A historical examination of English fencing compared to other Continental fencing traditions as well as what makes the English fight unique.
There are several techniques in Ledall MS which are comparable to what we see in the German Kunst de Fechten tradition. It is easy to dismiss the similarities as being a simple issue of body mechanics - i.e., 'the human body can only move in a limited range of mobility which is why techniques are so similar across the board.' I don't doubt this obvious truth but it neglects an important historical detail. Yohannes Liechtenauer was the well-spring of the German tradition (there were other contemporaneous masters mentioned in the sources but their teachings haven't survived and were less influential) and Liechtenauer's tradition lasted for nearly 250 years. It was from the lineage of Liechtenauer that a later influential teacher, namely Hans Talhoffer, would rise and contribute significantly to the German martial arts arena - it is believed that he was partially responsible for the founding of the Marxbruder Society which was a fencing society that would come to dominate for several decades. In 1514, the Emperor Maximillian gave the Marxbruder's and Federfechter's special privilege to promote and teach the Liechtenauer tradition throughout the entire Holy Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire consisted of Central Europe which included the countries along England's eastern border. England and the Holy Roman Empire were close allies for some time due to their mutual disdain for France (this didn't last though). The interaction between the Holy Roman Empire and England was open and mutually beneficial. During this period the majority of fencing academies in the Holy Roman Empire were in the lineage of Liechtenauer and the English 'Schools of Defense' would have been substantially influenced by the German fencing tradition and also the German academies would have been influenced by the English schools. The Ledall MS was composed during the same period that the KDF of the Holy Roman Empire would have been at their greatest influence so it is noteworthy to consider some of the similarities of the two schools of thought.
In the great work entitled: 'Late Medieval and Early Modern Fight Books: Transmission and Tradition of Martial Arts in Europe (14th-17th Centuries)' it states on page 413;
"When considering the medieval English material, while most of the terminology seems English, there is clear evidence of continental influence. Where Ledall has the 'down rytht stroke,' the same term used by Silver, Harleian MS 3542 uses the term 'hauke' as a general term for all sorts of blows from all angles. It is likely to be derived from- or a pun on- the Germanic 'hau,' meaning 'blow,' and the 'cross hauke,' specifically described with the arms are crossed in the performance of the cut (Smyte an hauke cros. cros our ye elbovys wt a bak stop) is linguistically equivalent of the German krumphau, a descending blow usually aimed at the opponents wrists or sword, in which the arms are crossed." (end quote)
On pg. 415 it continues;
"There are other examples; the aforementioned combination of 'rabbet' and 'downright stroke,' cutting rapidly up and down from the right shoulder to the left hip and back, is called 'weed hoe' by Dobringer and also recommended by Vadi."
There does seems to be some Italian influence on the English tradition as well as the previous author mentions Vadi and specifically references his saggitaria and Fiori's posta bicorna - interestingly Italy was also part of the Holy Roman Empire.
While the English system of fence bears similarities to other continental fencing styles it could be that the German and Italian fencing schools likewise adapted techniques from the English Masters as well. We do know that Johannes Liechtenauer himself didn't learn his art strictly within the context of German tradition nor did he devise his skills on his own. A biographical note of Liechtenauer states:
"Master Liechtenauer learnt and mastered [the art of the sword] in a thorough and rightful way, but he did not invent it or make it up himself, as it is stated before. Instead, he travelled across and visited many lands for the sake of this rightful and true art, as he wanted to study and know it." (GNM Hs. 3227a)
The well-spring of the Italian fencing tradition, Fiore dei Liberi (14th century), states himself in his master treatise "Flower of Battle" that he also developed his system from studying with countless masters from other countries, in particular he ascribes his art from his studies from the masters of Germany and the Holy Roman Empire:
"…all of which knowledge, God granting, I acquired from the numerous lessons and teachings of Italian and German expert teachers, and mostly from master John, called Suvenus, who was a student of master Nicholas of Toblem in the Mexinensian diocese, and also from several princes, margraves and counts and from other countless and diverse places and provinces." (Cvet, David M. "A Brief Examination of Fiore dei Liberi's Treatises Flos Duellatorum & Fior di Battaglia")
If the English fencing schools were utilizing techniques found in German Liechtenauer schools and some from the Fiori schools and the latter schools were utilizing techniques from the English academies then we should inquire as to whether there is a distinctive English tradition that is consistent and distinct from their continental counter-parts. I believe there is... for example, both Harley and Ledall are comparable in their techniques, use of flourishes, and in their lay out; this similarity carries over into later English texts such as the later Broadsword treatise. Further, the principles of defense as outlined by George Silver apply to the older texts as well as the later texts of English swordmanship as Swetnam also lists these principles. The English longsword tradition contains similar techniques as can be found in other foreign fight books - there is nothing new here. What is unique is the systematic presentation of these techniques and their adaption to a particular system of tactical engagement.
Foundation of England's Tactical Principles
Academies of Fencing abound throughout Continental Europe throughout the Middle Ages and this popularity of the science of the noble arts of defense was likewise incredibly popular throughout England.
"In everie towne there is not only Maisters to teach, with his Provostes, Usshers, Scholars and other names of Arte and Schole, but there hath not fayled also which have diligently and well favourably written, and set oute in printe that everye man may read them." (Roger Ascham 1545)
The whole of England "in every town" had fencing academies and instructors with the exception of the city of London wherein Edward I (1272-1307) banned the "schools of fence" from operating within city limits and from instructors to likewise teach within city limits on pain of imprisonment and in some cases death. We know that London was a violent city and recent evidence suggests that London was the most violent city in all of England.
Archaeologist Kathryn Krakowka at the University of Oxford analyzed 399 skulls from six London cemeteries dating from AD 1050 to 1550. She found that 20.1 percent of individuals had cranial fractures likely leading to death whereas other English cities such as York only had between 2.4 to 3.6 percent of fractured skulls. There are a great many contemporaneous sources which discuss the great and excessive violence in London. One such source is from Sir John Fortescue who stated:
"Here be more men hanged in England in a year for robbery and manslaughter than there be hanged in France for such crimes in seven years."
London was a city of considerable wealth with a defined upper class, middle class and a lower class. The lower class was particularly violent and it has been said that gangs bearing sword & buckler roamed the streets. London's city of merchants, ports and trade brought great wealth into this city but likewise presented opportunity for crime. It is likely that the when Edward I banned schools of fencing from the city of London he did so as a means to subvert violent crime in the city.
"Also, foreasmuch as Fools who delight in Mischeif, do learn to fence with Buckler, and thereby are the more encouraged to commit their follies, it is provided and enjoined that none shall keep school or teach the Arte of Fencing with Buckler, within the City, by Night or Day, and if any do so, he shall be imprisoned for Forty Days." (Statutes of the Realm)
This is akin to modern attempt at gun-control and while all such attempts at legislation aimed at curbing violence may have just cause, history has shown that such attempts always fail. This was the case in London as the edict merely forced the fencing schools to teach in a more clandestine manner.
It wasn't until the reign of Henry VIII that the ban upon fencing academies within the City of London was abolished and King Henry further established a regulatory body known as the Company of Maisters of the Science of Defence. The Company of Maisters oversaw the fencing academies, provided rule sets, provisions for rank, collected dues, and overall codified the English fencing tradition. It was under this Company of Maisters that fencing academies flourished in England and particularly in London:
"In (London) there be many professors… very skillful men in teaching the best and most offensive and defensive use of very many weapons, as of the longsword, the backe sword… the sword and buckler or targate… King Henry VIII made the professors of this art a company or a corporation by Letters Patent, wherein the Art is intituled the noble Science of Defence." (Sir George Buck)
The Company of Maisters of the Science of Defence delineated the tactical principles of the English martial art system. These tactical principles were not a new innovation but part of the English martial tradition that the Company of Maisters codified. In understanding the tactical principles of the English system of fencing we must turn to the champion of the English martial tradition – George Silver. Silver was not a member of the Company of Maisters, however, in his book 'Paradoxes of Defence' he claims to know their fencing theory that they taught and to have a mastery of all weapons.
It is noteworthy to consider that the lives of George Silver and John Ledall overlap, albeit John Ledall was two generations older than Silver, it is conceivable that they knew one another since both were of similar social status and both were important personalities of the English martial tradition. Regardless of whether the two men interacted directly they were both part of a shared English heritage and would have both been aware of the same tactical principles that George Silver specifies in his works whilst John Ledall only indirectly implies. It is in this context that Silver and Ledall make the perfect union in the quest to understand the English longsword system.
George Silver seems to have written his work Paradoxes of Defence out of a perceived necessity to defend and promote the English system of martial arts for he lived in a time wherein continental swordplay was being introduced in England as a new fashionable trend. In particular to this trend was the Italian rapier teachers who had a fencing style perceived by Silver to be akin to nothing more than an art of dancing duelists, in contemporary terms we may consider this a dance off, who were a danger both to themselves and to their students. The Italian rapierists would teach a young scholar a few lessons of the rapier and subsequently the young student would go out and die in duel and often times the principles of the Italian rapier resulted in double-death wherein both opponents would run each-other through. Consequently, George Silver spends a considerable amount of time in his book discussing the deficiencies of the Italians fighting style (Bolognese), he recounts his many challenges to famous Italian fencing masters and defends the history of the English masters: "our ancestors were wise, yet our age accounts them foolish." George Silver wrote his treatise, not as a xenophobic attack on Italians, rather as a stinging rebuke of an inferior "fad" fencing system which was dominated by poor instructors and as a defense of the principles of English fighting which had been proven over centuries of warfare. Contrary to Silvers critics he did not criticize Italian fencing for being Italian but he specified his criticisms against their system and utilized a scientific rational to explain his principles; for example, Silver argues that the rapier is an imperfect design for a weapon, is not built for proper cutting, it is too long, etc.
George Silver codified all of the principles of the English fighting system from the earliest of his medieval ancestors through to his own time which was the dawn of the Renaissance. All English fencing masters continued to follow these principles and specifically refer back to the two works of George Silver: Paradoxes of Defence and Brief Instructions. These principles which have been the mainstay of the English martial tradition for most of its history will continue to be the distinctiveness of the English system in modern times and this present work concerning the English longsword will continue to build upon these fundamental principles.
Silver's Principles
It is within George Silver's treatise, Paradoxes of Defence, which we find the concepts of the English fight enumerated, such as the True and False Times, Grounds & Governors, and Gaining the Place. George Silver presents these tactical considerations as a noble science and uses the scientific jargon of his day to explain them. The premise is that by correctly utilizing these principles in any fight with any weapon one can acquire a repeatable set of skills which can come to be relied upon no matter the context of the confrontation; be it a duel, bar room brawl or on the battle field.
Silver provides a hierarchy of principles which are far more important than technique for it is with the application of proper principles that proper technique can be performed and not the other way around. The hierarchical principles give us the basis of an effective strategy. The principles themselves are simple but their proper application makes one's techniques more effective.
1.) True & False Times
George Silver's delineates a hierarchy of "times" – within which there are four true times and four false times. When properly understood and applied, the principle of True and False Times applied to any technique will allow for more efficient movement, with greater speed and power. You'll get hit less and hit your opponent more often. The four True Times are broken down as follows…
True Times
* Time of the Hand- The hand moves before the body
* Time of the Hand/Body-The body moves following the hand but before the foot
* Time of the Hand/Body/Foot-The foot follows the body but before the feet
* Time of the Feet/Body/Hand- The foot moves before the feet
False Times
* Time of the Foot
* Time of the Foot/Body
* Time of the Foot/Body/Hand
* Time of the Feet/Body/Hand
To summarize what all these hierarchy of Times mean: The fastest false time will never be faster than the slowest true time.
The hand holding the sword moves first – that's the simplicity of it. The hand moves first meaning nothing moves before the hand. In swordplay the sword acts as both an offensive and defensive tool. You should never make a movement which would not provide you with cover from your sword nor should you tell your intention of attack. Let's consider this principle from the sport of Boxing; a basic punch in Boxing is the jab, a proper jab needs the movement of the shoulder behind it for both reach and power and a jab can also be extended to reach a target by utilizing a step. The order of the jab must take place in a particular sequence in order for it to be effective. In this example, the fist (or the sword) moves first, nothing else moves before the fist or else your opponent will see the attack coming and either defend or launch a successful pre-emptive attack. Our goal is to hit our opponent with an attack that they never saw coming so that they won't be able to defend against it. As Muhammad Ali said: "Your hands can't hit what your eyes can't see."
The next thing is to move the body after the hand. In the example of our jab, the fist has to reach its intended target so it can be accompanied with a step towards our opponent to get within proper distance. In swordplay the same principle applies in that the hands move ahead of our body and the body follows behind. The foot is always slower than the hands and likewise the feet (adjusting your body position with both feet) is slower than simply making a step with the foot.
The principle of True Times is fundamental and many will consider this principle to be so elementary as a waste of consideration. However, this principle must be grasped in order to be a successful fighter and fencer. This principle is so simple that it is easily missed and overlooked. I often see fencers in tournaments or in general sparring that step before they strike with their sword or as is often seen there are those who often enter into distance without the cover of their weapon. It's is an unfortunate reality that this principle is neglected because not enough focus is being given to the simplicity of its immutable truth.
So the 'True Times' means that when you execute a strike, with a punch or with a sword, the first thing to move is your hand, followed by the body, then the foot to catch the weight thrown out of balance. Truly understanding this concept will revolutionize the effectiveness of your techniques though it can be quite hard to achieve initially and needs practice.
2.) The Grounds
The next set of tactical principles are delineated by George Silver as the Grounds. These are known as: Judgment, Distance, Time and Place and these also follow in a hierarchy. For example, using good judgement you understand how to correctly utilize distance, resulting in you "take your time and gain the place of your adversary" (brief Instructions Cap. 1). What this means is that by maintaining the right distance you always have time to act appropriately in attack or defense. Let's look at these Grounds with more specificity…
* Judgement – Judgement in a martial context simply means that we should make the best possible decision with the resources available to gain the optimum result. In the scenario of swordplay this means we should be able to discern the best application of the tactical principles within the context of the duel.
In combat judgement needs to be accurate and precise under pressure to achieve the winning outcome. Should I seize the initiative? When, Where and How? The effectiveness of every strategy and technique relies on the quality of one's judgement; i.e. timing, target, and techniques all rely on judgement which is the fuel that drives the decision to utilize them in their respective order, speed, distance and leverage. The decision of when and what to utilize is either consciously chosen or decided by our habits and conditioning which are themselves consciously chose though we may not always realize that our habits, both good and bad, are chosen in response to the various challenges we face in life.
Judgement is a choice of action, a decision made, deemed the most appropriate at the time to achieve the best result with the time and resources available. Albert Einstein said: "Nothing happens until something moves," and no action is taken that does not involve judgement prior to deciding on the action. Judgement is the quality or rightness of the decision we make and in itself it will also be judged. We always judge our actions in hindsight.
Experience and our interpretation of it colors much of our judgement. How we interpret our experience will depend much on our attitude; whether we are optimistic about our experience or pessimistic; whether we enjoyed the experience or not. This is purely our personal perception and it's easy to see how our views gained through experience will color what we do.
Training in swordplay deliberately influences our judgements by building habits to effectively deal with combat issues. The deliberate choice of a swordsman is to consciously change his behavior through 1000's of hours of repetition; to train his responses, his judgements to include a new set of actions or choices in order to solve problems more efficiently.
* Distance – Distance is fundamentally the linear space between to opponents. Wherever you are you're either within distance or you're are out of distance. Your distance is the space around you wherein you cannot hit your opponent and your opponent cannot hit you. Distance is characterized in four respects:
1.) Length – the distance between two combatants.
2.) Level – moving one's head or body under or over the attack level
3.) Line – moving one's head or body inside or outside of the danger
4.) Leverage – the quality of the attack/defense one can make at any given distance
These are the four key parts of distance and can be used in both attack and defense and these form a strategy to follow when in an engagement. It is an error to strictly approach a confrontation lineally, though this is the most common approach in fencing this is not the English manner of fencing. In the English system of fencing one is told to change the level or line of the approach thereby being near the oncoming danger without being in the way. This is particularly well developed in the Chases and Counters of Ledall's text wherein one consistently steps off-line to attack and counter as well as the utilization of the weapon to maintain control of distance. The distance is always meticulously controlled in this treatise. Finally, leverage is sought to control and manipulate distance in most of Ledall's plays.
Leverage being the amount of weight one can bear on the target once you achieve contact with it. Appropriating proper leverage in an engagement enables you to attack or defend by manipulating the distance to your advantage and getting a hit without being hit in return.
It is also imperative to understand that the principle of distance means that you should attend to the nearest target first. It also mandates that the closest target should be approached from different levels or angles. One does not need to go at the target like a "bull at a gate." Ledall's techniques whilst utilizing these principles is more of a subtle seduction process than a head on mugging, a negotiation rather than an outright demand. Keep this in mind as you play through the Chases and Counters and notice this seductive process through the management of distance in each opening provocation of the plays.
* Time & Place – We just discussed the concept of Distance and now fundamentally related to this principle we have the concepts of Time and Place. We can think of "place" as being a "point of launch." In other words, a committed action has a "point of origin" and the better we prepare this point the greater is our chance of success. The "time and place" is linked to the proper discretion of position, priority, surprise, and set-up. Time and place is the key in how it affects the effectiveness of any technique it supports.
The "place" refers to the immediate position we are in prior to launching an action such as a technique within attack or defense. If one's "place" is weak then the whole attacking or defending techniques will likewise be weak. Your "place" relies on maintaining the most useable position you can at all times so that you can quickly drop into your "launch point" immediately before your technique.
Imagine a spring board at a swimming pool, the board is one's "place" and it is designed to support the technique of diving so that each dive is at its optimum. Alternatively, imagine the launch site of a space shuttle wherein all the necessary laws come together to bring about the successful launch of the space craft. These are analogies to describe the "place" of the swordsman and the foundation required to launch a successful attack or defense against an opponent. All the planning, training and expectation come together and it focused at this place or this point of launch. Our "place" brings together all of our principles and focuses them in order to get the best possible result before we take action and often the action we take is not dictated by us but by the external circumstances of the present engagement.
Your place needs timing as these are power twins – one cannot succeed without the other. You also need balance, position, game plan and study (good judgement) to get the best results of place and time. Let's return to a Boxing analogy to illustrate this concept…
A powerful punch in Boxing is the right cross. The right cross must be performed from proper positioning in that the hand must be in good position at all times to take advantage of the next available opportunity. Using the right cross alone breaks fundamental principles as it is a slower technique and needs to be set-up properly as a follow up to another technique such as a left jab. The success or failure of the left jab dictates whether or not the right cross can even be thrown. If the first jab is successful then the right cross can be executed but if the jab lands poorly or misses its target then the "place" (launch point) of the follow up technique is postponed whilst one decides which next action is best but if no other action is better than the intended cross then throw it away. In this sense, you should be able to understand that "timing & place" is transitional and always in a state of flux as it analyses the present situation and makes the best determination in each and every moment.
3.) The Governors
George Silver also has a series of Principles known as the Governors, in other words these are principles that govern any and every situation you could encounter. The Governors are namely: Judgement, Measure, and the two-fold mind to press in any fly out. The Governors are really concerned with how to engage in a conflict and not get hit.
Justice has already been discussed at length and while measure is related to distance but in the words of George Silver, measure means to "making your space true." In other words, measure is a manner in which you carry your weapon so that you can easily ward an attack, riposte and/or carry out your own attack. The principle of measure means that you should not make an action or re-action without considering the risk to yourself. In this manner, Ledall consistently ends each chase and Counter with a quarter and void after an attack or defense so as to create a space of safety. Measure is a variation of distance in these principles and encourages a very conservative and defensive manner of swordplay. This conservative game of the English martial tradition insures less double hits and susceptibility to after-blows which are so common in modern swordplay.
To press in any fly out means that from your place you should launch an attack quickly and then quickly withdraw using safe distance and measure. Too often a swordsmen believes he must seize the initiative by running at his opponent or aggressively entering distance without thought to proper measure and defense. This is the root cause of double-hits and being hit with an after-blow. In historical swordplay it was of no use to hit your opponent if in the process you also were hit leading to a double kill or at the least a very significant injury. In modern application it is important to fence in this manner – it doesn't do any good to score a point if your action leads to a double hit. This latter scenario is a hallmark of bad swordsmanship.
4.) The Four Actions
George Silver recognizes four actions that typically are involved within the course of an act of executing a cut or thrust. He advises us that there are moments when it is wise to execute an attack or a defense within the tempo of an opponent's action or to be mindful in our own preservation in the course of our own action. An action is broken down into four aspects:
1.) Bent – Bent is simply a term describing the opponent's readiness to throw a cut or a thrust. In this scenario, we need to be sure to apply good judgement in utilizing correct distance and measure and considering how to safely engage offensively or defensively against our opponent in their current position.
2.) Spent – Spent is the position of the weapon after a cut or a thrust has been performed. It is the ending position that is the transition followed by a recoil and recovery into another Bent action.
3.) Lying Spent – A cut or thrust from an opponent which is successfully interrupted by a parry will leave the aggressor vulnerable for a counter-attack.
4.) Drawing Back – This is the actual act of drawing your sword to its recovery Bent position after it has either successfully or unsuccessfully reached its intended target.
Each of these four actions require a tactical application of principles in order to successfully defend or to launch an attack.
Commentaires