextual influences. However, both systems use the same (or nearly so) weapon and there are only so many ways in which the human body can move a longsword around. The key is to have a solid grounding in one style, and then add aspects of the other style(s. Sorry I tend to forget about English longsword. My bad ) that appeal to you, so long as they fit within the principles of your style.

So all of that rambling is a lead up to this; I have decided that instead of writing, teaching and (maybe) publishing my interpretation of one style of pollaxe play, I will use one text as my primary framework while using as many supplemental manuscripts as possible in order to collate what I believe to be a useful method of "medieval pollaxe combat". My main reason for doing this is realizing that there are some things that are discussed in some manuscripts but not in others. So, the only potential issue is that my source manuscripts run the gamut from early 14th century to mid 16th century, but thankfully the axe as a weapon didn't change it's basic form during that time.

In closing, while what I'm doing may be controversial, I believe that I can logically explain my thought process and reasoning to anyone who politely asks. I always love a good discussion.

One of the best explanations of Fiore dagger material

2009-04-29T14:43:00.000-07:00

So I am sure that most of the people who will read this have already seen it, but I thought it was worth immortalizing again. In a recent discussion about Fiore's dagger material on Sword Forum Mark Lancaster posted this succinct and eloquent process for interpreting and reading Fiore's dagger material:

This is the way I tend to describe the Masters to students.

Think of each Master as being an expert in whatever Fiore is describing at the time (i.e. he is representing mastery).

So, we have several different areas of expertise:

1. The stages of a fight (from the introduction).

a. The first expert is Master Battle. He knows how to fight (distance, reaction, etc). In context this would be an expert fighter of the period and Fiore does not go into much more detail (but see below).

b. This expert, however, can be countered (Fiore calls this a Remedy) by the expert Master Remedy. This is really where Fiore's manuscript starts (he expects the reader to know the bulk/jist of Master Battle).

c. The first person (who was the expert Master Battle) could be good enough that he/she knows the technique used by the Master Remedy expert and how to counter it. Fiore calls this Contra, so we have Master Contra.

d. Finally the chap who did the Remedy knows how to counter this Master Contra and is Master Contra-Contrary. This is so rare that is it only shown once in Dagger and Fiore basically says that the fight (if it every reaches this stage) won't go any further.

The above is like a pyramid with four layers (Master Battle at the bottom and Master Contra-Contrary at the very peak). The options (techniques) reduce as the fight continues.

2. The Posta Masters

Here Fiore is basically giving good "expert" positions from which to fight and to recover into (maybe in the middle of a technique). He is saying that mastery of these posta/positions and how they can be used are core to his system. The natural place that this happens is in the first stages of the encounter - Master Battle - and when recovering out of a technique/encounter back to a Master Battle position. Knowing these postas and mastering them gives your brain basic building blocks (like lego) to find within the fight and reduces the thinking time dramatically.

3. The Dagger Requisites.

Fiore gives us four requisites of dagger - each shown as a Master (with the crown).

These show the areas of expertise that define mastery of dagger fighting in general - being able to strip the dagger from your opponent; being able to break limbs (in his view); being able to lock your oppenent and finally being able to use all of the unarmed/wresting skills shown in abrazare.

The important point here is that the illustration shows someone who is getting older (check the beard) and better dressed with each of the four illustrations and Fiore is saying that these progressively take longer to master - i.e. the easiest thing to learn is to strip the dagger and the hardest (requiring longer to master) is the full abrazare within dagger.

4. The 9 Masters of Dagger

In the entire dagger section Fiore shows 9 different "methods" with several sub/progressive techniques for countering a dagger attack. These cover attacks from above and below and can be stopped one handed (left and right) or two handed, etc.

Fiore has grouped all of these possibilities into 9 methods and he starts each one by showing the Master and the basic technique - i.e. the expertise of how to implement the defence/counter (he calls it remedy). However, he then states that he will let his students/scholars show the other techniques that spring out of these nine methods.

This has two illustrative advantages. First he is showing the arrogance of a Master by only showing the basic method and then allowing his students to do the hard work. Second it makes it easier to illustrate when a Master Contrary comes in to counter these Remedy techniques.

If you can crack this use of Master then the manuscripts suddenly make a lot of very simple sense at a quick glance. I could look at any technique, without text, and tell you what is happening by who to whom.

Don't know if that helps - but it's my contribution.

Thanks

Mark Lancaster
The Exiles

That really is one of the best descriptions of the dagger material I have ever heard. Enjoy!

Updates

2009-04-27T20:19:00.000-07:00

So I really need to get better at this. The problem is I've set this up as a WMA blog, and my main area of study is the pollaxe, the info etc. for which I am still developing and don't feel terribly comfortable putting online yet.

My finger is healing. The good part is that the bruising is almost gone and you can just see the smallest part where my left pinky is shorter than the right. The bad part is that the internal stuff, i.e. the broken bone healing, is going slowly and still causes issues every now and again.

On April 18th the Northwest Fencing Academy did an armizare demo at the Oregon Knife Collector's Association Knife Show in Eugene. We also had a table where we sold a few Arms & Armor pieces (Thanks Craig!). The one hour demo went great! The students displayed pieces from I.33 and Fiore longsword while Maestro Hayes narrated and then answered questions. It was a wonderful opportunity to get the word about HEMA out to the public. As one of my co-workers who caught the demo said "Wow, there's a lot more to it than I thought!" Overall, the reception the Academy received was great!

I've been working on putting together lesson plans and solo exercises for pollaxe, mainly based on Le Jeu, with some bits of Fiore and the Anonimo to be added in. Eventually I'm hoping that these will form the base of own school's axe curriculum. At the moment I am 60% done with a solo form that will encompass all of the principle defensive and offensive actions. As with everything in HEMA, it will of course change and adapt over time, but I am confident that it's pretty solid for my present interpretation.

I'm planning on attending WMAW this year, where I will be assisting Maestro Hayes in two classes; one on armoured sword work and another on longsword flow drills and how they provide the bridge from basic work to sparring. I went to WMAW in 2007 and absolutely loved it and am really excited to go again, especially with a little more experience under my belt, both with the weapons and with teaching.

As always I continue to work on teaching myself French. Methinks I should stick with teaching history and martial arts! Teaching languages may not be my forte!

2009-04-08T15:20:00.000-07:00

Wow I really suck at this blogging thing. Oh well. The finger is healing nicely, no more open wounds, but it is still slightly tender, probably due to the bone being still broken.

Other then that, life pretty much continues as it has for some time. Work, practice, eat, sleep, repeat.

Injury Update

2009-03-10T21:30:00.000-07:00

So my finger is healing...s...l...o...w...l...y. I am a horrible patient, I just want it to be healed up right now so I can go train! But I know that I need to wait and let myself heal properly before I go sword (or axe) in hand again.

On the plus side, I'm getting lots of research done. I'm translating the axe sections from two of the Fiore's and from the Anonimo Bologonese. And still trying to teach myself French. It's slow going, but it will be worth it. It's very interesting to see how certain axe manuscripts describe counters that others seem to have forgot or just not thought important (I'm looking at you, silly anonymous guy who wrote Le Jeu).

Finger injuries and sparring

2009-02-24T10:50:00.001-08:00

So I found out last night just how useless hockey gloves can be for longsword sparring. During the last pass of the sparring session between myself and a colleague last night I got thwacked on my left little finger. We were using A&A Fectherspiel swords. When I took off the glove I noticed blood and thought "well crap". I went to the bathroom to clean it up and noticed just how bad I had been hit. Long story short, after 3 hours at the Urgent Care clinic, I have what the docs called a partial distal amputation with the tip of my finger bone chipped off. I again want to point out that the swords we were using were blunted not sharps. We have never, and never will, spar with sharps. I find the very idea ridiculous. In fact, my injury would have been better had it been a sharp sword as it would have simply sliced the tip of my finger off, not mangled it up.

Axe lengths

2009-02-19T21:26:00.000-08:00

Anyone else notice that the axe lengths in the Getty are shorter on average than those in the PD? The Getty axes appear to be about shoulder height while the PD's appear to be about user height (with the exception of the 4th play). Two things about this, first that it explains a lot about Fiore's axe plays where he holds the axe one-handed. With a user height axe, gripping it the way it says/shows makes it very difficult if not impossible to hold (maybe I just need to train more :p ). The second thing is that it furthers my hypothesis that Fiore shows an earlier form/style of pollaxe play. Comparisons between Fiore, Vadi and the Anonimo Bolognese show a developmental arc in axe-play. The number of poste I think helps show this; 6 in the Getty, 4 in the PD, 4 in Vadi, and 2 in the Anonimo and Le Jeu. The majority of the plays are similar and the basic principles remain the same, but there are some differences which I believe occur because of the differences in axe size. All of Fiore's different axe poste/plays are possible with a longer axe, but some would just work better with a shorter one, for instance the play described in the Getty as coming out of the vera crose-Fiore says vera crose with the axe works just like the first scholar of the Remedy Master of the spada in arme section. That play is essentially a parry with the middle of the haft with a step offline, driving their weapon down and thrusting. This works really well with a shorter axe but is slightly more awkward with a longer axe.

p.s. I was actually impressed with "Bones" tonight. They had a mystery involving medieval re-enactors. One of the ladies is attacked by a guy dressed up as the Black Knight, who half-swords for the fight. Later she describes his fighting as using "the Serpent" and "the Arrowhead". I was impressed with tv for once! I mean "the Arrowhead" is a stretch, but hey it's a start. On the downside, they kept calling it "chainmail" *sigh*

The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe

2009-02-08T08:35:00.000-08:00

This book, by Dr. Sydney Anglo, is one that I have been trying to acquire and read for over tw o years now. I finally got ahold of a copy (thanks Mike) and I'm about half-way through it.

First the positive feedback; this is a wonderful book if you are looking for a general overview of most of the manuscripts used today in HEMA. The few manuscripts that he hasn't mentioned (that I noticed) are because they are relatively recent discoveries and the book was published in 2000, so things like the new Florius Fiore MS just weren't known about. I also believe that Dr. Anglo does a good job of tracking certain ideas (especially the attempt to "rationalize" fencing via mathematics) through the years. To me, however, the most striking thing about this broad cross-comparison of sources is how much the varied masters agreed upon. While there were significant differences (for instance in the number and naming of guard positions) overall you get a sense that swordsmanship, whatever it's form, boils down to a few key elements; control, timing, speed and strength.

My problems with the book stem mostly from the fact that while I have no doubts about Dr. Anglo's abilities as a scholar, I wonder at his experience in martial arts. For instance, when he describes pollaxes as being "awkward" and "inefficient" against armour it makes me wonder. I have never found axes to be unwieldy, nor have any of the folks I've talked to who have handled surviving examples. And as far the axe's efficiency against armour goes, the whole purpose of the weapon's design is to defeat a man in armour; i.e. to crush, to pierce, to hook and to cut. But I can accept that my umbrage with these points could be merely personal. The next however I cannot. When discussing the fact that Agrippa used multiple figures in one plate in order to show movement (example), Anglo criticizes 19th century historian Jacopo Gelli because Gelli claimed that Agrippa was showing "combats of three against two, or four against three" when in fact Agrippa was jsut indicating motion. Anglo specifically states that Gelli's misconception came about because he did not read the Italian, merely looked at the plates. The ironic part is, in the beginning of the book, Dr. Anglo discusses the Flos Duellatorum by Fiore dei Liberi, which he claims holds illustrations that depict encounters with "multiple attackers". The illustrations he is referring to are this one from the sword in one hand section and another very similar illustration from the two-handed sword section. The problem is that these illustrations do not depict combat against multiple opponents; they depict that the same basic covering action can be used against a thrust, cut, or thrown weapon. This common misconception when looking at Fiore's work can only be explained by not reading the Italian. Ironic huh?

All quibbles aside, Dr. Anglo's The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe is worth reading and owning. As with any secondary source just make sure to take what you read with a grain of salt.

PACMAC

2009-01-24T21:52:00.000-08:00

So today I got to help Sean do a demo at the 3rd Annual Pacific Martial Arts Conference in Eugene. Like last year, it was fun! We used some real cheap pseudo-wasters to show 60 odd martial artists from various systems and styles some basic grappling actions from the Spada in Armi sections of the Fiore manuscripts. We used the "new" fiddle-bow-esque posta from the Florius (which we have named "Posta di entrare" - Guard of Entering). The first action we did was a simple serpentine on the sword and take-away against a thrust. Then we used the same basic action, but entering deeper and wrapping the left arm in a ligadura sottana. We had planned on doing a collar-throw and reversal from the Bolognese pollaxe material, but we ran out of time :( All in all it was a great day, at least what I got to experience before I had to run off to work. I think my highlight was Sensei Best of Best Martial Arts in Eugene talking about how the basic karate punch (and it's action) can be used as a high and low block, much like every strike with sword can be a parry as well as a strike. All in all, it was great to network with the areas other martial artists and spend a day (or part of one anyways) realizing that we all do the same stuff, just differently.

2009-01-21T10:44:00.000-08:00

So, as an aside to what I normally write about here, I am a big MMA fan. As a sport it is very impressive. By far, my favorite fighter is Fedor Emelianenko. If you know who he is, or if you have no clue, just watch these 6 mini-episodes about him. He is not only a great fighter he truly is a wonderful and well-rounded man.

http://www.youtube.com/user/DirtyFedor

Updates

2009-01-14T14:02:00.000-08:00

So by far the single most frustrating thing about living in Eugene with all its rain is that the grass is permanently soggy. This, combined with living in an apartment, means that I only have two choices for sword/axe training: 1) Drive across town to the salle or 2) Practice in the middle of the complex's driveways. I know that deep down it is my own laziness that keeps me from actually grabbing the weapons and doing it, but sadly in this age you have to be careful about practicing our arts outside. I have already had police called on me by my neighbors for practicing in my old yard with my aluminum sword, so I can only imagine how quickly the cops will be called if I break out my pollaxe in the driveway! So I will just do what I have been doing for a while, which is going to the salle about an hour before class and spending my time at home doing the mental side of WMA training (especially trying to learn French).

On the positive side, owning all six seasons of Mythbusters is awesome!

What a fun weekend!

2008-12-23T09:24:00.000-08:00

So this was a fun weekend. Between our water heater nozzle breaking off and spewing 15 gallons all over our floor, which then had to vacuumed up (Thanks Chris and E!) and working at the mall during Christmas, it has been ridiculous. By the way, in case you've ever wondered, hand vacuuming a floor with a 15 gallon Shop-Vac is an awesome back workout!

What was awesome is that last night (Monday the 22nd) I got to teach an "Intro-to-Pollaxe" class at the Academy. It was the first time I've been able to teach pollaxe material by myself and I based the night on my interpretation of Le Jeu de la Hache. What is great about teaching WMA is that it allows you to see if your interpretations really hold up and whether they are easy for others to learn too. There were only three folks there last night, but two of them had never handled an axe before, so it was good to see if my "basic axe training" actually works! It also was one of the first times I had been able to play with the axe in my kit (breastplate, arms and helm). The only change I wanted to make because of the armour was the realization that I need a better gambeson/arming cotte. The debate is now to go historical (expensive) or psuedo-historical (potentially cheaper).

At the end of the night, I wanted to change a few specifics about the plays I chose, but I had learned a lot about axe-fighting as well. In my opinion, axe play isn't as subtle or "elegant" as sword-play (because of the limitations imposed by armour and polearms in general), but it's beauty is in it's very straight-forward system of play. After all, there is a reason Fiore describes the axe as "ponderous, cruel and mortal"

Turkey Day!!!

2008-11-29T23:05:00.000-08:00

So Kim and I had our first Thanksgiving together. It was awesome! We had her parents and her brother and his fiance over, and we got to cook our first turkey. All together, we made the turkey, stuffing, succotash, green-bean casserole and the gravy. Well, to be honest, Kim made all this and I just watched and chopped stuff. All in all, it was a successful turkey day and I am extremely proud of Kim for putting all of it together, especially with us both being sick! Now I get to look forward to years of leftovers! Haha!

The Development of the Pollaxe

2008-11-22T22:10:00.000-08:00

The pollaxe represents one of the best innovations of the “medieval arms race”, as it were. The increasing use of the more protective plate armour, in concordance with maille, leather, and cloth armours, meant that specialized weapons had to be developed, or more commonly old weapons had to be updated and improved upon, to defeat these armours. The pollaxe, the combination of axe, spear, and hammer, is an ideal weapon to deal with both armoured and unarmoured foes, at either long or close range. I lay out here my suppositions for the development of the axe, as well as potential reasons for the variety of shapes in historical examples, based on my experience as a medieval historian and a practitioner of Historical European Martial Arts.

To first understand the development of the pollaxe it is necessary to look at the etymology of the three most common ways of spelling the word itself: poleaxe, pollaxe, and polaxe. All three spellings can be broken down into two parts; the prefix and the word “axe”. Because it is common to all three, we will look at the word “axe” first. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the word as “ax or axe: a chopping or cutting tool with an edged head fitted parallel to a handle”. I believe it is safe to assume that most of us are familiar with this kind of tool, and from it’s presence we can infer that the weapon will be some kind of axe, or have some kind of axe-head on it. So now we look at the three options we have for a prefix and from them we can try to piece together what this weapon looks like and how it was developed. The word “pole” is defined as “a long slender piece of wood or metal” (Miriam-Webster). Then the word “poleaxe” quite literally means “an axe on a (long) pole”. The next option, “poll”, is defined in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary first as “head”, and that makes sense when you consider modern use of the word (“to take a poll”, “the poll’s show”) where it denotes a vote, or a head-count. So, the word “pollaxe” simply means “axe-headed”. As for the third option, “pol” comes from Greek indicating “society” or “person” and is, in my opinion, a precursor to the word “poll” and can be interpreted in the same manner. By combining these definitions, we have a weapon that has an axe-head, mounted on a long pole. We can reasonably assume then that the pollaxe is derived from the axe.

The simple axe was one of mankind’s first tools, being a stone knife tied to a stick. It has continued to be a common tool in most cultures, right up to the modern period. As far as its use as a weapon of war, both the single-handed and two-handed variants can deliver powerful blows and are usually ready-at-hand, being used as a tool for chopping wood. Unlike a sword, which exists only as a weapon of war, the axe would be used all the time for chopping wood, building dwellings, etc. and would be familiar in the hand. Because it is familiar to you, then when you have to fight you will go with what is familiar. Arguably, the axe is also cheaper to produce than a sword and wood hafts are easily replaceable. The main problem with the axe as a weapon (and from here on I will mainly be discussing the two-handed axe as that is what closely pertains to the development of the pollaxe), however, is that the base version is rather one dimensional in that it lacks the capability to do more than chop or cut effectively. Notice I used the word, “effectively”. One problem with two-handed axes is that while the long hafts allow for strong blows, the axe is not capable of delivering thrusts. Not only are thrusts useful for finding the gaps in plate armour, or penetrating maille, leather or cloth, but they also serve to extend the distance between combatants. For this reason, the top fluke of the axe head began to be elongated and reinforced, like this Hungarian axe or the Russian berdysh, making the weapon a combination of spear and axe, the ideal combination to deal with foes armed in maille, leather and cloth and transforming the axe from a simple farm tool into a weapon of war.

The axe as a weapon was used by all classes of combatants, including the nobility. As plate became more prevalent, the nobility needed a weapon for foot combat that was capable of delivering cuts to un-armoured parts of the body, thrusts to the gaps in armour (strong enough to penetrate maille, leather or cloth), as well as being able to deliver crushing blows, especially to the joints. Because of the limited visibility allowed in bascinet helms with visors, the weapon needed to be useful no matter how it was picked up. That and the need to have a counter-balance for the axe blade, lead to a hammer being placed opposite the axe blade on the head of the weapon. As the pollaxe became more prevalent variants began to appear. The two most common types were the axe/hammer type and the hammer/fluke type. A third variant was an axe/fluke type. All pollaxes have a spike on the top of the haft and some have a spike on the bottom end as well. It is the hammer/fluke variant that is shown most often in manuscripts, both German and Italian, and is the type described in the Burgundian “Le Jeu de la Hache”, the only manuscript to deal exclusively with the pollaxe. But no matter the composition of the head of the weapon, all are referred to as an axe; “l’azza” in Fiore and Vadi, “le hache” in Le Jeu, and “der axst” in Talhoffer (Anglo, “Le Jeu de la Hache”).

It is intriguing that while the axe/hammer variant seems to be more prevalent both in surviving examples and contemporary artwork; it is the hammer/fluke type that is shown/described in manuscripts. The reasons for this are varied and likely lost to history, but my personal conjecture is that both variants, as well as the earlier forms of the two-handed axe, were used together, the decision to use one or the other likely dependent on personal choice. I do view the polehammer variant as the more specialized tool for judicial duels when dealing with opponents in full harness, much as Fiore and Vadi show swords that were specific to judicial dueling. The pollaxe was perhaps better suited to the battlefield, where the axe blade could be used to great affect against more lightly armoured foes (I am not entirely convinced by this myself, but I have yet to hear any better theories).

Concluding points:
• The pollaxe developed from the simple two-handed axe because of a need to combine the axe with the range capabilities of the spear and the crushing capabilities of the mace/hammer.

• The pollaxe is a specialized weapon developed for use against armoured opponents.

I know....

2008-11-12T22:05:00.000-08:00

I suck at this whole "blog" thing. Anyways, tonight at the academy (Northwest Fencing Academy) we worked on the "spada in armi" portions of the four Fiore manuscripts. Especially on our minds is the "new" Florius manuscript and it's weird armoured position with the sword held in the crook of the arm, not in the hand. Anyways, afterwards we took some pictures and here I am in my harness so far (well, I borrowed the gauntlets...).

The Guard of the Queue from Le Jeu de la Hache

The Guard of the Croix from Le Jeu de la Hache

Simply standing ready.

Heroic pose (Thanks Mike).
"So I got one question for ya ounk, do you feel lucky? Well, do ya?"

Oh yeah

2008-11-02T19:54:00.000-08:00

So a little info about myself. I am a 24 year old newlywed and recent college grad with a Bachelor of Arts in Medieval Studies and a Bachelor of Arts in Religious Studies from the University of Oregon. What will I do with these two degrees? I don't have a freaking clue. Honestly. My overall goal is to teach Historical European Swordsmanship at my own school, but that is not exactly a high-income area. Plus, at only 24, I feel far too young to open my own school right now. The bad part is that HES is an expensive hobby requiring lots of equipment and it really won't make me any money until I open my own school, so it has become this cycle of loving to do it, but not sleeping at night because I feel I should be spending that time earning more money so as to make my wife's life better. But I don't do it for the money, I do it because I love it. Awesome, Mythbusters is doing an Indiana Jones special. Sweet! I love that show. Anyways, I am currently entertaining several career options; history teacher, massage therapist, and minister to name a few. Stay tuned for more fun-filled adventures!

So here goes...

2008-11-02T19:42:00.000-08:00

Well, I've never been much of a blogger or anything, but sometimes I feel like I need a good place to leave all my random thoughts throughout the day, so here goes.
This will be a place for anything I feel like putting down, but will probably mostly consist of either what-ever happens to pop into my head or random thoughts and what-not about Historical European Swordsmanship (or Western Martial Arts). I have practiced HES for about 4 years now, mostly based on the manuscripts of Fiore dei Liberi, but also Royal Armouries Manuscript I.33 and the Anonymous Burgundian Le Jeu de la Hache.

P.S. btw if you are wondering what the heck my title means, it is Latin for "To do nothing is to be nothing" which is the motto I try to live by.