"Masters" trash talk...

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

666

[Matt Rovaris]

See, this is the type of obtuseness (sorry, Brandon) that leads some to wrongly think that ARMA is an organisation of dogmatic knuckleheads.

This, and the post you wrote earlier about SFI:

HEMA's most exclusive coffee house - this week's special - pomposity bran muffins & cinnamon mocha lattes, served with Freudian innuendo and other pseudo-intellectual passtimes.

I don't post on SFI, but I lurk there and know that if someone there said something comparable about ARMA, he would be publicly reprimanded by a moderator. I know that because it has happened.

Look at the difference in style between your posts and Aaron's. He is a much better standard carrier for your school.

I'm done with this thread.

Matt

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Everything after Meyer \ Mair might as well be labelled pure sport, (except for perhaps Sutor).

Please stop, I'll die laughing soon

So you mean all those people dueling in every European country, killing one another with rapiers, then smallswords, sabers of various kind, the majority serving in the military of their times, all the way through to XIXth century at the very least, were basically just dumb because somehow they missed the obvious advantage that the longsword (and especially the German method, of course) lends for self-defence and dueling. Even worse, they knew about the longsword and discarded this perfect weapon just for the fun of it. 'Cause fighting with a superior weapon is not really entertaining, of course, where's the challenge in that?

Honestly Even from the ARMA, an association which can hardly be accused of favouring rapier fencing, I've never heard the like of that opinion...

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

Everything after Meyer \ Mair might as well be labelled pure sport, (except for perhaps Sutor).

Please stop, I'll die laughing soon

So you mean all those people dueling in every European country, killing one another with rapiers, then smallswords, sabers of various kind, the majority serving in the military of their times, all the way through to XIXth century at the very least, were basically just dumb because somehow they missed the obvious advantage that the longsword (and especially the German method, of course) lends for self-defence and dueling. Even worse, they knew about the longsword and discarded this perfect weapon just for the fun of it. 'Cause fighting with a superior weapon is not really entertaining, of course, where's the challenge in that?

Honestly Even from the ARMA, an association which can hardly be accused of favouring rapier fencing, I've never heard the like of that opinion...

So, you're saying that the small sword is superior to the rapier, the longsword, the sidesword, the arming sword, the falchion, etc...because it came along later. I may have to do a little laughing too, Vince. I'll PM you on this tommorow night.

Sorry I offended you, Matt. If you want, you can PM me or e-mail, and we'll discuss it more politely. I still disagree, though.

It's my bedtime now.

-B.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

So, you're saying that the small sword is superior to the rapier, the longsword, the sidesword, the arming sword, the falchion, etc...because it came along later.

No. I'm saying that relying on dates to infer martial efficiency is completely misguided one way or another. In every period there were people dying and killing with these tools in hand, and I'm certain they did the best they could to stay alive, within the boundaries of the society of their times. If people are killing on purpose it's not sport. Simple as that. No need to sort wepons in order of superiority, even if ARMA is best at certain weapons

No need to take this to PM by the way. The point of posting on a forum is discussing it in public. If you're going to start a PM discussion with each person that disagrees, for each and every post you make...

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

So, you're saying that the small sword is superior to the rapier, the longsword, the sidesword, the arming sword, the falchion, etc...because it came along later.

No. I'm saying that relying on dates to infer martial efficiency is completely misguided one way or another. In every period there were people dying and killing with these tools in hand, and I'm certain they did the best they could to stay alive, within the boundaries of the society of their times. If people are killing on purpose it's not sport. Simple as that. No need to sort wepons in order of superiority, even if ARMA is best at certain weapons

No need to take this to PM by the way. The point of posting on a forum is discussing it in public. If you're going to start a PM discussion with each person that disagrees, for each and every post you make...

...Yes? Sorry, you neglected to finish your sentence. No, I think that it's best taken to PM. The point of a public forum is for people to be able to judge for themselves. There's more than adequate information already for that, I think. I'll leave it with just one last word, though: firearms. Infer from that what you like. I'll be taking this to PM. See you tommorow, Vince.

Have a nice day.

-B.

[I. Hartikainen]

Brandon,

pure superiority is not the only factor. The way the weapons changed during the centuries owes a lot to cultural changes.

A 17th century rapier can be used effectively against a longswordsman, against a man armed with shafted weapons and so on, but that is not what the intended use of the weapon was. A skilled swordsman can use any sword to their benefit.

In the 17th century it was unlikely to face a longsword in a regular basis, and even more so, the dress code respected at the time did not allow carrying such a weapon, which is more cumbersome to keep in scabbard without a doubt.

This is not my area of expertise, but these changes were due to changes in warfare, with swords falling out of use on the battlefield. In civilian use, a rapier is a handy weapon, and even fearsome with its point vanishing from sight and its quick disengages. The long sharp point makes it difficult for someone to attack, even with a longsword. Combined with a dagger the rapier becomes twice as dangerous in capable hands.

The rapier didn't see use on the battlefield, though. Swords suited for cutting were always more popular, not least because they allow more versatile use and are easier to learn to handle in such environment. This does not mean that the swords were meant for play, or sport.

I would argue that the rapier, while not a military weapon, was no doubt lethal. The emphasis on careful work (or play, if you insist, but still 'serious' play) with the sword, point inline and always looking for contratempi, an action near impossible to parry if done in the right time, and basing much of the system in feints that work more than anything because of the stress and fear of the opponent it was hardly a 'salle' weapon.

The 16th century styles divided their style to play and serious fighting, but the early 17th century material, in it's heart, is lethal. It may be aimed for a specific context and culture, against a similar weapon, but in that context it is lethal.

Only as we approach the 18th century do we see the fencing for fencing's sake emerge - again as a result of cultural change. The smallsword is still a weapon cabable of killing, and working against a variety of weapons. 'Inferior' to a longsword, yes, but it's purpose was not to fill the same need the combination of a sword and a buckler used to fill in medieval times. The smallsword is lighting quick, and still capable of reasonably strong parries, even a cut with it hurts like hell if nothing more. But indeed, due to its speed and maneuverability it was a perfect tool for studying fencing, isolated from the earnest use on random environments, and distilled to as cose to 'perfection' as possible. It is the quickness of smallsword that makes the double time actions more favorable: where the rapier committed to one action the smallsword still retains the ability to change.

Finally, even in the 15th century, the poleaxe in armor would have been vastly superior to an unarmored longsword. A horseman generally had an edge over the pedestrian. The context and the culture ruled partly what weapons were carried, and thus available. Today we have a window to the whole history of these weapons and arts, and we can not disregard the fact that a 'rapier' was in use for over a century in a culture where personal quarrels often led to fatalities.

Yours,
Ilkka

[Sam Nankivell]

Everything after Meyer \ Mair might as well be labelled pure sport, (except for perhaps Sutor). I don't care what you say. Sorry, but I don't buy it. Show me the most skilled small sword fencer. I'll show you a mediocre longsword fencer who will almost undoubtedly put him down. You're rightk, though. John's HEMA video serries implied that. And I agree. So sue me.

Right, so I provide you with evidence that the smallsword was a well used murder weapon in gang-fights and brawls in the Paris ghettos of the 1700s and that isn't enough to convince you that it is a killing weapon? Why?

Besides, where do you get this idea that a mediocre longsword fencer can beat a skilled smallsword fencer? Have you participated in or watched such a match? Could you at least explain that to me? It certainly can't be because the longsword fencer is superior in grappling, because I can assure you, smallsword manuals (such as Liancour and Elder) do indeed have sections devoted to that.

Better yet, more evidence for this weapon's utility comes from Donald McBane, a Scottish master who had been a soldier, a thief and a pimp during his career. He was well acquainted with vicious street-fights and gives several instructions on how to deal with sudden assaults from thugs. In his instructions on smallsword vs. an ambush by broadsword and target he specifically states "...But still the small sword hath great odds of the broad, for the small Sword Kills, and you may Receive Forty Cuts and not be Disabled." http://www.sirwilliamhope.org/Library/McBane/

This is an experienced brawler and soldier who clearly states that the smallsword is superior to sword and target (small shield). Of course, other people would think otherwise due to different experiences (such as George Silver) and it becomes on word against the other, which is why personal experience doesn't count for as much as you would think. Concrete facts however (like half the murders in Paris in 1732 were committed with a "sportified" and "degenerate" weapon) do. We do know that for some reason the longsword stopped being used on the battlefield and as a civilian defense weapon, however, personal defense was still quite an issue, so we can assume that there was some good reason people moved to carrying smallswords for defense (or even rapiers for that matter).

It certainly wasn't because it was an unsuitable weapon for defense compared to other available weapons (like longswords or basket-hilted swords).

In short, this ridiculous idea of declaring a pinnacle for combat evolution and then stating all other periods, whether they be past or future, are either crude and lumbering or else dainty and non-lethal is stupid. All weapons are well designed for what they are designed for, whether it is defending yourself on a battlefield with a longsword or in a back-alley against a man with a sword and target with a smallsword.

Even shorter, there is no best sword.

Hmm... I think I have seen an essay about that somewhere .

[Stacy Clifford]

Please note once again that Brandon has repeatedly stated in this thread that he is not a member of ARMA. Though he may be arguing in our favor, his views are still his own and do not represent all of us.

I completely disagree that everything after Meyer is sport. Someone here accused ARMA of hardly being in favor of rapier, but I can tell you that it is in fact one of John Clements' favorite weapons, as I've heard him say often, and he has a great deal of respect for it. Our lack of emphasis on it to this point has been a matter of priorities. We have chosen to spend more of our time to this point developing a core curriculum for our members based on the longsword, the better to give everyone common ground from which to relate. Individuals have always been free to research topics as they please, and as our curriculum matures their work will feed back in to help expend it into other areas. Believe me, rapier is very much on our radar in the future and it is a weapon I enjoy and appreciate a great deal. We also respect the deadliness of the smallsword in its day, but it does respresent a narrowing of options as it faced a much smaller variety of weapons that had mostly fallen out of favor by its heyday. Regardless, it's outside our scope of dedicated research and I don't want to comment too much on it as such.

And Ilkka's right, a skilled fighter can make any weapon work for him with practice, but if I were equally skilled in longsword and smallsword, I would still gladly take the long blade over the short needle. If both opponents know how to manage range well, the guy with the longer weapon is usually going to win.

[William Elder]

Please note once again that Brandon has repeatedly stated in this thread that he is not a member of ARMA. Though he may be arguing in our favor, his views are still his own and do not represent all of us.

Noted. I've added a sig to avoid contributing to that confusion myself.

And Ilkka's right, a skilled fighter can make any weapon work for him with practice, but if I were equally skilled in longsword and smallsword, I would still gladly take the long blade over the short needle. If both opponents know how to manage range well, the guy with the longer weapon is usually going to win.

Having done this, I wouldn't count too much on the length of the weapon. Even in two hands, point-forward actions will be slower for the longsword, and point-withdrawn actions open you to counterassault. The advantages of each weapon are different, but proportional, leaving you effectively balanced. All else being equal, you're certainly welcome to your preference, but the answer to this--like the answer to that tiresome rapier vs. katana question--is that the advantage is with the fencer who best understands and partakes of the Art.

[Stacy Clifford]

Having done this, I wouldn't count too much on the length of the weapon. Even in two hands, point-forward actions will be slower for the longsword, and point-withdrawn actions open you to counterassault. The advantages of each weapon are different, but proportional, leaving you effectively balanced. All else being equal, you're certainly welcome to your preference, but the answer to this--like the answer to that tiresome rapier vs. katana question--is that the advantage is with the fencer who best understands and partakes of the Art.

I've done similar things too, and I said most of the time, not every time. A weapon with a shorter threat range has to work harder to win, and if the skill of both opponents is roughly equal and fairly high, then the one with the longer weapon can exploit and exaggerate that difficulty. I'm not saying it's impossible for the smallsword to win, I could prove that wrong myself, but I certainly don't think it's a 50-50 chance with all other things being equal.

[Jason Taylor]

Ilkka and all interested readers,

There was mention earlier of the “general silence” about Ilkka’s comments on the Fiore article he references. This “general silence” was implied to mean “we have nothing to say.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Many other scholars on this board with an understanding of Fiore might be able to approach this topic, but I doubt any of them would approach it without taking the time to first read carefully the comments, the essay, and, if possible, the source material in question. I personally felt that much of this was out of my range of expertise, but I did read them all, as promised, and I found that I could speak to a number of them, even without vast experience in Fiore per se. The reason is that many of the criticisms fall into an area that can be usefully discussed from my own background as a professional academic writer and college professor who has quite a few years of martial arts experience, a couple of which are in HEMA, specifically with ARMA.

I’ve approached the critique the way that I would approach any critique of literature, including those in scholarly journals, which is why I needed some time to respond. The amount of time Ilkka has spent on his points is to be respected, and I am not going to post in response to them without putting significant time into my analysis.

That said: Ilkka, I mean everything in this article to be taken with the utmost respect to you, your background, and the effort you’ve put in here. In some cases, I have not responded to points because I either lack the resources to do so or they fall into a level of detail—either in my understanding of Fiore and other Italian masters, or in my understanding of Italian itself—that, as I said before, makes me uncomfortable with my competence to respond. That doesn’t mean there is no response, however, only that, if there is one, I don’t know it. At any rate, I do vigorously disagree with many of the points you’ve made. However, vigorous disagreement does not entail vigorous disrespect, and only your ideas are under scrutiny, not your personality, your personal appearance, athleticism, ability, intelligence, heredity, or anything else that tends to get pulled into these conversations on forum threads.

I will also respond in part to your original SFI post, quoted by Brandon Paul Heslop in the original quote. I am going to assume that these quotes are accurate, as you have not objected to any of them as misquotes. The quote I am most concerned with is this one:

“...Indeed I have negative things to say about the Fiore dei Liberi essay in this publication, since it is truly filled with errors - not even interpretative, since those could be argued on, but it has errors that are simply a result of not reading the original treatise at all...”

This seems to argue that Mr. Clements, the author of the essay, made numerous factual mistakes. You specifically note that these mistakes are not interpretive, but factual, and are in fact the result of “not reading the original treatise at all.”

When you were asked for details on these errors, you provided us with the post I am now most directly responding to, in which you raise 22 points of contention. You again specifically label these as responses to the request for why you “found the article erroneous,” and therefore you should be, throughout, primarily referring to errors—specifically not those of interpretation, as in your post above you specifically and strongly denied that those were what you took issue with. In particular, errors that were the result of Mr. Clements not even reading the manual(s) in question.

I take issue with this probably the most vigorously of anything you have said here. First of all, most of what you pointed out in your later post are not factual errors, but are differences of interpretation, or simply disagreements with his writing style—what to emphasize where, what to include, how to structure the writing. Lumping these under the heading of “errors” implies to those who only glance at the long post (and there are many) that there are dozens of actual errors in the work itself, which is not the case—and it unfairly paints the work as inadequately researched and unscholarly. To go further and say that Mr. Clements has never read Fiore, especially given the level of detail and analysis in this and other works by him concerning the Italian masters, is really a stretch, and frankly, kind of silly. I really can’t imagine what would lead you to make such a claim, but it does cause you to sound as if you are making an effort to discredit Mr. Clements as a researcher. If that was not your intention, then more precise language needed to be used. Casual observers to these boards are many, and wording like this could very well cause a number of individuals without the background or resources to do fact-checking to come away with a tarnished view of Mr. Clements’ reputation as a scholar.

At any rate, I’ll spend the bulk of the rest of this post in analysis of the points of contention you’ve raised. Again, though I frequently don’t agree with you, all of the below is still meant in a spirit of respect and scholarly discussion, and I hope we can continue this debate in the same fashion, as academics and researchers on different sides of a topic.

To give a few example, on page 1, second paragraph Fiore is said to show combat against multiple opponents, while what he shows is the occassional multiple enemies, who have been agreed to attack one by one according to the text.

I see in Mr. Clements’ paragraph a mention in passing of "defense against multiple opponents.” This is an overview paragraph explaining the kinds of things that Fiore deals with. Every detail does not need to be present for it to be factually correct. “Defense against multiple opponents” does not necessarily mean "defense against multiple opponents who attack simultaneously." The treatise does indeed include defense against multiple opponents. Going into the details of the type of multiple opponent encounter would make for a bulky sentence and bog down a paragraph for which the main point is something different.
I can only guess that the need to fight two more enemies after the first would imply the need to employ at least different stratagems in your approach, as well, so I don’t believe that the serial one-on-one scenario necessarily invalidates Fiore’s analysis of it as a multiple opponent discussion, either. The swordsman would really need to be top-notch and unhurt to face the other two. Regardless of any of these possibilities, Mr. Clements’ statement does not belie a fundamental misunderstanding of Fiore.

On page 2, first paragraph the Pisani-Dossi is said to be partly in Latin verse, while there only is an additional prologue written in Latin.

Please refer to the transcription by The Exiles as part of the Fiore Project at http://www.the-exiles.org/FioreProject/ ... ption).pdf. It was the most readable version I could find.

I see the Latin prologue, certainly. It begins "incipit liber duellandi et dimicandi." Then there's a short break in the text and another section in Latin that begins "Florius foroiuliensis de liberis ciuidato austrie."

There is then a prologue in Italian, titled "Alter Prologus" and beginning "E mille quatrocento e noue a di X ...."

Shortly below that we begin Carta 2B which begins in Italian "Poy trouariti far punte de lanca e una lanca...." and ends at "....cita de reco." After which is a series of couplets In Latin, beginning with the following two lines:

"Armorum actus si te delectat amice
noscere tecum habeas totum quod carina monstrant”

These are followed by what I presume are the Italian versions of the same couplets.

John's essay here says "The somewhat briefer ‘Pisani-Dossi’ edition (sometimes called the Novati) is partially in Italian and Latin verse of short rhyming couplets," which is exactly what we see in Carta 2B. Granted, the Latin doesn't seem to rhyme, but the Italian does, and to argue on that basis would be quibbling semantics.

A quick glance also revealed more Latin on page 9, under Carta 6A. Three are four lines present, and I'm not sure about all of them, but I know the following two are in Latin:

"Cum Manibus tollam custis gestantibus ipsam"
"Cum custos superem qui possunt bellica mecum"

There may be more, but the above verifies the presence of Latin verse outside of the additional prologue you mentioned.

On page 8, third paragraph the author describes how attackers and defenders are separated in the images by garters and crowns, as are masters and students, but fails to explain the consistent four-step structure of attack, remedy, counter and counter-counter, which is well intended by Fiore since it is explained in the prologue.

I don't see any reason to include that information there. The topic sentence of the paragraph is "The images and text are however combined in an integrated way so that they act as a means of presenting to a reader already familiar with the actions example techniques that convey core concepts and principles." Mr. Clements then goes on to state how Fiore uses innovations in the text and images to do so. This paragraph isn't about counter and counter-counter and the progression you speak of, but about the physical layout and images used. To include that specific information here would be off-topic. You might have wanted the paragraph to be about something else, but it isn’t; the writer chose to emphasize this aspect in his discussion instead. It may not be what you feel is most important, but it is not "erroneous.”

Same page, last paragraph repeats the reference to multiple opponents.

Ditto my above response.

Still on page 10, third paragraph the author explains how, in the start of the dagger section Fiore shows a man who holds two "arms" to signify disarming, while it is the person holding a dagger that signifies disarms, and the "arms" signify broken arms.

This may very well be true, but how do you come to the conclusion that the dagger represents disarms and the arms broken arms? Is it in the translation of the text? If so, can you post that translation? I don't really speak Old Italian, and my Latin is getting pretty rusty.

Page 12, fourth paragraph refers to the 'segno' as being used as a wall or floor target in the 15th century, but I'd like to see the reference for this. As far as I know, Fiore never calls his diagrams 'segni'.

This is absolutely not an error. The exact article wording is "We know that an eight-lined circular diagram, or Segno, was often used at this time as a practice wall-target [. . .] Fiore includes what may be considered such a diagram in his material on dagger as well as longsword in order to show targeting lines or cutting angles." [Emphasis mine] There is no mention whatsoever of Fiore calling these marks “segno.” Additionally, if “segno” means simply “mark” or “sign,” then any diagram could be called that, and so long as we know that these diagrams were used then, to call it a “segno” makes perfect sense. However, if you’d have liked a different wording, that’s a different issue.

Page 13 shows Posta di Donna taken in three different ways, all of which are physically possible to do, and the weigh shift and turn in between them is described by Fiore as a 'volta stabile', where, while standing still one can play on both sides - essentially a turn of near 180 degrees without taking a step, thus being stable.

I'm not sure I see the problem here. The text of the article doesn’t exclude the "volta stabile." Once again, Mr. Clements is discussing artwork, and discussion of specific techniques would be off-topic.
There are three versions of posta di donna here, presumably from three different editions. The positions look different. Mr. Clements says that they look different, especially in terms of feet, shoulders, hips, and torso. This is clearly true from the images. He also says that perspective is an issue, and that images in the manuals may be either representative or literal. He goes on to say that "we must interpret all possible meanings behind the illustrations and text, and reconcile them both with other historical sources and common sense experience." He also says that the lack of true perspective is strongly suggested by the flat-blade appearance of the swords.

Which part of this text do you take issue with? I don't see any "errors," just the omission of a concept unrelated to his discussion of the artwork in different versions of Fiore.

Page 16, first paragraph states that Fiore does not place great emphasis on fighting postures, which I don't understand as he begins the both Getty and the Pisani-Dossi with them, and each section includes it's postures before going on to the actual actions.

I don't believe this is an error. Mr. Clements doesn't say "they aren't mentioned in the manuals." He says they are not emphasized, not necessarily in the manuals but in his fighting style. At the end of the paragraph, he refers to the idea of staying still and motionless in a "stance." I believe that he's referring to "emphasizing stances" in this sense--standing in a ready position without moving. You assume that he means "in the manuals," but this is nowhere stated as the intention of his reference. Rather, I believe he is referring to Fiore's fighting style as fluid and mobile, instead.

I find it interesting that the author states that the explanations of the postures explains briefly 'their obvious use', as some of the explanations are quite specific.

Once again, this is not an error. Maybe you disagree with Mr. Clements’ writing style here? Just because something is obvious doesn't mean there won't be specific explanations. Also, “use” can mean both “how you use something” and “value.” In the second case, this sentence then means that he is discussing them and the obvious value they are to the swordsman.

Unless you're referring to "brief explanations" as a contradiction to the detailed explanations you're referring to. That would be quibbling semantics, however. "Brief" is a term that covers many different possibilities. If it’s not a multi-page analysis of each, then it can be “brief.”

On page 17, last paragraph Fiore's guards are compared to those of Vadi's with the same name, but with no mention that Vadi's system is not similar to Fiore's, there really is no reason to expect the guards to match either externally or in their supposed use. Same goes on the next page about comparison to Liechtenauer - the styles are not to be expected to be similar even if they cover similar concepts.

The punctuation in your quote is a little confusing to me. I assume you meant to use a semicolon after the phrase "similar to Fiore's," starting a new idea there.

Assuming that, Mr. Clements’ paragraph does not, again, include an error, but something you think should have been mentioned but was not. We know that there are differences in Vadi and Fiore and Liechtenauer. I guarantee you that Mr. Clements is aware of these differences. However, there is no reason not to compare similar positions, and that is what he is discussing here. If posta falcone looks like corona, that's worth noting. He doesn’t need to include a caveat stating that, “in spite of these similiarities, they’re still different styles.” That’s obvious. Every paragraph doesn't need to be an exegesis.

Page 18, paragraph 2 oddly dismisses the volta stabile, which Fiore clearly explains and depicts on the beginning of the sword in two hands -section. The weight pushed back -variant is a feature of his style, and the posta di donna can be seen is both the front and rear-weighted forms, the fenestre are taken in the rear weighted form, dente di zenghiaro can be seen in both, the sword in one hand -position is rear weighted etc.

What part of this paragraph dismisses the volta stabile? As far as I can see, Mr. Clements discusses the head-turns of the posta drawings, and posits that the heads were turned as if to reference the other pictures, not to demonstrate that the head should be turned that way in the use of the position. Am I misunderstanding your argument here? Or is your argument that the heads should indeed be turned that way in the use of the position, and therefore they are literal drawings? And isn’t this then an interpretive difference of opinion, and not a factual error?

Page 19, paragraph 2 states strongly that the paired postures are not engaging each other. Interestingly, in the Getty poleaxe section, a pair is said to be facing each other and having often met in combat. This, of course, does not necessarily mean they always were contrasting each other.

You seem here to be committing a mistake common to a lot of scholarly writers trying to prove a point, in that you’ve thrown in everything but the kitchen sink that could possibly support your argument. While I appreciate the work you've done, references like this, and the implication that it is somehow an "error," as opposed to John expressing his interpretation, makes it seem that you are trying very hard indeed to find problems. This section of the essay does not refer to poleaxes or the Getty text about them. There is no reason that one isolated example (and you say it is “a pair,” which implies a single set of figures, in one section of one manuscript, so that qualifies it as “isolated”) should somehow invalidate Mr. Clements’ remarks. Additionally—how is this not an interpretive disagreement?

Page 20, first paragraph tells how one form of posta di donna resembles the German Zornhut, which, according to my knowledge, only appears in Meyer over a century later. The different versions and variations of one position may well be intentionally done so, perhaps it is meant to be taken in various forms, while maintaining similar function.

What exactly are you taking issue with here? Does the position not resemble the German Zornhut, or are you saying that the Zornhut didn't appear until Meyer, or that some version of the Zornhut didn't? It seems that Mr. Clements’ paragraph is more about disproving the concept of the lazy Zornhut laid on the shoulder. I’m having trouble discerning the problem you want to point out, so maybe a further clarification would be helpful.

Page 23, last paragraph again disregards the rear-weighted stances.

This paragraph doesn't deal with the issue of variations in weight. Perhaps Mr. Clements felt discussing the existence of these variations was out of the scope of a paragraph that primarily discussed the half-swording methods Fiore includes, especially in regards to hand positions on the blade and the upper-body details of the techniques. Again, this doesn't fall into the category of an error, but of a difference in opinion between you and him on priorities and emphasis in writing style.

Page 26, third paragraph tells that we shouldn't face a dagger in a half-sword guard, while this is exactly what Fiore suggests in the six guards that precede the longsword guards.

I looked through the translation I just found of Fiore at the same site (the exiles), and I couldn’t find a reference in which Fiore says that we should go to half-sword against a dagger. Can you provide me with a reference to where Fiore tells us to do so? I found dagger and I found half-sword, but I didn’t have the time before this posting to really read the two sections thoroughly.

Page 27, paragraph 3 talks of blade divisions.

Well, paragraph 3 actually talks about illustrations. He says that the blades change length in the pictures--do they not? He also says that the illustrations don't seem to reflect a consistency of blade portion use. I don't see any errors here, unless you mean that the blades don't change length or that there is consistency in the use of sections of the blade. If that's the case, I can't speak to it further than I have without some more detailed reference to the manuals. If you have a reference you’d like me to look at, please include it.

the crossings are referred to as happening in the mezza or in the punta of the sword

But again, the paragraph refers to the illustrations, not to what Fiore refers to as happening in the mezza or the punta. Mr. Clements doesn't refer to that in this paragraph. Now, if you were referring here to the flat of the strong mentioned in the last paragraph, not this one, I'm not sure if I can speak to it.

There are strong arguments for the heart of Fiore's style being two-tempi: the remedy is the cross and the hurting follows from there. Not to say that the concept of single-time counters was alien at the time, but the principles of the system are represented in two times.

The text says that this is "arguably" the same effect as what we see in Versetzen or Vadi's volarica. He also specifically says that they are not indicated by Fiore as such, but that it can be interpreted and applied that way. Is this not interpretive disagreement? And how does it evidence Mr. Clements not having read Fiore “at all?”

Page 28, second paragraph describes a defense without stepping as the opponent charges in, I wish there was a reference for this since I can't think of what the author means with this. Anyone?

Well, there is a reference to Vadi's version and Paulus Hector Mair’s version at the bottom of the page. The move is quite common in martial arts styles. I don't know what other martial arts background you have, but most Asian arts have a shift from some kind of square horse to some kind of front stance, and using that turn, or the turn back, to generate power and reach. Hopefully that sounds familiar to you. Same thing occurs in boxing. I believe that's what he means, except with the sword in hand.

However, this is again not an error--a question, something you found unclear, but not an error. I’ll admit the reference seemed clear to me, but I don’t have a problem with your finding it unclear. However , it’s not an error.

Page 29, last paragraph renders a better description of the structure of the treatise - a little bit of editing would instantly have bettered the whole article by placing this on the top, where the description fails to convey the structure.

I have to strongly disagree with the inclusion of this point on your list. Again, this is a post in which you are referencing supposedly massive factual errors evidencing Mr. Clements "not having read the treatise at all." This point, however, is a disagreement with structural choices in his writing style. Maybe true, maybe not, but clearly not an error, and not evidence of what you believe is faulty in the essay. The discussion at hand isn’t about Mr. Clements improving his writing style, but that he never read Fiore and doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Now, if you instead meant this only as a helpful suggestion, then I misunderstand you and don’t find issue with it—except to note that you probably should have set it aside as a different kind of comment.

page 31, paragraph 2 compares parry and riposte to cover and hit, but I would say both are describing the same thing. Principally Fiore does a cover, and then a strike. FIore does mention countercuts and counterthrusts textually, but does not necessarily emphasize them. I am not saying Fiore's art is theatrical swordplay, but a cover and then a strike is two times, even if done fluidly and quickly.

Well, this sure sounds like a difference in interpretation to me. Again, this is not a factual error caused by ignorance.

In conclusion, I don't see convincing evidence of your claim to have found vast numbers of errors. A small handful of your comments I did not speak to, because I did not feel competent to do so. However, many of the comments I did speak to do not represent errors at all, but differences in opinion, whether on writing style, essay structure, or the emphasis and priority given to certain ideas over others. Additionally, in many cases I feel you misunderstood the objective of a given section in Mr. Clements’ work, but either way, to say that these are factual errors is just plain wrong. Furthermore, in at least one case, relating to the presence of Latin verse in the Pisani-Dossi manual, you were simply incorrect.

At the end of the post, you imply as well that the article is misleading, which I also strenuously disagree with. Omission of concepts based on scope of the work is evident, nothing more. Also, again, I must re-emphasize the point that to claim that Mr. Clements attempted a work of this type without having read Fiore is beyond the pale and frankly unfair.

I am, however, happy to continue this discussion. Though I do disagree with you, I still appreciate the time you put into backing up your opinions, and I still regard you and your group with respect.

Jason

[Jaron Bernstein]

I am far from a Fiore expert. I have read the Getty and P-D versions and we use some material from it, but not to the degree needed to speak here with authority, and am thus hesitant to get into specifics of this discussion. I would however like to compliment the exchange between Ilka and Mr. Taylor on the critique of the Fiore article. It stays away from the ad hominem and hews to why we are here....to revive these arts as accurately as possible from the source texts.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

There was mention earlier of the “general silence” about Ilkka’s comments on the Fiore article he references. This “general silence” was implied to mean “we have nothing to say.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Many other scholars on this board with an understanding of Fiore might be able to approach this topic, but I doubt any of them would approach it without taking the time to first read carefully the comments, the essay, and, if possible, the source material in question.

Some of that, in all truth, may have something to do with some of the tone I set in this thread. No doubt, I have crossed over the line once or twice, as all too often happens with me when I am passionate about something. So, sincere apologies, gentlemen. I still think I'm right, of course.

Excellent post, BTW, Jason.

-B.

[Randall Pleasant]

I don't post on SFI, but I lurk there and know that if someone there said something comparable about ARMA, he would be publicly reprimanded by a moderator. I know that because it has happened.

ROFLMAO!

Matt

One of those clam voices of reason in that thread has for a couple of years been a major source of vandalizism of ARMA related materials across the Internet. For several months I had to clean up his mess almost every day. You clearly need to lurk longer and deeper before you attempt to enlighten me.