From duel to fencing

[Mark W.]

Yup, waiting with baited breath.

-Mark

[striker]

I just recently found out that our friend Gary Worsfield is a fight choreographer who did the recent version of Peter Pan. This disheartens me even further because people hire him on the grounds that he is knowledgable about swords and swordplay. This keeps getting worse and worse...

AllenJ,

Have you seen the swordplay scene in the Peter Pan movie ? What is in
the scene that you find objectionable ? When historical and sports fencers
look at a swordplay sequence, they usually are more critical than others.
However, knowing all the minute details of historical swordmanship for
a choreographer only becomes an issue when he has to deal with
period movies such as Kingdom of Heaven. Hollywood sometimes relaxes
the requirements when they are dealing with works of fiction
(a children's story to be exact) such as Peter Pan.

I looked at a short cut of the swordplay scene in that movie and it was
not bad at all. If Mr. Worsfield choreographed that scene then he was
qualified in the eyes of the director. He probably had the following hard
requirements:

* Knows fencing.
* Knows how to train actors who know nothing about fencing.
* Has a track record of working as a fight choreographer in the theater or
the movies.
* Is easy to work with and stays true to the director's vision.
* Can put "entertaining" swordplay sequences together.
* Can keep the actors safe during the practice and
filming sessions.
* Can stay on time and on budget.
* etc. etc.

In the eye of the director, Mr. Worsfield was qualified on all accounts.
Mr. Worsfield's knowledge about certain periods of swordmanship maybe
less than what it needs to be, but at least he knows fencing. It could
have been worse. The fellow who did the choreography for the last
Star Wars movie started his career in a circus !! Not coming from a pure
historical swordmanship background does not automatically disqualify
a person from becoming a well respected fight director. As a matter
of fact some of the top fight directors in the movie industry started off as sports fencers.

p.s. I am still reading your series of articles on historical swordmanship. I find them highly informative.

[AllenJ]

Good points Striker,
I wasn't objecting to anything in the film itself but more that he is in a position where if someone asked about historical fencing he would probably be considered a credible source. Interestingly enough, I got my degree in filmmaking. In addition to acting and screenwriting, I have had the good fortune to be hired to do the fight choreography for a few independent films. So I certainly understand the different challenges that a fight director can encounter. I feel strongly though that you have to know the rules before you break them That and accurate swordplay is not boring if done right. But beyond the scope of that, I'm just critiquing the article here and not his work as a fight choreographer.

[AllenJ]

Part 9
Mr. Worsfield’s biased and unsupported opinion of swordplay being uncivilized and brutish before the rapier and scientific and refined after, continues. He mentions Henry VIII and his Letters patent to establish the London Masters of Defence. This is correct but Mr. Worsfield is incorrect in his assumption that there were not respectable fencing masters before this. He states, “…it was not until around the mid-sixteenth century that such an occupation was officially recognized.” From just the account of Fiore’s experiences above in Part 8 we can see this is false. There was already a strong tradition of masters, students and instruction. He goes on to state that, “The London masters taught the traditional English weapons, in particular the sword and buckler.” This is true, but it gives the wrong impression that this was an English thing- and that is far from the case. There is a strong tradition in almost every European culture we have record of, for sword and buckler use. In fact, the oldest fencing manual we have available (late 13th Century) is a manual on just sword and buckler.
http://freywild.ch/i33/i33en.html
http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/i33/i33.htm
For further information on the lengthy tradition of sword and buckler fighting- look to these articles- they are far better and well researched than anything I could ever expound on.
http://www.thearma.org/essays/SwordandBuckler.htm
http://www.thearma.org/essays/SwordandBucklerP2.htm
http://www.thearma.org/essays/SwordandBucklerP3.htm
http://www.thearma.org/essays/SwordandBucklerP4.htm
http://www.thearma.org/essays/LeignitzerSandB.htm
These contain a wealth of information on sword and buckler fighting and clearly explain why it is one of the longest running methods of defense on record. In short, it was taught and trained in far before Henry VIII and the London Master of Defence.
Next Mr. Worsfield claims, “It was considered important at that time, for a gentleman to visit Italy as a part of his education.” I can not comment on this further as I have no idea where this claim comes from. I have not seen this to be the case nor does Mr. Worsfield have the documentation to back it up. If the London Masters of Defence were in full swing, why would he need to go to Italy? Why would anyone? He goes on by saying, “He would inevitably return to England acquainted not only with the rapier and it's use, but also with the theories of Agrippa and Grassi concerning the superiority of the thrust over the cut.” Mr. Worsfield is again operating on debunked 19th century prejudice in claiming that the thrust is some how more “superior” than the cut. What he and most people are unaware of is that many different types of swords were in use at a single point in time. Many swords are hybrids, combining the best of both cutting and thrusting. People were not all fighting with ‘heavy, brutish’ longswords one day until some enlightened Italian smith wakes up and decides he’s going to make all his swords slender and for thrusting only. There is a gradual evolution based off what a particular weapon is needed to do. As mentioned before, the rapier was not used on the battlefield. It’s use was almost exclusively as a civilian sidearm. Even then there are many types of rapiers, many that are very capable of cutting as well as thrusting. Neither being superior, just a different technique of use. Look at these examples:
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...album=18&pos=0
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...album=18&pos=6
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...lbum=18&pos=11
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...lbum=18&pos=27
above: note the wider blade suitable for cutting
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...lbum=18&pos=31
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...lbum=18&pos=56
If it was true that it was found that the thrust and consequently the rapier was superior to the cut and wider bladed swords then why do we see more wide bladed broadswords and sabers during the time the rapier was in use and even into the 18th century after the rapier had fallen out of use?
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...lbum=19&pos=35
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...lbum=19&pos=49
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...lbum=19&pos=60
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...lbum=19&pos=80
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...lbum=19&pos=87
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...lbum=19&pos=95
Bottom line is that Mr. Worsfield’s claim is inaccurate. For more reading on this myth of thrusting swords being more superior to cutting swords look here: http://www.thearma.org/essays/thrusting_vs_cutting.html

[VELISARIOS]

Me too.

[RoninX]

Next Mr. Worsfield claims, “It was considered important at that time, for a gentleman to visit Italy as a part of his education.” I can not comment on this further as I have no idea where this claim comes from. I have not seen this to be the case nor does Mr. Worsfield have the documentation to back it up.

Hmm... while it is hard to tell for sure the time period he is referencing the continental tour for young gentlemen (and ladies) was a well documented among of the english nobility from the renaissance forward stunted though not staunched by wars and continental unrest. However, this truly peaked as a fad during the 18th century following the cresting of the "enlightenment" movement. It involved seeing France and Italy, art and architecture, attending scientific lectures, and practicing french, latin, and greek were all part of many a young aristocrats "finishing". This is well documented - however, while the above is well documented, training at arms, while probably not unheard of was not part of the standard "curriculum" as I have seen it referenced. Moreover, it is unclear (and unlikely) that the peak of this movement is actually the time period that the author is refering to, because as usual his timeline is more than a little fuzzy.

[AllenJ]

that would be interesting to see some documentation on- got any sources? The other part being that there were countless others trained in use of the rapier (or other weapons) who did not need to go to Italy to learn it. The whole Italy is the cradle of martial knowledge idea is really silly.

[RoninX]

that would be interesting to see some documentation on- got any sources? The other part being that there were countless others trained in use of the rapier (or other weapons) who did not need to go to Italy to learn it. The whole Italy is the cradle of martial knowledge idea is really silly.

The continental tour is referred to as "The Grand Tour", a quick google search of "the grand tour enlightenment" (not in quotes when searching). Reveals many books and articles. As I said, it peaked in popularity during the second half of the 1800s. By no means did I mean to imply that the reason for the "Grand Tour" were martial in nature, rather that some diaries included accounts of such lessons in both France and Italy, which from my recollection were novelties (at least in the accounts I saw). I do not have links or names at the moment (I'm at work - and a cursory search doesn't bring up anything I recognize off the top of my head). However, I am sure more dilligent searching can turn a few things up.

Again italy was included in the 'grand tour' not for martial reasons by and large.

[VELISARIOS]

I agree with most of you. Gentlemans do not go to Italy to be full educated but it was 'must' to go to Rome and Paris for other matters.
My objection with you is about the thrust technicks. Yes thrusts had superiority in cuts. Anthropologists and archaologists tell that the leathal blow were the thrust in warfare. Many humman skeletons which found in tombs or at forgotten battlefields were dead from thrusting attacks.And Italian schools claim the secret of lunge for years.

The other major objection with you is the about rapier. Rapier was in use in battlefield around 1500. You can see this in the Battle of Nafpactos (Battle of Lepanto as it is known in West) which did at 1571. All soldiers of Venetian army and Spanish army were used rapiers (but my theory is that they use this weapons in this battle because they fought Turks and they were in light or no armor) Rapier was not the elegand weapon which all imagine at start. It was a weapon which first used for cuts and some thrust technicks only at the head of the oponend or at the 'open' sides of plate armors.
Near the end of 16th century the rapier became the dueling sword and not sword used in combat. After that period yes it became the dueling sword.

'The word "rapier" is thought to have come from a Spanish term, espada ropera or "sword of the robes"--hence, a dress sword or one associated with civilian rather than military clothing. It also may be traced to a French document of 1474 that makes reference to the epée rapière. Whatever its origin, the term was in common usage by the late 15th century.

By the late 1500s, the rapier had undergone a subtle alteration. The open space in the rings of the large anneau were often filled in with decorative grillwork or shells--a design known as the Pappenheimer, named after German General Gottfried Heinrich Graf zu Pappenheim. This weapon often had a rather wide blade, since it evolved partially as a military sword.'

You can see the following link:
http://www.thehistorynet.com/mh/bl-rapier/

Now about this question have you said:
'If it was true that it was found that the thrust and consequently the rapier was superior to the cut and wider bladed swords then why do we see more wide bladed broadswords and sabers during the time the rapier was in use and even into the 18th century after the rapier had fallen out of use?'

The sabre as sword was a cavarly sword. The thrust techniks for sabre attacks is useless or if no useless uncommon in battlefield for many matters. The cavarly charge hit the oponent with the lance and then when the lance is not in use thecavarly get their sword and fight with it 'from higher ground' from the horse. So the sabre this one edged sword it was made only for this to crush the oponent from above the thrusting technics were uncommon.
The broad swords were not common at 18th century. Those weapons used only from English after the revolution of rapier you can read the George Silver book 'Paradoxes of Defence' for this, he explain why.But he offence rapier and he hates this sword.
About the last link of ARMA. Yes sabre was superior weapon for cavarly not for footman. The author of the article forget that the Roman sword and the ancient Greek sword. This warriors used this weapon 90% for thrusts and not for cutts when their lances broke or lost it. He said about Kopesh but kopesh is not Greek weapon but Aegyptian. And Aegyptians has other tactics of war. They used this sword to strike other type of armies.
About katana. Yes it is a great cutting weapon but most techniks of katana are thrusts.
The Chinies broad sword the dao is like a scimitar it is a powerfull weapon of cutting attacks used from all the soldiers of Chinies empire but there were also the Chinies elegand long sword a weapon of the northen reacheas of the empire yhis weapon has cuting technicks only 10%, all the other are thrusts.

[AllenJ]

I still can not agree that the thrust has any superiority over the cut. If someone cuts 50% into your head- you are done. If someone thrusts you through the eye- you are done. A cut into the torso will end you day just as soon as a thrust will. Bottom line is that they are both effective. These people who developed these weapons and spent lifetimes training with them were not idiots. They understood what worked and what didn’t. There is no room for excess in battle. If the thrust was indeed better than the cut then why did swords ever have edges?

We are running into problems again with the term “rapier”. Many feel that any single handed weapon with a complex hilt is a “rapier”. This is really too broad a term. There are cut & thrust swords, sideswords, backswords, rapiers, spadroons, sabers, broadswords, smallswords, ect. all being used in about a 100 year period. Yes the earlier “rapiers” had much wider blades and were very capable of thrusting & cutting. They did see battlefield use because they were more durable and were more versatile. Here are some of these types:
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...bum=18&pos=201
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...bum=18&pos=248
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...bum=18&pos=262
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...bum=18&pos=294
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...bum=18&pos=307
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...bum=18&pos=350
Those weapons are not nearly as limited in use as to what some call “true rapiers” that are thrust only in use:
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...bum=18&pos=346
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...bum=18&pos=354
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...bum=18&pos=226
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...bum=18&pos=206
If some one tried to cut with one of these, of course it would be ineffective. Use the right tool for the right job!

Also do not confuse rapiers with sideswords (sometimes referred to as riding swords) and backswords.
Sideswords:
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...lbum=15&pos=17
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...bum=18&pos=263
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...bum=18&pos=264
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...bum=18&pos=315
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...bum=18&pos=316
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...bum=18&pos=318
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...bum=18&pos=337
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...bum=18&pos=336

These weapons are very capable of both the thrust and the cut and are seen on the battlefield. These are the “rapiers” of the 15th century- the ‘espada ropera’s referred to. There are no accounts of the slender, thrust only rapiers being used on the battlefield.

I have read George Silver several times and his advice is second to none. He is very critical about the rapier (at this time it’s the more slender thrust only kind) and for good reason. They are useless in battle. The true fight must make use of the cut and the thrust. He also finds them less useful in duels. Quite frankly I’d rather take the advice of a master of the time period rather than our modern “reasoning” that has no real life experience. Though in years of bouting with rapiers, cut & thrust blades, broadswords ect. I find that his advice is sound in that it is better to have a weapon capable of thrusting and cutting. Does that make the thrust or the rapier inferior? No, just not as versatile.

Many people are mistaken that the saber is for use on horseback only. There are just as many accounts and instructions to use the saber on foot as well as horseback.
http://www.thearma.org/pdf/Hungarian...Broadsword.pdf
The curved sword was around for a very long time and was never limited to just a cavalry weapon. Also there is just as many accounts and documents showing mounted troops using straight blades as well as curved. Probably more so, actually. Oh, and remember that SWORDS ARE SHARP! They do not crush- they cut and thrust. Hammers and maces crush.

George Silver wrote in 1598. To use him as a source for 18th century information does not work. They were using different weapons, and different tactics. The face of the modern army changed dramatically between the 16th and 18th centuries. Broadswords, sabers and other wide bladed weapons were VERY common in the 18th century. In fact, no other types of swords are really being used at this point other than the smallsword – but these were not on the battlefield. There are dozens of historical texts from the 1700’s that talk about techniques to use with broadsword, spadroon and smallsword- all in the same book. We have thousands of antique weapons from this time period and they are certainly capable of cuts as well as thrusts. If the thrust was really the superior tactic that is supposed by some, then they certainly would have used it exclusively by this time. With thousands of years of sword use behind them, I think they knew what worked well and what didn’t.

I wont comment on the Asian stuff because I’ve done little to no research in that area and don’t wish to make statements on things I haven’t studied.

[AllenJ]

ps- the guy that wrote that atricle on thehistorynet.com website is Braun McAsh. I'm 90% sure he's the one that did the fight choreography for the Highlander TV series. If so then I'd have a hard time trusting him on info for the use of the rapier after seeing some of those horrible Ritchie fights.

[AllenJ]

The continental tour is referred to as "The Grand Tour", a quick google search of "the grand tour enlightenment" (not in quotes when searching). Reveals many books and articles. As I said, it peaked in popularity during the second half of the 1800s. By no means did I mean to imply that the reason for the "Grand Tour" were martial in nature, rather that some diaries included accounts of such lessons in both France and Italy, which from my recollection were novelties (at least in the accounts I saw). I do not have links or names at the moment (I'm at work - and a cursory search doesn't bring up anything I recognize off the top of my head). However, I am sure more dilligent searching can turn a few things up.

Again italy was included in the 'grand tour' not for martial reasons by and large.

OK that makes more sense. Looks like they are just doing a study abroad and while they are there, may as well keep up on sword training. Not the purpose for going. Thanks.

[Mark W.]

My objection with you is about the thrust technicks. Yes thrusts had superiority in cuts. Anthropologists and archaologists tell that the leathal blow were the thrust in warfare. Many humman skeletons which found in tombs or at forgotten battlefields were dead from thrusting attacks.And Italian schools claim the secret of lunge for years.

There are also many skeletons showing lethal damage from cuts. The superiority of thrust over cut is a myth, IMO. It comes down to using the best technique available to you at the moment, cut or thrust. Now, it IS true that a thrust generally needs less force/penetration to be lethal (eventually). The advantage of the cut over thrust is its stopping power. A cut from a longsword to virtually any part of the body will incapacitate an opponent, or shock him enough that you have time for the killing attack. As a swordsman, I don't really care if my opponent is dead or unconscious or merely maimed, staring at his wound in disbgelief. I just want him out of the fight and at my mercy. Run someone through with a rapier, and there's a reasonable chance that he'll live long enough to take you with him. Take off a longswordsman's hand, and he might live if he gets help right away, but he's certainly no longer a threat.

[AllenJ]

Very true Mark W- in fact George Silver makes several comments on how rapier fencers tends to run up on each others blades and both die.
From 'Paradoxes of Defence'
..."two captains at Southhampton even as they were going to take shipping upon the key, fell at strife, drew their rapiers, and presently, being desperate, hardy or resolute, as they call it, with all force and over great speed, ran with their rapiers one at the other, & were both slain."

[RoninX]

Very true Mark W- in fact George Silver makes several comments on how rapier fencers tends to run up on each others blades and both die.
From 'Paradoxes of Defence'
..."two captains at Southhampton even as they were going to take shipping upon the key, fell at strife, drew their rapiers, and presently, being desperate, hardy or resolute, as they call it, with all force and over great speed, ran with their rapiers one at the other, & were both slain."

Just be careful how you interpret this quote - particularly the "ran with their rapiers one at the other, & were both slain."

It seems that they ran at each other to engage in combat resulting from their "strife", however authors of this period rarely go into descriptive details they did not have (the details of the cut and thrust of the fight in this instance) and I would hestitate to imagine that they actually ran onto each other's swords. Rather that the end result of the conflict was was that both were slain (whether the confrontation epic or brief is simply not commented on).

Just a clarification for those of us not used to reading this type of document.

It would not surprise me at all for this to be a more common ending to a rapier duel, as thus be worth commenting on. Thanks for bringing it to our attention AllenJ.

[AllenJ]

yes- I meant to suggest that it is more common to hear of both combatants dying in rapier duels than in others that use cutting attacks. I agree that they literally didnt charge headlong into each others tips.

[Mark W.]

yes- I meant to suggest that it is more common to hear of both combatants dying in rapier duels than in others that use cutting attacks. I agree that they literally didnt charge headlong into each others tips.

It depends on the skill of the rapierists as well. In my own rapier fencing, double "impalements" do happen, albeit rarely. It almost never happens in my longsword fencing.

-Mark

[AllenJ]

My experiences are very similar. Same with sword and buckler, broadsword, dagger ect. There is almost always a very clear understanding of who hit who and where. It's so liberating to never worry about right of way, lights or arguing with judges!

[AllenJ]

Part 10
Mr. Worsfield falls into another common misconception when he states, “It was around 1576 that the Italian Master Rocco Bonetti, opened a school in Blackfriars, for the teaching of the newly introduced rapier.” There is a fantastic article that reveals research that this is not the case. It is contained in the book SPADA 2 and is written by Linda Carlyle McCollum. Available for purchase here: http://www.revival.us/index.asp?Page...ROD&ProdID=251
From the article:
“It has been continually assumed that Bonetti, Saviolo and Jeronimo, had a fencing school in Blackfriars, where they taught the Italian style of fencing. An examination of the extant documentary evidence on the Blackfriars precinct shows the Bonetti did indeed occupy Blackfriars from approximately 1584 to his death in 1587, but no evidence exists to show either Saviolo or Jeronimo owning a fencing school in the Blackfriars precinct. During the time that Bonetti occupied Blackfriars he was remodeling the premises, being sued by the landlord, appealing for an extension on his lease, and incarcerated in prison….While Bonetti may have been teaching fencing after his arrival in England, he clearly was not teaching at London’s Blackfriars. Legal records of this time show a William Joyner, a member of the Masters of the Noble Science of Defence, or one of his assigned, having the only fencing school in the Blackfriars precinct.”

Again with only a little research, Mr. Worsfield could have easily caught this error.

(As a side note- this article along with a few others contained in SPADA 2 are very well done and are well worth the purchase of the book. Other noteworthy articles appearing in there are “Finding the Sword or Stringere” by Tommaso Leoni, “Italian Circle Theory” by Gary Chelak, “The Words Claymore and Broadsword” by Paul Wagner & Christopher Thompson, and “The Forgotten Weapon: The Partisan in Italy in the Sixteenth & Seventeenth Centuries” by Tommaso Leoni)

Mr. Worsfield starts to include things that really don’t pertain to the article. He comments how Shakespeare was 12 around this time and makes the claim that his plays contained “some of the most spectacular fighting scenes of any Elizabethan play.” Quite how he qualifies this, I don’t know. The plays just say “they fight” in the text. How that translates to “spectacular fight scenes” I don’t know either. Surely they had performers who knew what they were doing because instruction was easily available. But there is no reason to assume this was exclusive to Shakespeare and not to other contemporary playwrights.

[Inquartata]

Indeed not, since the audiences of the era would have been many of them quite familiar with proper swordplay, either as practitioners or spectators, and probably would not have sat still for amateurish or stilted fight scenes.