sword question -

[Dorian Lasseter]

Aye Foxe,

Ye opened a fine can o' worms fer yerself....

I have a book with three masters in it, Degrassi, Saviolo, and Silver...

I wonder if what I have is a condensed version, and would also be honoured if ye could email a copy of what you have on DeGrassi

[Fox]

If lots of people are going to want them then I think the best thing I can do is to stick 'em on the web and let folks download them. Might take me a day or two, but I'll try to get it done this week then post the link here.

That OK with you chaps?

[Captain Jim]

Aye, that be fine wi' me. An' thankee kindly.

[blackjohn]

Is this it?

Or this?

[Fox]

Well that was quick of me!

You can get Di Grassi Here

I'll try to get the Paradoxes up soon.

[Dorian Lasseter]

Most excellent...

Thankee Kindly....

[Hawkyns]

I'm on the SCA's Livre de Combat list, basically a list for those of us in the Society who want to see more historic combat and less modern tournament styles.

Recently, I posed a question there and it seems that the same question is relevant here.

Much of the Western Martial Arts study focuses on the fencing manuals such as those listed here. It is my contention that they (and the masters that wrote them) would be available to perhaps 10% of the sword carrying populace. Nobility, more important military types, the Schools of Defence and the upper middle class like the members of the Artillery Garden might study these, but how about the rest? Would a Carlyle reiver, a Yorkshire mercenary, a Fleming soldier, one of Drake's sea dogs or a London bodyguard have had much or any formal training?

By studying the manuals and working on the formal styles, are we only dealing with the cream of society and ignoring the brawlers that were more common? Is style more importatn than function? How much training was given to the base rank and file?

Hawkyns

[blackjohn]

By studying the manuals and working on the formal styles, are we only dealing with the cream of society and ignoring the brawlers that were more common?

Yes. I suspect so. Just like today, learning to fight requires time and money. Most of us don't have enough of one or the other. I believe the same can be said for the commoner of the period.

I seem to recall we discussed this on the Pirate Brethren mail list not too long ago. And I believe someone had some data about the training of sailors in the use of melee weapons. I'll do a search (though searching yahoogroups is a painful task) there when I get a chance.

[Fox]

If I wasn't so lazy I'd go through Silver's Paradoxes of Defence to find the quote, but for now I'll paraphrase. He says something like "Italian fencing is all very well and looks good at court, but the Italians are shit soldiers and fencing never won a fight. In an actual fight what you want to do is..."

OK, so the question stands, how many people would have read Silver's book? but it does show that the thought is not just a modern one.

[Captain Jim]

Aye, forms and style are pretty, an' iffen thar be a judge about ta score things, that be allright. But...I be doin' ring work when I be a bit younger, an' I can tell ye, outside o' the ring, thar ain't no such thing as a fair fight. Damn few inside the ring fer that matter. When a real fight breaks out, training helps but determination an' fightin' dirty wins.

[Captain Jim]

That an' practice, practice, practice...lots o' sparrin' wi' someone ye trust not ta kill ye, but who won't hold back.