Early 17th Cent. Italian vs. Spanish Rapier

[Kyle Fingerson]

I have been studing Capo Fero and Giganti for the last two years and noticed that they seem to assume that their opponents will play by the same rules or techniques. If this is the case, how would either of these deal with a Spanish opponent?

[Kevin B.]

Since nobody else has yet, I'll take a crack at this.

Can't speak for Giganti, but Capo Ferro tells you how to deal with about anything. Keep a just distance, keep your lines closed, and wait for, or make, a good tempo to safely offend your opponent. You might look a little different than the plates illustrating his multi-purpouse terza, but the principles still apply.

Thats my take, anyway.

Best,
Kevin

[Kyle Fingerson]

Kevin:

Thanks for the reply. Your observations sound logical. I was hoping that someone would have been aware or familiar with an early 17th century Italian text that might have addressed this issue. Something like Angelo's observations on how to confront a Spanish swordman.

Cheers,

Kyle

[Bill Grandy]

Kevin's basically summed up the idea. Most Italian masters teach you to deal with the bare bones concepts that you will face against any style, particularly measure and tempo. I don't think they assume the other guy will follow the rules at all, rather they are using a familiar model so that the reader understands. When it comes down to it, no matter how different Spanish rapier is superficially, it's still only a different approach to reach the same conclusion.

Originally posted by Kyle Fingerson
I was hoping that someone would have been aware or familiar with an early 17th century Italian text that might have addressed this issue. Something like Angelo's observations on how to confront a Spanish swordman.

I've never seen or heard of such a text myself (and if one exists, I'd love to learn about it!). It would certainly be interesting to know what the Italians said on the subject. Curiously, it seems more common for others to talk about countering the Italians (George Silver immediately leaps to mind). Alvaro Guerra de la Vega's Comprehension of Destreza talks a good deal about defeating the Italian stance, and interestingly enough even praises the Italian style rather than downplaying it (though he believes the Spanish style to be superior still). Although he does assume that the Italian's primary mode of defense is the dagger, which flies in the face of Fabris's teachings... perhaps it shows that just because a person was trained in the Italian style doesn't mean the person followed all of their lessons.

[Tom Leoni]

OK, I couldn't keep out of this.

Bill has it fundamentally right.

It is historically misguided to speculate that Capoferro (or any other Italian master of the time) would have "assumed" that the opponent would fight in a similar manner.

What these masters give you are rules of an art - rules that can be applied to any situation. Namely, Capoferro and others teach you to look at what you see and break it down into the raw elements of tempo, measure, strongs, weaks, openings and closed lines. These are the fundamental elements of the art. Just like oddness, evenness, divisibility &c. are some of the elements of mathematics - you don't need to have seen before the fraction 3052/206 in order to solve it if you know the rules of the art.

Thus, if you have trained your brain to *think* in those terms, you will never see an opponent "standing in a Spanish guard;" what you may see is an opponent presenting you with multiple tempi given by his frequent steps, whose sword has no inherent strongs or weaks (as it is straight), whose openings are primarily below his hilt (as his guard is high), and who may vary his measure with certain footwork. (Note: this is just a random, illustrative example, so please don't start telling me that I have misrepresented Spanish fencing ).

The ability to think like this and to analyze any situation through these elements makes the difference between an artist (arte) and a mere practitioner (uso). The former can use the rules of the art to recognize any situation; the latter has to have practical experience with every contingency so that he may deal with it by mere repetition.

Makes sense?

Tom

[Kyle Fingerson]

Tom and Bill:

Your observations regarding Italian/Spanish fencing styles do make sense. It just seems a little odd when confronting another style when you are not used to it. I suppose it is similar to facing a left handed fencer when a person is not used to it.

I suppose the lesson to keep in mind would be that the elements of tempo, measure, strongs, weaks, openings and closed lines is the essential "art" of fencing no matter what the style or situation is.

Thanks again,

Kyle

[Kevin B.]

Originally posted by Tom Leoni
The ability to think like this and to analyze any situation through these elements makes the difference between an artist (arte) and a mere practitioner (uso). The former can use the rules of the art to recognize any situation; the latter has to have practical experience with every contingency so that he may deal with it by mere repetition.

Very well put, I'm gonna steal that. And since when could you ever stay out of a rapier thread?

Originally posted by Kyle Fingerson
I suppose it is similar to facing a left handed fencer when a person is not used to it.

I suppose the lesson to keep in mind would be that the elements of tempo, measure, strongs, weaks, openings and closed lines is the essential "art" of fencing no matter what the style or situation is.

Yup.

[parisi carlo]

Hi Kyle,
my uneducated take on this matter is that parade is not built on the bidimentional scale of bladework but necessitates other two dimensions, both linear ones: the respective distance of combatants and time.
All this is to say that a change in guards doesn't imply, in my opinion, much alterations in parade, given that the same kinds of thrusts and cuts are delivered.
Given certain values to offensive actions and given the task to zero them to parade actions, assuming such actions to be formulas of defensive variables (simple actions), being formulas by necessity finite in a method learnt by men, adjusting the values of the variables within known formulas is the way to reach the desired result.
In other words, one adjusts techniques other than inventing new ones to face the situation at hand.
Being rapier a very dynamic weapon (by reason of it's nature and use), the first thing I can imagine would be altered is footwork, also because the point needs to remain in a certain area.
This contrasts with what I think is the case with backsword, in which parade variations are often accomplished with bladework variations.
That backsword and broadsword are more bladework variable is demonstrated by their set of parries which is abundantly redundant (one could, in theory, choose more than one parry for each line, but he does, in practice, choose the more convenient to the situation, ergo bladework is very adaptable)
This links me to the next uneducated observation: George Silver wasn't probably as acknowledged about Italian and Spanish rapier as we may presume reading him, but he has a very good starting point. Basically, what he has to accomplish is finding the appropriate defensive variation to face a long thrusting weapon. Given the nature of the defensive weapon, backsword, that variation is found in bladework and is generated, in my opinion, within the general array of thrusting weapons countering more than from rapier countering.
Ciao
Cap

[Lee Fillingsness]

I hope that I am not disrupting the dialogue but I thought I would throw my own 2 cents in as an asian martial artist

The parralels between the Spanish position and what is known as chudan in Japanese or gibon jasae in korean are apparent. (I am making strategic comparisons of body positions and I am well aware of the differences in both form and application) both use the legth of the blade and the closed feet in the stance to keep the opponent at bay to such an extent that to attack the body the opponent must come into the striking range of the defender. Conversely other stances leave the legs open for attack (the famous coup de jarnac being among them) and gains no advantage of distance as the body can only be so far from the blade.

The disadvantage to both stances (although I can only speak personally for the Korean and Japanese variants) is that to attack with other than leaning thrusts (where the weight of the body provides the main force of the thrust) the arm must chamber and attack. Conversely the disadvantage of chambered stances such as the hanging guard or hasso no kamae is that there is a sacrifice of distance to gain a more powerful position of attack. Look at the panel on page 53 (in my version) of Capo Ferro to see the sacrifices of distance versus being chamberred. There are also several panels in Alfieri's book which illustrate this as well.

I think that whether it is Silver, Hutton, Capoferro, Thibault, Musashi or Bruce Lee there have always been warriors who have understood and responded to the same advantages and disadvantages, conveniently summed up in the four governors; perception, distance, timing, and technique.

I realize that I may be out of my element on this one, knowing little of the spanish school and as such I would welcome any corrections.

Lee Fillingsness
Director of Translation and Development
The Oakeshott Institute
Minneapolis Minnesota
www.oakeshott.org

[Alberto Bomprezzi]

Hello gentlemen,

I think Tom got the important point.

What these masters give you are rules of an art - rules that can be applied to any situation. Namely, Capoferro and others teach you to look at what you see and break it down into the raw elements of tempo, measure, strongs, weaks, openings and closed lines. These are the fundamental elements of the art.

In the end fencing is fencing no matter what the school is. Every guard, arm, body, blade position has advantages and disadvantages, but all those positions are always considered in every school.

I do not think italians fencers thought about developing new techniques or tactics to defeat spanish fencers, they just used what they knew as Carlo suggests, adapting it to the situation.

Nevertheless, and only speculating I do not think that too many early XVII century italian fencers and masters had the chance to meet or even to see a "pachequista" fencer - the one you are talking about - . In my opinion almost all spaniards in Italy at that time fenced just as the italians. Spanish soldiers in southern or northern Italy at the beginning of the XVII century would have almost for sure never seen themselves a pachequista in action and their school was la antigua destreza or Destreza Común.

For that reason there were no need for italian masters to write something on how to face a spanish fencers. They used they same weapon in a very similar way - not that a pachequista would use it too differently anyway but that's another story -.

I think that whether it is Silver, Hutton, Capoferro, Thibault, Musashi or Bruce Lee there have always been warriors who have understood and responded to the same advantages and disadvantages, conveniently summed up in the four governors; perception, distance, timing, and technique.

I agree. In the end is the weapon you use that tells you what you can and what you can't do.

Given certain values to offensive actions and given the task to zero them to parade actions, assuming such actions to be formulas of defensive variables (simple actions), being formulas by necessity finite in a method learnt by men, adjusting the values of the variables within known formulas is the way to reach the desired result.

Carlo you sound just like Carranza believe me

Alberto

[Javier Ramos]

In 1697, Francisco Antonio de Ettenhardt wrote a book just about the oposite, how the Pacheco followers could deal with the Italians and their fearsome "bota":

"Diestro Italiano y Español explican sus doctrinas con evidencias mathematicas conforme a los preceptos de la verdadera Destreza y Filosofia de las Armas"

And there we find this text:

La ciencia con universal providencia enseña para todos los medios de la defensa propia, y ofensa del contrario (caso que convenga para la defensa) sin que la variedad de naciones pueda alterar su esencia, por no ser de diferente naturaleza, y aver de usar de las mismas lineas, angulos, superficies, planos superiores, e inferiores, medidas de el cuerpo, conforme a las tres dimensiones, proporciones de distancias, y movimientos conocidos.

Roughly translated: "The Science with universal providence shows for all means of self-defence and ofence to the opponent (if this in conveniant for defence), the variety of nations unable to change its essence, because they are not of a different nature and they ought to use the same lines, angles, surfaces, upper and lower levels, body measurements, in agreement to the three dimensions, distances proportions and known movements"

I have seen the current general knowledge of Verdadera Destreza as it is divulgated in videos and articles and I find the level is very low. Only the compases and feet movements seem to have been understood. So the confrontation against Italian systems is still meaningless.

Angelo Nuzo wrote also in 1691 for Italians how to deal with the Spaniards, and he included Destreza Comun tretas... but it looks suspiciously too close to Pacheco descriptions and names.

Dear Alberto,

I will agree the spread of Pacheco and Carranza teachings could be limited. Lets say 20% of the fencers in Spain (much less in Naples or Milan). They had homogeneous systems because of the amount of tracts, well known techniques and exchangable experiences. And this was kept through 300 years.

What about the rest? They would not be THE Destreza Comun, rather the many Destrezas Comunes, one for each master. Without printed tracts each developed his own system, from the plain horrible to the sublime, but the media was more likely close to the horrible. Without a common structure these teachers were probably autodidact or depending on the passing by. We have to think that in the period the printed tracts were not made for the pupils but for the initiated, the teachers, the Diestros and not the beginners (and so say many of the prologues in them). Clearly Pacheco and Carranza were not understood by the common fencers, and their books could be of little help to them. The Italian tracts were never translated into Spanish, and we can guess that although many a Spanish could keep a conversation with Italian nationals, reading was a different matter, and Italian books in other fields were regularly translated. These leaves the Destreza Comun being a shapeless mass, defined by that what it is not (Destreza Verdadera), but never a School. This is why what was written in 1629 was again printed in 1702 without changes, and why we know about them through the writings of Pacheco and followers. There was not a head that could put order in the chaos. Sometimes somebody could get above the rest (Añasco for an example) but soon it was relegated to oblivion.

Or maybe that is what is happening now… the AEEA will be that head making “the Best of Destreza Comun” … finally 470 years after Roman and Torres...


Javier
___________________
La vida amable, el enemigo hombre fuerte, ordinario el peligro, natural la defensa, la Ciencia para conseguirla infalible, su estudio forçoso, y el exercicio necessario conviene al que huviere de ser Diestro, no ignore la teorica, para que en la practica, el cuerpo, el braço, y los instrumentos obren lo conveniente a su perfeccion. LPdN

[Alberto Bomprezzi]

Hi Javier,The common fencing system went on for two centuries along with carrancistas and pachequistas. At the beginning there was no other "school". Then Carranza wrote his book, and nothing really changed as all fencing masters were still masters of "la antigua destreza". Some of them though applied to their practical skills, the principles and terminology of Carranza - carrancistas -

The vulgars followed the 30 tretas and that is why we can consider them a school, the first one. Yo say that there were so many destrezas vulgares as masters well yes you could put it that way. And there were so many destrezas verdaderas one for each master as well. .

I do not understand why but your opinion of the Destreza Vulgar is influenced by Pacheco to an extent that I think that you are not objective.

[

They would not be THE Destreza Comun, rather the many Destrezas Comunes, one for each master. Without printed tracts each developed his own system, from the plain horrible to the sublime, but the media was more likely close to the horrible.

That is strictly your opinion and I think you are completely wrong. You don't need treatises to learn fencing just a good master. And more than that you need phisical and mental attitudes, talent and courage. And then a lor of practice. A master will help you but in the end it is up to you to play the game. There is no book for that. Using myself as an example: I had never read a book when I was ranked the 13th in the national spanish fencing competition but I had a good master and I trained hard. Then as nowadays if a master writes a book it is because he is a good master and fencer. But it doesn't mean that another master is worse only because he hasn't written one. A book gives fame and prestige and that is why fencing treatises were written then and now. Añasco never wrote a book and it was a great master. Perez de Mendoza, a pachequista that became the fencing master of the prince ,had to admit that had not been able to defeat him. Perez de Mendoza wrote two books and it is well known for that reason and Añasco for the same reason is less known. But does that mean that he was not a great master? More than that he is still known without having written any book

Juan Morales was the master of the king of Spain before Pacheco. He never wrote a treatise, nor his master which we do not know who really was. Can we assume that he was a bad fencer and master for that reason? How he became the king's master if he had been poorly taught by an autodidact?

This is why what was written in 1629 was again printed in 1702 without changes,

Of course there were changes but only the ones that the system needed as a consequence of changes in weapon morphology. Why change something if the system, as it is, works? Cruzado describes changes for example in la Irremediable that in his time was called La estocada de las Tres Acciones. Perez de Mendoza also says that vulgares used a mixed terminology with verdadera destreza (la estocada de puño la enarcada -vulgares and la sagita or la del cuarto de circulo - destreza verdadera -) could they be carrancistas?. Difficult to know but mainly useless.

The important thing which is the message I want to transmit to the readers is that spanish fencing was not only nor mainly based on Pacheco's theory, at least until the second half of the XVII century. In the early XVII PAcheco was unknown out of Spain, or being more specific out of Madrid. And that "La Destreza Antigua" or Destreza Común was not, as you say a "shapeless mass" but rather a school with masters that could eventually become carrancistas accepting Carranza's principles but using the old school biomechanical actions.

Or maybe that is what is happening now… the AEEA will be that head making “the Best of Destreza Comun” … finally 470 years after Roman and Torres...

Frankly I do not believe you really mean it. Do you really think that we nowadays may be better fencers that those diestros 4 centuries ago?

I know you are for Pacheco and the truth is that I also believe that Pacheco was a genius. But that does not mean that before him there was nothing but chaos and that he brought the light to fencing. Carranza and Pacheco changed the spanish fencing theory inventing new terms and concepts to explain the same actions performed by all rapier fencers. They were great masters and their work should be studied in depth. But let's do not lose perspective. They were great but not the only ones.


Alberto

[Steve Hick]

Originally posted by Alberto Bomprezzi


That is strictly your opinion and I think you are completely wrong. You don't need treatises to learn fencing just a good master. And more than that you need phisical and mental attitudes, talent and courage. And then a lor of practice. A master will help you but in the end it is up to you to play the game. (SNIP)


Alberto

Sort of supporting Alberto's point from an oblique angle, there is some documented evidence that there were organizations of swordsmen, who controlled curricula and recognition through a hierarchical structure with specific and detailed examination before elevation through the structure, quality controlling those elevated. I suspect this led to a fairly uniform method, at least within the individual municiple entities. As far as I know, the only one published about Spanish swordplay (sic) is in Henry's article concerning Perpignan, but I understand this is not too uncommon in many of its particulars.

So this is how they enforced some degree of commonality among methods. Probably this means is better through a single generation than a book, I suspect a book being more immutable than memory or practice, after several generations there would be more drift with a non-literary tradition.

Steve

[Marc G.]

In 1697, Francisco Antonio de Ettenhardt wrote a book just about the oposite, how the Pacheco followers could deal with the Italians and their fearsome "bota":

"Diestro Italiano y Español explican sus doctrinas con evidencias mathematicas conforme a los preceptos de la verdadera Destreza y Filosofia de las Armas"

And there we find this text:

La ciencia con universal providencia enseña para todos los medios de la defensa propia, y ofensa del contrario (caso que convenga para la defensa) sin que la variedad de naciones pueda alterar su esencia, por no ser de diferente naturaleza, y aver de usar de las mismas lineas, angulos, superficies, planos superiores, e inferiores, medidas de el cuerpo, conforme a las tres dimensiones, proporciones de distancias, y movimientos conocidos.

Roughly translated: "The Science with universal providence shows for all means of self-defence and ofence to the opponent (if this in conveniant for defence), the variety of nations unable to change its essence, because they are not of a different nature and they ought to use the same lines, angles, surfaces, upper and lower levels, body measurements, in agreement to the three dimensions, distances proportions and known movements"

Yes, by the end of the 17th c. we find that there is the perception in Spain of a more or less consolidated Italian style/school/whatever you want to call it, which is logically addressed in the fencing manuals of the time, as a thing a fencer would have to deal with. Exactly in the same line there are mentions of how to deal with left-handers and, in the Verdadera Destreza manuals, there are continuous references abut how to deal with the Common fencers, too, as they were the threats a practitioner would likely have to face when finally having to use what he learnt. In the context of how the Verdadera Destreza carried itself in its manuals, also, it was an excellent theoretical exercise to show how it was able to solve “real” problems posed to its followers.
This quote from Ettenhard shows exactly the point that Tom and Alberto have brought up: that in fact, when a fencing system is sound, if correctly implemented, it already provides its practitioners with the necessary tools to deal with any threat (in a “normal” fencing context, of course). This is, the ole’ concept that, at the end, Fencing is Fencing.

I have seen the current general knowledge of Verdadera Destreza as it is divulgated in videos and articles and I find the level is very low. Only the compases and feet movements seem to have been understood. So the confrontation against Italian systems is still meaningless.

Well, the answer to the original question, as it has been seen, goes beyond whatever the style of the contenders is. And you agreed, it seems. So I don’t see what this comes from. But if you want to take things down this path…

Angelo Nuzo wrote also in 1691 for Italians how to deal with the Spaniards, and he included Destreza Comun tretas... but it looks suspiciously too close to Pacheco descriptions and names.

Beyond what’s already been said here and somewhere else about the “comparison of styles” in period sources (17th c. we seem to be talking, mainly, let’s not forget to put things in its proper framework), many fencing authors quoted each other quite happily, when it fit their interests, be it to use “Names” to give weight to their own ideas, be it to show how their way of doing things was better than “other’s”, whatever… But it doesn’t necessarily means they understood the authors they quoted. In fact, more often than not, not only they actually DIDN’T, but I suspect they even didn’t care if they did. They used the quotes for their own purpose, and that’s it. In fact, Pacheco does this A LOT. His level of comprehension of the authors and techniques he quotes is something we’re actually pondering, so me saying that I suspect he in fact didn’t understand many of them or purposefully chose to misunderstand or a least misrepresent them is, still, just an opinion. I have some arguments to support it, of course, but I prefer to work some more on it before presenting my conclusions, if no one minds.

Dear Alberto,

I will agree the spread of Pacheco and Carranza teachings could be limited. Lets say 20% of the fencers in Spain (much less in Naples or Milan). They had homogeneous systems because of the amount of tracts, well known techniques and exchangable experiences. And this was kept through 300 years.

Of course, such percentage is purely moot. Besides, such spread, I understand that you mean in Italy, would vary in time, don’t being the same in 1610 and in 1690, for example (again, contextualization being important if we are going to make such bold statements). I suppose we agree, here.
Also, I must say we think that the teachings of Carranza and those of Pacheco are not the same. Strongly linked, sure. In fact, evolved one from another. But not the same. So, I’m afraid that from here on we are bound to, in fact, NOT to agree. We also know that fencing in Spain changed a LOT in the 200-something years that separate Carranza from Brea, including, of course, what kept calling itself La Verdadera Destreza, as it is clearly shown in the manuals. We’re lucky to have such a great amount of sources that help us see this evolution, aren’t we?

What about the rest? They would not be THE Destreza Comun, rather the many Destrezas Comunes, one for each master.

You see, we could have somewhat agreed, here, would you didn’t dump in the same sack what could be called a “School” (understood as a set of approaches to core principles and techniques that reflect them, sharing some features regardless of the practitioner ) and what could be called a “style” (understood as the interpretation a particular fencer does of a school, adapting it to his/her own reality, after his/her particular physical capabilities and overall context where the fighting is actually going to be used). The terms are obviously loosely applied, here, with a wide margin of manoeuvre, but I think you get my point. But as you have phrased it… no, I don’t agree at all.

Without printed tracts each developed his own system, from the plain horrible to the sublime, but the media was more likely close to the horrible.

And this, of course, and again, is nothing but an opinion. Yours, specifically. I understand that one may develop it after reading Pacheco, but the application of a bit of critical thinking should be enough to put Pacheco’s words in a wider perspective, or so I think. Starting with the simple fact that he and his followers had their own agenda when writing about their direct intellectual, social and economical competitors, which didn’t include giving them any chance. Their audience didn’t expect any less, also, it was the way things were done at the time.

Without a common structure these teachers were probably autodidact or depending on the passing by.

Well, now, this is simply ludicrous. So, any teacher that didn’t belong to a “school” , i.e. the homogeneous “common structure” repeated in a lot of treatises you mentioned , was an “autodidact depending on the passing by”. This includes… oh, yes, this includes ALL the fencing masters but the Spanish ones practising Destreza in the, say, 17th and 18th centuries. And you imply that these “autodidact or depending on the passing by” masters were, “in the media”, “more likely close to the horrible”. Good. All the European fencing masters smacked down in a single sentence. Not an easy feat, that’s for sure.
Or, maybe, I didn’t understand well what you meant. I have you for an intelligent man, so I suppose you meant something totally different, something that, silly me, I keep failing to see right now. We are both now working in language that is not our own, after all, it might be this…

We have to think that in the period the printed tracts were not made for the pupils but for the initiated, the teachers, the Diestros and not the beginners (and so say many of the prologues in them). Clearly Pacheco and Carranza were not understood by the common fencers, and their books could be of little help to them.

Ah. They were “clearly” dumb, of course. I suppose than in account of them being “autodidact or depending on the passing by”, and using and teaching a style fencing that was, “in the media”, “more likely close to the horrible”. What I don’t understand is why they were allowed to keep practising and teaching it for so long after Pacheco published his gosp… treatise, up to the point that at the end of the 17th c. they are still being quoted by Verdadera Destreza authors as practising their, seemingly healthy, craft. Given their profession of choice and the dangerous times they lived in, I fail to understand why they weren’t all dead, skewered by any clever Diestro that happened to, as it goes, pass by…

The Italian tracts were never translated into Spanish, and we can guess that although many a Spanish could keep a conversation with Italian nationals, reading was a different matter, and Italian books in other fields were regularly translated. These leaves the Destreza Comun being a shapeless mass, defined by that what it is not (Destreza Verdadera), but never a School.

May I point out, again, than this is your opinion, concluded after some other opinions of yours? Just to keep things in perspective, you know..

This is why what was written in 1629 was again printed in 1702 without changes, and why we know about them through the writings of Pacheco and followers.

Alberto has already answered this better than I possibly could.

There was not a head that could put order in the chaos.

I beg your pardon? What chaos? Oh, yeah, anything that wasn’t Verdadera Destreza was a chaos, I forgot you take as your own Pacheco’s slogans…

Sometimes somebody could get above the rest (Añasco for an example) but soon it was relegated to oblivion.

Well, you mentioning him doesn’t seem to have relegated Añasco to such an oblivion, for once…

Or maybe that is what is happening now… the AEEA will be that head making “the Best of Destreza Comun” … finally 470 years after Roman and Torres...

Now, how should I take this?. What should I say in front of such an absolutely unjustified patronizing attitude to us and to the historical Masters?
You know, I had a rather stinging sarcastic answer to this. I feel it deserves no less. But at the end I thought that any point that needed to be addressed it has already been, and that stretching things any further would only answer to reasons that couldn't be labelled as anything but petty… so I better let it be.

[Javier Ramos]

Hola Alberto, (Marc, I was trying to post when yours appeared, I hope I will address yours later)

probably I expressed myself wrong. I will not try to say Comun fencers could not be better that the ones belonging to Destreza Verdadera or the best of all if you want. I agree that is mostly a personal characteristic and I have not mentioned it at all. I was talking of the idea of Destreza Comun as a fencing school. And the idea you are trying to give us of it I think it does not fit that smoothly.

Just think in XVIIth. century terms.

I have given you 80% of the fencing population (I think you wanted it), in a country of some 10 million where if I remember correctly some 8-10% (50% in some regions) considered themselves hidalgos and have rights to use swords and many did. The kind of minimal education they will get just for not wounding themselves was most probably from the Destreza Comun.

Again to XVIIth century, Spain is a rural country with 85% plus of population living in villages under 1000 "vecinos". Now tell me who was going to be teach to use his sword by the famous diestros of Madrid or Sevilla? Most likely, as soon as returning soldiers were passing through a village they will be asked by eager teenagers to be given some minimal lessons. Next day they would be following their way. Most of the population, hidalgos included, never in their life went outside of their province.

It is also known that one of the ways of nomadic gipsies to earn some money was fencing bouts followed by lessons to their public (and they used to defeat the best fencers in each village in their way).

I think I have the right to say that most of the fencers will be closer to the horrible (you wanted to have the majoritary style!!) than to the sublime.

On the other hand somebody taking the pains of going through Carranza and Pacheco could be a useless, clumsy fencer but he would probably get a systematic teaching, even from a hopeless teacher. And that was my point.

But anyway this was just demographics. What I was really attacking in my post was the pretension you seem to have of an homogeneous stablished, structured Destreza Comun school. And that is very difficult to believe without a single surviving tract. OK, you have "oral tradition", master to master teaching. Some of the techniques will be good, some others would kill the user at first chance. That is precisely what the existing tracts complain repeatedly in their prologues. In a generation you get mutations and rediscovery of forgotten mistakes. A good tecnique dies with the master who developed it...

As Steve points out there was an examination system, but how far did it reach? Just well stablished fencers in large cities, responsible for teaching a lucky minority. I think the system worked fairly well until Carranza arrived (if I remember correctly the Perpignan example is from early XVIthc, and there are also estatutes given by Fernando V regulating the trade). But after the fancy of Destreza Verdadera started the Comun went more backwards and middleages-like (more treaties in XVIth c. than in XVII, I do not know if we can say it still existed in XVIIIth, in some areas without relation between them I supose so).

In my comment about the current paper of the AEEA I was refering to the opportunity you have of compiling what was the Destreza Comun, because your predecessors never did or they are lost. I am not making useless guesses about who would be a better fencer.

I find very interesting that the Destreza Comun existed (or exists) and I do not have that "pachequista" wish you atribute me of wanting to blow it outside of the world. You are missing a point of Pacheco, and this is that he wanted to spare lifes. There are even places where he writes something like "then you can make a cut or a thrust, but be careful because with the last you can kill your oponent". Why this? Destreza Verdadera is not just fencing, it includes an attitude to life, something missing in Destreza Comun, what does not give a damm about killing or being killed. I will not judge what is correct in fencing (we are talking of fencing now, not of philosphy), but I think helps to explain the disliking Pacheco felt for Destreza Comun.

For a close. As a personal impression I think the Destreza Comun in the hands of a experienced fencer can be very, very efficient. But practiced by somebody with little experience (the guy just arriving to Madrid who got some lessons by a soldier and thinks he can confront anybody) would kill him in the first treta. And now you will tell me that is with every system, and I will say I do not think so.

Javier

[Javier Ramos]

Well Marc, I see I also address most of your sarcastic commentaries.

It is true I have been ludicrous with cyphers, and probably giving you the rural fencers...(I should have mentioned the lumpen quarters of Sevilla, Valencia...Madrid). And next to the passer-by I could have added the few local war survivors...

But think of what kind of fencing would have learnt Alonso Quijano. (or Pizarro when he was not taking care of the pigs).

So who are you? The followers of who?

You see, you are coming from the anonimous multiple mass. What is wrong with that? Spain is basically an anarchistic country. Nothing more proper for a national fencing system.

Javier

PS. Rather than divergences of opinion I think we have been taking different parts of the same thing. I have been writing about a Destreza Comun rooted in popular practices all around the country, meanwhile you prefer to think of a practising elite in the main cities.

[Marc G.]

Hello, Javier.

Originally posted by Javier Ramos
probably I expressed myself wrong.

Yes, you probably did, indeed.

I will not try to say Comun fencers could not be better that the ones belonging to Destreza Verdadera or the best of all if you want. I agree that is mostly a personal characteristic and I have not mentioned it at all.

And who said the contrary? Proficiency in combat is the sum of a lot of factors, being the “school” one follows, provided it is martially sound, of course, probably one of the less important. Neither Alberto nor I said that the Common Fencers were better or worse than the diestros, making such affirmation would be dumb, to say the less.
On the other hand, about you not mentioning it, I must point out that you said that, and I quote, “ They would not be THE Destreza Comun, rather the many Destrezas Comunes, one for each master. Without printed tracts each developed his own system, from the plain horrible to the sublime, but the media was more likely close to the horrible”. So, you passed an unbelievably sweeping judgement of the level of ability of the fencing Masters of the Spain of the 16th and 17th c. that didn’t follow Pacheco’s Verdadera Destreza, and said it was “close to the horrible”.
Of course, we thought this was something that needed to be addressed, would the readers get the wrong impression...

I was talking of the idea of Destreza Comun as a fencing school. And the idea you are trying to give us of it I think it does not fit that smoothly.

Ah, so, it’s a question of SEMANTICS!. All this fuss is about if your definition of a “school” fits with our definition of “school”!. Great. What about saying this from the beginning and saving us all some headaches?

Just think in XVIIth. century terms.

I have given you 80% of the fencing population (I think you wanted it),

How generous.
But let’s move on.

in a country of some 10 million where if I remember correctly some 8-10% (50% in some regions) considered themselves hidalgos and have rights to use swords and many did. The kind of minimal education they will get just for not wounding themselves was most probably from the Destreza Comun.

More or less agreed, here.

Again to XVIIth century, Spain is a rural country with 85% plus of population living in villages under 1000 "vecinos". Now tell me who was going to be teach to use his sword by the famous diestros of Madrid or Sevilla? Most likely, as soon as returning soldiers were passing through a village they will be asked by eager teenagers to be given some minimal lessons. Next day they would be following their way. Most of the population, hidalgos included, never in their life went outside of their province.

Also agreed, here. But, I’m sorry, who said anything about the rural fencers? We’ve been talking about Fencing Masters, who indeed needed some concentration of population to set up a school and exercise their craft. What the demographics of the rural areas have to do, here, if I may ask?

It is also known that one of the ways of nomadic gipsies to earn some money was fencing bouts followed by lessons to their public (and they used to defeat the best fencers in each village in their way).

Yes, it’s something you can find all across Europe. In English is broadly known as “Prize Fighting” or “Prize Playing”.

I think I have the right to say that most of the fencers will be closer to the horrible (you wanted to have the majoritary style!!) than to the sublime.

One, we didn’t “want” anything, that’s something you made up. Two, of course the majority of sword-users would be mediocre at best. That’s a platitude. But we have been talking of Fencing Masters, and you mentioned them specifically (see above). Here is when we took exception. What do YOU understand as a Fencing Master? Somebody who can tell which end of the sword is the one that goes into the other guy? I think we may not have exactly the same idea of who was able to be called a Master and who didn’t…
And proficiency was only one part of the craft.

On the other hand somebody taking the pains of going through Carranza and Pacheco could be a useless, clumsy fencer but he would probably get a systematic teaching, even from a hopeless teacher. And that was my point.

So, you say that the pedagogy that Carranza and Pacheco put in their works is very good in terms of teaching somebody fencing out of a book.
Well, absolutely agreed. And I mean absolutely. Carranza was a Genius. And Pacheco, another one. They created a language that allows to cut every fencing movement down to understandable, easy to work bits, and they sistematize fencing in a way that facilitates teaching, analysis and justification. What they did, in scholarly terms, is mind-boggling.
Carranza became a myth in the Spanish fencing community shortly after the publication of De la Philoslophia de las armas…, and kept being so for centuries. Pacheco created a system that became (by the author’s doings, ok, but also, and undoubtedly, because of the strength of the system itself) an standard in the whole country, and the influences of which were felt in the Spanish territories as long as the rapier was in use. They were… no, they ARE milestones in the study of fencing. And we very well know and acknowledge it. Where’s the problem, here?

But anyway this was just demographics. What I was really attacking in my post was the pretension you seem to have of an homogeneous stablished, structured Destreza Comun school.

Ah, we seem to finally go to the point. It has taken some time, indeed.

And that is very difficult to believe without a single surviving tract. OK, you have "oral tradition", master to master teaching. Some of the techniques will be good, some others would kill the user at first chance. That is precisely what the existing tracts complain repeatedly in their prologues. In a generation you get mutations and rediscovery of forgotten mistakes. A good tecnique dies with the master who developed it...

Look, a technique that will someone get killed at first chance does not get taught by any fencing master worth its salt. The execution of a technique may be more or less successful, depending on the fencer, and this is what kills you. A good technique does not dies with the Master, it lives in its students. “Oral tradition” is worthless, is this what you’re saying? Are you serious? No treatises, no craft? How ANY craft could have survived medieval times, then?
Besides, that there is no treatises for Esgrima Común doesn’t means there’s no information about it. In fact, the obsession of the Verdadera Destreza Masters with the Common Fencers and how to defeat them has left us with a lot of detailed information about their techniques in said Masters works, as you well know. The scientific approach and the systematic description of the movements that makes the Verdadera Destreza the great system it is also work in the analysis and description of the movements of the Vulgar rival they describe how to defeat.

As Steve points out there was an examination system, but how far did it reach? Just well stablished fencers in large cities, responsible for teaching a lucky minority. I think the system worked fairly well until Carranza arrived

Yes, and saved everybody, bringing the Light unto the Darkness fencing in Spain was immersed in until then. I wonder how the Spaniards managed to have already a rather big part of the known world under its control, having such an obviously poor dominion and understanding of the art of fencing. Maybe because they used pikes and harquebuses, probably…

(if I remember correctly the Perpignan example is from early XVIthc, and there are also estatutes given by Fernando V regulating the trade). But after the fancy of Destreza Verdadera started the Comun went more backwards and middleages-like (more treaties in XVIth c. than in XVII, I do not know if we can say it still existed in XVIIIth, in some areas without relation between them I supose so).

And, would you mind to add any argument to support such a bold statement? I mean, the “the Comun went more backwards and middleages-like” part, if there’s any doubt. Beyond your opinion, of course. Which coincides suspiciously with Pacheco’s, by the way, but this can be casual.

In my comment about the current paper of the AEEA I was refering to the opportunity you have of compiling what was the Destreza Comun, because your predecessors never did or they are lost.

Many of it it’s lost, yes. We can only hope to do our best.

I am not making useless guesses about who would be a better fencer.

Good, because neither do we.

I find very interesting that the Destreza Comun existed (or exists) and I do not have that "pachequista" wish you atribute me of wanting to blow it outside of the world.

Wait a second there. Pacheco had a lot of good (for him) reasons to try to smack down the Esgrima Común in his works, as had his followers. It’s part of the game, and it’s consistent with the period and the circumstance of the characters involved. Look, I don’t think you have really anything against Esgrima Común, I sincerely don’t, but I see that you seem to have taken Pacheco’s voiced prejudices against it as your own, hence the “pachequista” label we said you seemed to assume, nothing else. Dropping it, now, sorry about it.

You are missing a point of Pacheco, and this is that he wanted to spare lifes. There are even places where he writes something like "then you can make a cut or a thrust, but be careful because with the last you can kill your oponent". Why this? Destreza Verdadera is not just fencing, it includes an attitude to life, something missing in Destreza Comun, what does not give a damm about killing or being killed. I will not judge what is correct in fencing (we are talking of fencing now, not of philosphy), but I think helps to explain the disliking Pacheco felt for Destreza Comun.

This kind of things, as well as for example calls to use the techniques described in the book only for the defence of oneself, one’s honour, one’s country and the Only and True Faith, are rather common in the writings of various fencing masters from different times and different countries. I’m not saying he wasn’t sincere, I just say it must be put in perspective. He also needed a license to publish any book, after all, one must remember.

For a close. As a personal impression I think the Destreza Comun in the hands of a experienced fencer can be very, very efficient. But practiced by somebody with little experience (the guy just arriving to Madrid who got some lessons by a soldier and thinks he can confront anybody) would kill him in the first treta. And now you will tell me that is with every system, and I will say I do not think so.

You’re right, I would tell you so. And, hearing your answer, we could have started an educated and surely interesting discussion about pros and cons, instead of what we’re having now. Pity.


And, jumping to the following post…

It is true I have been ludicrous with cyphers, and probably giving you the rural fencers...(I should have mentioned the lumpen quarters of Sevilla, Valencia...Madrid).

Again, thank you.

And next to the passer-by I could have added the few local war survivors...
But think of what kind of fencing would have learnt Alonso Quijano. (or Pizarro when he was not taking care of the pigs)

Probably any fencing they could put their hands on, if they had any interest. Your point being…?
Look, indeed, all these you so generously has “given” to “us” would indeed be practising a kind of fencing assimilable to a form of what would be the “Common School”. But that’s because before Carranza there was no other school. Those who didn’t have a Master at hand probably fought as they could, but following patterns well established already by the tradition of a craft as old as time. Exactly in the same way one finds at that time a common basic substrate in technical knowledge in other crafts, like blacksmithing, tanning or weaving. Or singing, if you want a craft more performance-oriented. But the Masters followed a tradition, much more structured, probably with some local variations, it’s something unavoidable and comes with the trade, but developed around traditions rooted in the past and modified as the circumstances asked for it. This structured tradition is what would likely be described in the treatises of Pons, De La Torre and Román, and surely shared a good bunch of common traits with other European traditions, in account, if for nothing else, of using similar weapons and armour, and sharing a reasonably common circumstance.
You keep saying that before Carranza there was nothing but chaos, and that this chaos was maintained through the 17th c. alongside Pacheco’s “school” (which had treatises, and, if I understood you well, that’s the reason it is a “school”, instead of a hodgepodge of backward medievaloid tricks some of which could get you killed at first chance). So, only the Verdadera Destreza followers can be labelled as “Masters”, is it? And those that came before Carranza and those that fought and taught at the same time that the followers of Pacheco were… what? “Autodidacts”, “passer bys” and old soldiers?

So who are you? The followers of who?

We are an organization who’s trying to reconstruct the so-called Common School of Fencing as practised in Spain in the 17th c.. Among many other things, but I suppose this bit was what you wanted to hear.
And we don’t “follow” anyone.
We try to get information out of as wide an array of period sources as possible, biomechanics and all the tools we can get our hands on. As, in fact, do all those who try to reconstruct Historical Fencing systems. If we are successful or not, only time will tell. We try no less than our best.

You see, you are coming from the anonimous multiple mass. What is wrong with that? Spain is basically an anarchistic country. Nothing more proper for a national fencing system.

You can’t help but being patronizing, can’t you?

PS. Rather than divergences of opinion I think we have been taking different parts of the same thing. I have been writing about a Destreza Comun rooted in popular practices all around the country, meanwhile you prefer to think of a practising elite in the main cities.

You see, would you have managed to make this point across in a less supercilious way, we might have had an interesting conversation about it. Or, even better, mail or PM any of us. Oh, well, it’s not the first time we find ourselves in such a situation, is it?

[Javier Ramos]

Dear Marc,

I do not see that you position allows you for irony.

Of course you can use it instead of addressing my question. Because you cannot show that there existed an structured Comun school along the country. That the different parts were related and kept a a good number of similarities I am sure, but not that they were one. For that you would need not just one text or manuscript, but two, coming from different times/places.

In fact I guess (because you and me we can only guess here) that that is precisely what made Destreza Comun dissapear withot leaving a trail. Each Fencing Master wanting to keep his own way and his own secrets for him and his pupils and being in competition with the rest. Actually I am almost sure they were not too happy when Pacheco published the tretas.

And from where did he get them (maestro a and b but not those of c, neither the way they were performed by d) were they 30 in Madrid but 35 in Sevilla? Did he get some of them from foreigners?

It is nice you try to reconstruct the system, but its validity until you find one of the original treaties is similar to the reconstructions we can make of middleages systems and not like those from the time of press, when they were spread. Or even less because you have to relay on their enemy. To try to say that there was a single Destreza Comun is like saying that there was a single navaja game in Spanish XIX century.

I really do not see why you cannot accept this. Do you have some kind of inferiority complex in front of Carranza and Pacheco? I repeat ¿what is wrong about saying that it is a compendium if it works? Do you think it will result less "interesting"?

Javier
By the way, Añasco was NOT a Comun fencer.
PS. And I repeat I have nothing against Destreza Comun. But I require it to be treated with serious criteria, and not just like a TM.

[Alberto Bomprezzi]

Javier,

That the different parts were related and kept a a good number of similarities I am sure, but not that they were one. For that you would need not just one text or manuscript, but two, coming from different times/places.

Well you just said it. That is a school. “School” here is just a useful word and to us the 30 tretas, the use of the guard puerta de hierro (the exact translation of Porta di Ferro) and other details clearly state that it was a school following a European tradition. Variations that obviously existed between masters as a consequence of different interpretations in no way change that fact. A complete orthodoxy in fencing is impossible for the simple reason that every man is different in body and mind. I know that from the destreza approach of Pacheco that doesn’t change anything but from the common approach, which is the one we are using here - as it is the one used to define a school in this forum – it does.
You pretend that we do not qualify la Destreza Común as a school because you want us to use Pacheco’s approach. But why should we? We are choosing the word that is more understandable in the context of SFI to explain a part of the Spanish fencing history that we thought it may be of some interest to the historical fencing community.
From your point of view (influenced by Pacheco) you may be right, but it is not the approach we are using and I guess we have all the right to approach our research in the way we prefer.
On the other hand your approach will mean that the Italian school is not a school. Marozzo, Agrippa, Di Grassi, Capoferro, Fabris, Alfieri, Senesio, Pallavicini, to mention just some, are as you say related, but they are not one. How could they? They are written in different times in different places by masters having each one of them a different lineage. Nevertheless all of them are known as masters of the Italian school. A useful term to describe the incredibly rich italian fencing tradition.
We use the term school in this way for easier understanding not because we want to stay on the Destreza Común side (we try to be objective) but because, in the context we are writing now, it is an accepted useful term that describes perfectly a similar situation in Spain. Yes we do not have treatises but thanks to Pacheco’s obsession we know them pretty well. We do not care if there were 30 in Madriid and 35 in Sevilla. I am sure that every master made his own variations but as you say all of them were related, just like the Italians; so I guess we have a school here. Using another term (which one?) would be confusing as everybody here and everywhere understands the word “school” in this way and it would not make justice to the Spanish Common Fencing school . Only you and a few more people in the world may understand the word school following destreza patterns, so it is not a useful term.

In fact I guess (because you and me we can only guess here) that that is precisely what made Destreza Comun dissapear withot leaving a trail. Each Fencing Master wanting to keep his own way and his own secrets for him and his pupils and being in competition with the rest.

I am sure you know that is exactly what happened among pachequistas masters. Perez de Mendoza and Ettenhard hated each other and could not avoid showing it in their books. They spent a good amount of pages discussing silly things (as unfortunately we are doing now) as the meaning of línea recta and angulo recto., the cardinal points etc.

Talking about variations Ettenhard ‘s footwork is different form the one described by Pacheco. It is related but it’s not the same. And also Ettnehard used a type of sword completely different from the one used, preferred and suggested by Pacheco, which is absolutely logical but it changes biomechanics so the style has to change. Perez de Mendoza was fond, using sword and dagger of the guard that placed the left foot and the dagger arm forward while Tamariz when using sword and dagger directly teaches to bend the knees and adopt the classical fencing leg position. What would have Pacheco said if we would have been there? These examples are only a few the ones I remember now without taking a look at the treatises. If we look for variations we will find, in Pachequistas, a fair amount of them. It is a consequence of human nature.

In any case Perez de Mendoza describes in 1675 the 30 tretas and Cruzado, you said it, in 1702 does the same again in more detail. More than that it describes variations in the tretas compared to the first description of Pacheco. So I guess it still was there after all.

Summing up just to make it clear. I agree there were variations between masters of la Destreza Común, and the same kind of variations existed in the italian school, and in any other fencing school in the world and unavoidably after Pacheco’s death within la Verdadera Destreza. Changes are inherent to the human nature. Nevertheless all of them are schools.

I really do not see why you cannot accept this. Do you have some kind of inferiority complex in front of Carranza and Pacheco? I repeat ¿what is wrong about saying that it is a compendium if it works? Do you think it will result less "interesting"?

Please open your point of view and try to understand us. Do not follow Pacheco to the extent of believing all that he said. The idea of a “Universal School” was good for theory but down in the salle impossible to apply. The few examples I have given you of the variations in Destreza made by Pachequistas in the late XVII century are a clear proof of that. Time finally proved that he was wrong. His sytem, impressive survived but strongly modified. Just like la Destreza Común. If this suffered greater modifications was because it was much older. Should we deny it then the category of school?

By the way, Añasco was NOT a Comun fencer.

Yeah I know he was a carrancista. It was you to say he was a common master. Nevertheless Añasco’s tretas for sword and dagger are all of them tretas of Destreza Comun, one by one, exactly the same with the same names La enarcada, la encadenada, la empanada. Do you really think he performed them starting from el ángulo recto?

What I do not understand is why you write in such a blunt manner rather than using a more polite language. Things can be said in many ways. Why choose the condescendant and insulting one in an open forum in a foreign language?


Alberto

[Javier Ramos]

Hola Alberto,
I think our positions are clear. We have different conclusions from the same data. A definition of where is the limit between style and school would have helped somehow, and as you say the strictness of Pacheco could make difficult to meet the mark, it is easier to be uniform when you appear from nowhere. Still I think it is not possible to make paralels between the different components of the Italian school and those of (for me) Comun Destreza variations, which are almost unknown since Pacheco just piled up tretas.

I apologize if you think I have been blunt, but I was hating to have this one. On one side I did not wish a confrontation and on the other there were aspects I still think you had not analyzed properly, or you were trying to push too far for me. Of course you have been more busy with how the tretas worked than how they fit in their period society. Somehow I see the Comun Destreza yet as an arqueology site. But you want to use it. I hope you find some manuscript soon and you know you will get my colaboration if it is me who does it.

The aspects of how Destreza Comun appeared are most intriguing and I think they could be traceable (thinking of military origins). I was serious about asking which was the formation of numerous conquistadors and soldiers, what I find a more interesting question that what was doing the king fencing teacher before Pacheco.

Pacheco also accepts the Porta di Ferro in determined occassions. The right angle is not that fixed.

Javier
___________________
La vida amable, el enemigo hombre fuerte, ordinario el peligro, natural la defensa, la Ciencia para conseguirla infalible, su estudio forçoso, y el exercicio necessario conviene al que huviere de ser Diestro, no ignore la teorica, para que en la practica, el cuerpo, el braço, y los instrumentos obren lo conveniente a su perfeccion. LPdN

[Marc G.]

Dear Javier

I do not see that you position allows you for irony.

Ah. Good to know. And which is, according to you, my position?

Of course you can use it instead of addressing my question. Because you cannot show that there existed an structured Comun school along the country. That the different parts were related and kept a a good number of similarities I am sure, but not that they were one. For that you would need not just one text or manuscript, but two, coming from different times/places.

Woah, there, wait a second. First, I may be a bit sarcastic, all right. I thought it was better than being downright angry to your arrogant and patronizing tone. Second: I’ve taken the trouble of going through your post addressing all the questions you posed there with at least some argumentation. It’s obviously been a waste of time, as you don’t seem to have even bothered in reading them.
You insist in reducing the discussion to strictly a question of semantics. You want us to agree with YOUR definitions of what’s a school and what’s not. We’ve given you a lot of arguments, and you keep ignoring them and insisting in that we MUST acknowledge your way of seeing things. I’m sorry, we don’t.
You agree that the different teachings of Fencing (aside from Verdadera Destreza) in Spain are related and keep a good number of similarities, or so you said (see above quote). We also have some pre-Carranza Spanish treatises that are quoted as necessary references by some Verdadera Destreza authors when talking about the fencing, other then their own, being practised in Spain in their time. We have the existence of Common School Fencing Masters, before and after Carranza, with a structured hierarchy and exams. We have references to the 30 tretas that constituted the backbone of the Common School, being quoted by different authors at different times across the 17th c. We have all that, and then more. And yet you choose to say that there was nothing worth be called a school. Ok, it's your right to do so. But I hope you allow us to respectfully disagree and to humbly opt for not to comply with your narrow definition of what a school is.
I also would like to beg you stop telling us what we can and what we cannot do. Thank you.

In fact I guess (because you and me we can only guess here) that that is precisely what made Destreza Comun dissapear withot leaving a trail. Each Fencing Master wanting to keep his own way and his own secrets for him and his pupils and being in competition with the rest. Actually I am almost sure they were not too happy when Pacheco published the tretas.

Excuse me? I'm sorry, but, again, your are making this up. Exactly, when and how it disappeared? Destreza authors kept bitching about it at the beginning of the 18th c.
And… secrets? What makes you think they were secretive? I mean, secretive enough that it really meant anything to the actual effectiveness of the system that they were widely publicised? If one has to rely in a single trick, or even a bunch of them, to keep himself alive or to call himself a Master he's a blissfully deluded dead man walking. The 30 tretas are a collection of techniques through which fencing principles are implemented. Now, I won't discuss their pedagogical value, as I'm pretty confident in that we would agree in stating that it is undoubtedly vastly inferior to the Verdadera Destreza system when it comes to be learnt through a book. But to reduce a fencing tradition, centuries old, and quite a successful one, or at least no less successful than their neighbour’s, to a bunch of acrobatics and a bag of tricks is an astonishing oversimplification. We’re talking fencing, here.

It is nice you try to reconstruct the system, but its validity until you find one of the original treaties is similar to the reconstructions we can make of middleages systems and not like those from the time of press, when they were spread. Or even less because you have to relay on their enemy. To try to say that there was a single Destreza Comun is like saying that there was a single navaja game in Spanish XIX century.
I really do not see why you cannot accept this. Do you have some kind of inferiority complex in front of Carranza and Pacheco? I repeat ¿what is wrong about saying that it is a compendium if it works? Do you think it will result less "interesting"?

I hope you don’t mind if I choose to ignore your surely well intentioned attempts at psychoanalysis, but let me put some things into a maybe different perspective... You have seen us fighting once, at a public demonstration. Once. In a display thought to make it enjoyable and minimally understandable for the general public and children. Plus a couple hours talk over a beer with Alberto and a handful of emails exchanged. And you presume to know how we work, how we research, and how effective, or sound, or accurate our reconstruction effort is. You presume to know it well enough to come here to say publicly that what we do has no validation, that our approach is wrong and that we’re wasting our time researching something that at the best has a marginal value in terms of reconstructing a part of historical fencing.
All this without having really seen us in action. Without having accepted to come and discuss things in a proper way (you know how discussing fencing is enormously facilitated by being able to actually take a sword and demonstrate), or at least show us something, anything, about how you think fencing was in the 17th c. in Spain, despite our numerous invitations. I’m not talking of trying to “prove” anything about how “good” or “effective” it is, not even actually fighting, just showing and discussing. You live at a 2 hours train ride from us. You’ve been invited to come and join us in discussion time after time. You’ve chosen no to. Ok, it’s your prerogative, of course. But, you know, given the circumstances, just coming here and telling us we’re wrong because we don’t agree with YOUR definitions is, at the best, rude.
At least in MY way of seeing things, of course.

By the way, Añasco was NOT a Comun fencer.

No, he wasn’t. It was YOU who said it was, I must remind you.

PS. And I repeat I have nothing against Destreza Comun.

In my last post I told you I sincerely believed you hadn’t.
I’m starting to get the impression you either don’t bother to read our answers or choose to ignore them. Which is starting to get tiresome, you know...

But I require it to be treated with serious criteria, and not just like a TM.

You require. Well, OK.



And, if I may dare to address some things in your last post...

I think our positions are clear. We have different conclusions from the same data.

Indeed.

A definition of where is the limit between style and school would have helped somehow,

Enormously.

and as you say the strictness of Pacheco could make difficult to meet the mark, it is easier to be uniform when you appear from nowhere. Still I think it is not possible to make paralels between the different components of the Italian school and those of (for me) Comun Destreza variations, which are almost unknown since Pacheco just piled up tretas.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

I apologize if you think I have been blunt, but I was hating to have this one. On one side I did not wish a confrontation

Not doing bad, for not wishing it. Not at all.

and on the other there were aspects I still think you had not analyzed properly, or you were trying to push too far for me. Of course you have been more busy with how the tretas worked than how they fit in their period society. Somehow I see the Comun Destreza yet as an arqueology site. But you want to use it. I hope you find some manuscript soon and you know you will get my colaboration if it is me who does it.

And you thought THIS was the best way to have an educated discussion about the subject. Coming out of nowhere and saying publicly we’re wrong and we’re trying to fool the community, JUST because what we conclude and what we do doesn’t fit your ideas. All this, while making assumptions about what we research, how and why, and making remarks about a possible “inferiority complex”.

And you didn’t want a confrontation. Well, I’m relieved to know, now.

The aspects of how Destreza Comun appeared are most intriguing and I think they could be traceable (thinking of military origins). I was serious about asking which was the formation of numerous conquistadors and soldiers, what I find a more interesting question that what was doing the king fencing teacher before Pacheco.

You know, THIS is something we’re indeed researching. And it’s also something that would have made for an interesting discussion.
Would.

I don’t believe this is taking us anywhere productive. Everybody stated his position, so I think it’s time to learn to live with it and move on. Besides, we've hijacked this thread for long enough, by now. I aplogize to Kyle and all those who actually answered his question befor this strayed off and turned ugly.

I may answer emails and PM's about this, but for me, this entire affair is over.

[Javier Ramos]

Thank you Marc, again you came back to rekindle the fire,

I was thinking of initiating a new thread but this one is already invaded.

I will not repeat your words, but you are asuming a hell of things. What you really have is:

-3 lost books from c1470 to 1532, what after the descriptions of Pacheco SEEM similar to Italian XVI c. fencing systems. There are not even news of books after that. Maybe that Heredia.

-Pacheco description of 30 tretas, just loose actions, without a system of stances and steps. That he calls Destreza Vulgar, and after him all his followers pick that name or that of Destreza Comun. Now Pacheco does not distinguish between Italian, German or Vulgar systems, he only does between Vulgar or Verdadera. So you have no idea from where are they coming. Most are described as used by Italians. 2/3 of the tretas have clear Spanish or Spanished names, that is their only relation to the possibility of being Spanish in origin or adopted. Every foreign name was spanished at the time anyway. No clue of how much Pacheco missed nor how often were those tretas used in Spain.

-Several loose news about examinations in XVI century (without technical details, even when you would like they follow your ideas), existence of people doing several tretas vulgares in XVII, sometimes with variations, but only isolated not as a system. References to people as Comun fencers, again after the Pacheco definition that only means they do not belong to the Destreza Verdadera. If a Japanese would make a show in Madrid in 1630, he would say he belongs to the Comun Destreza. And a mostly literal repetition of Pacheco text in 1702.

-No Comun Destreza news in XVIII century.

-An empty vacuum of "we do not know what were they doing" in XVI century that cannot be filled by Destreza Verdadera, and almost the same vacuum for the first half of XVII. We can make asumptions (only asumptions) that the techniques from the lost books were used and spread, but we have to keep in mind that they could not be that spread if no copies survived. And still we now very little of those books. Later Verdadera Destreza invades everything.

-If I forgot something you will probably tell me.

So you mount a "Destreza Comun" system based in Italian XVI and XVII centuries fencing (because you have experience with that and because of the little we know from the lost books), you add the description of the 30 tretas from Pacheco, and you anounce you have the "Destreza Comun", the original Spanish Fencing School! And you decide you can occupy the empty vacuum with it.

And you are not able to accept that I say you have only a "compendium"? That I have a problem with semantics? And if I call to prudence and to keep open other ways, I am a Pachequista who hates you.

I have been guessing a lot in your favor, like when I said there could be relations between the different fencing styles all around the country, but that was just to try to find a middle way to your opinion. The reality is that we do not know, we know too little...

Javier
PS. Just to make clear a point you have raised. In three occasions Alberto or members of your association proposed a visit to my home city, and they were welcomed, but they did not show up. In another three occassions I have anounced my passing through Madrid for arranging a meeting, without getting an answer. The day we actually met I spent 5 hours walking, making time for my train because everybody dissapeared. I have always atributed this to bad luck.