The End of Dueling

The common portrayal of dueling in movies is that dueling was a brutal and murderous hand of an authoritarian regime.In the movies unwilling participants are herded into muddy arena and forced to fight someone much better trained than they are, while the audience jeers.

In reality, when the state did require a duel it was frequently an advanced mediation technique. Often matters were settled immediately before or even during the duel. In many regions, fatalities directly resulting from the duel were uncommon, although depending on the crime and region the loser was sometimes hung afterwards.

Duels were often rare, with one a few being conducted a year. Dueling was used to resolve a very short list of crimes. In addition, they were repeatedly outlawed beginning in the middle ages, and continuing throughout the Renaissance into the early modern age.

In addition to various governments forbidding dueling, the church either decryed the practice, or forbid the participation of church members. Informal criticism of dueling can be found as early as the 6th century in Avitus of Vienne's letters.  In 1213 with the Fourth Council of the Lateran, the church forbade dueling, judicial tests and ordeals.

Still, dueling continued, despite critics from both church and state. 'Extra-judiciary' duels were fairly common up until this century. In France, despite Louis the XIII outlawing the duel in 1626, petitions to courts to settle matters of wildly varying levels of importance were a common feature through the 17th century into the modern era. Overall, there doesn't seem to be a true pivotal moment to end to dueling, instead it just slowly faded into history.

So that brings the question of when the last sword duel was fought in Europe. The last recorded duel I can find was between two members of the French Parliament. Gaston Defferre insulted Rene Ribere and Ribere later challenged him to a duel with swords. Ribere was wounded twice, and lost. This was in 1967.

'In conclusion, it may be remarked- and the wiser portion of the community will probably do so with satisfaction- that dueling of any kind, which in England is a thing of the past, on the Continent is everywhere on the wane, and that the days seem not so very distant when the "Noble Science of Defense," However assiduously pursued in sport will never need to be put to the test in earnest except on military duty'                            

- Egerton Castle, 1885

Random Links

Lichtenauer as a 15th century master. 

Fencing Hindquarters- La Destreza Comun- An interesting perspective since I've been working through vulgar fencing with a friend. I do agree, it's very similiar to Italian, at the same time, there's many destreza elements in it.

Ilkka on HEMA- My friend prefers the term science of defense. I have to admit, it's growing on me.


Rapier Ps:

• Paschen
• Paternoster
• Pallas Armata
• Captain Peloquin
• Camillo Palladini (Sorta)

Stance and Rapier

This is mostly musings for Italian/French and things other than Spanish Rapier. The Spanish are just special that way. 

While there are a number of excellent fencers floating around, there does seem to be two prevailing incorrect stances for rapier. First a very closed upright stance with feet shoulder width apart and weight evenly (or nearly evenly) distributed. While this stance is very stable, you tend to sacrifice both reach and explosiveness while maintaining this. Essentially, in order to extend or respond, you have to first shift your weight to your back foot, and then shift forward again. This process is slow, and so in order to expedite the lunge, the person will attempt to minimise the weight shifting, causing the lunge to be short.

The second position is a wider stance, but with weight either over the front foot or attempting to evenly distribute the weight. This causes the person to lean in his torso to try and make reach, which causes him to lift the rear foot off the ground. Basically they're extending in all the wrong places.

In the manuals, back legs tend to be crouched, bent at the knee with the hip open. The stances can vary from very closed to quite wide. Even in a more closed stance the knee is bent, and the weight is to the back.

The crouched leg/open hip stance can be surprisingly difficult to achieve, but it allows weight to be loaded onto the back leg. This has several purposes. One of the main advantages is that keeping the leg flexed, with muscles tense but not locked, and the hip open gives you a very responsive stance. Essentially, your muscles are coiled like a spring.

Another advantage comes from the weight shift itself. By shifting the weight to the back, it also allows the front foot to respond quicker. Without weight, the front foot is free to pivot, pass or preform other footwork. Lunging is also expedited, since the front foot is free, and the weight is already located where it will shift forward easily.

rocking on the left, lunging on the right, stabbing middle left

Interestingly, rocking is actually easier as well, and is usually a small quick motion with the weight back.

 The more I work with fencing, and rapier especially, it seems that instead of a balanced neutral stance, you want the most unbalanced stance that you can manage without falling over and that you can still recover out of. Unless of course you're in the middle of a lunge, and are falling forward. This being said, maintaining a dynamic and fluid stance is important, as is constant shifting of weight. Immediately before engagement, and when recovering from a lunge weight should probably be over the rear foot, leading to a back/forward/back weight distribution. At the same time, movements should be smooth and economical, and no larger than needed.

The cost of fencing lessons.

Finally a document to satisfy my inner time traveler.

Reading about historical fencing is fun. Hitting things with swords is fun. But how much would it cost to get fencing lessons from Filippo Dardi?

A guy named Brian Stokes apparently has found a document dated from 1443 in which the city of Bologna is giving Dardi permission to open a school. Link. All around it's a very interesting document since it outlines business expectations, reasonable course timelines among other things. For one thing, it appears that Dardi is being given a grant of 200 lire per year to subsidize his lessons. Dardi agrees, although he does say that he will only accept 20 students per class.

Of interest to fellow time travelers there is a complete list outlining duration of courses and cost. Gaurenwolf has helpfully worked out the approximate cost of classes based on the price of silver. The result is surprisingly reasonable. For example, for the long sword the cost works out to $1887.60 for a 5 month course, or around $17 for a 2 hour lesson. At 2 hours a day, 5 days a week that's over 130 hours of instruction.

One thing that immediately jumped out to me was how expensive dagger was, with a two month course costing 6 lire, only 4 lire short of a 5 month long sword class. The reasoning behind the pricing isn't directly explored in the text. I have to wonder if this is demand based, or prehaps difficulty based.

While the dagger isn't mentioned, the two handed sword, the buckler, and 'other plays' are seen as 'useful to the young men of Bologna, for their own defence and for that of the public sphere.' I would like to investigate as to what the 'public sphere' is in this case. I'm not familiar enough with non-judicial or judicial dueling at this time to be able to say if these skills were being used in dueling, or if it was more likely that this was being used martially. Whatever the use, it was important enough to warrant Bologna subsidizing the class.

Unterhut Pt. 3- The Fool (And more Eisenport)

Porto di Ferro can be difficult to distill into a single basic concept. For one thing 'Porto di Ferro' doesn't exist as a stand alone guard, it's an overarching term for a set of guards in the Italian/Bolognese longsword tradition. For example, in Fiori's Fior Battaglia, he describes both Tutta Porto di Ferro (whole iron gate) and Porto di Ferro Mezana (middle iron gate).

Generally, the guard set is a low guard, hands near the waist with the point dropped towards the ground. In most descriptions it also trends towards the right side, with the left reserved for the Dente di Cenghiaro guards. However, Cenghiaro Porto Di Ferro does appear in several Bolegnese single sword and sword and buckler manuals.

Needless to say, this guard is quite varied. Marrozo includes six different Porto di Ferro guards, Fiore totals 2/12, and Vadi has about the same, but with deviations from Fiore. Knowing what 'Porto di Ferro' means is highly dependent on manual, weapon, and context, which can make it very confusing to interpret.

Moving back to the German traditions for a minute brings me to 'eisenport.' This guard has a name that is a direct translation of Porto di Ferro, and is functionally similar.  While recently researching nebenhut,  I ran across an interesting passage from Andreas found in Hans von Speyer's fencing anthology dated 1491. In this section, Andreas is comparing the longsword to the messer. When he is describing alber, he says the following:

[15] The fourth guard or stance in the sword is named the fool, place yourself in it thus, set your left foot forward and hold your sword before you with straight arms and the point toward the ground so that the short edge is above.

[16] Many masters say that this guard is named the iron door and indeed it is one guard

Alber (the fool) is a lower guard that typically consists of your waist level and outstretched, one leg forward and the point pointing to the ground. While both legs can be forward, most writers tend to favor one or the other. Like Porto di Ferro, it also seems to be exclusively a long sword guard.

Alber from Meyer 1570 Credit: Grauenwolf

While I'm still attempting to compile all usages of Alber and the other lower wards, it's currently very apparent that it's exclusively a guard of the Liechtenauer tradition. Pre-Meyer, the references for Alber come mainly from four authors: Pseudo-Peter von Danzig, Jörg Wilhalm Hutter, Sigmund Schining ein Ringeck, and glossa of Liechtenauer's unarmed combat. Paulus Kal's illustrations are another source, though they have little emore than captions. After Meyer's manuals, his influence is notable as well, although Meyer was apart of the Liechtenauer tradition, albeit with some Mair influence. The bulk of the manuals are also contemporaries, with most dated to a 102 year span.

With Alber a guard of a single- though predominant- longsword tradition, the earlier quote from Speyer starts to make sense. Eisenport appears to be the German equivalent of Porto di Ferro in more than just name, it also appears to have a similar function. Namely, it's an overarching term for slightly varying lower, point down guards. Unlike Porto di Ferro, at times it is presented as being it's own ward. At other times, it's has been the equivalent of all the other lower wards; nebenhut, alber, and shrankhut. Currently, I'm also attempting to narrow down the earliest reference to Eisenport available. Right now it appears that that might be an addendum in Codex Doebringer where Eisenport is discussed as a variant of Alber. It's also noted to be quite good if you're 'beset with four or six impertinent peasants.'

Codex Doebringer is roughly contemporaneous to Fiore delli Liberi's Fior di Battaglia, the earliest surviving manuscript of the Italian tradition. The question to me is: Was 'Iron Gate' a common term at the time, did one writer copy the other, or was there a third now lost source that both copied from?

Unfortunately, this question will remain unanswered.

Quick Link: Trail by Combat

Here's a book length disseration from Ariella Elema about the trial by combat system in France and England. Frankly, I'm excited because I haven't seen on judicial duels from either country.

Link.

Also another book that's come up. It's a translation of a translation of a 1597 fencing manual by Heironymus Calvacabo of Bologna and Patenostrier of Rome.

Link.

Unterhut Pt. 2. Nebenhut and Eisenport

While on another sweep for nebenhut sources, I found another two illustrations that I'm going to cautiously add to the list of labeled nebenhut illustrations. These come from Jörg Wihalm Hutter's manuscript on armored mounted fencing. While the German isn't translated, and my Middle High German isn't reliable, he does appear to be describing a series of devices from nebenhut while opposing two different guards. Additionally, there might be a third, but I need to double check the German since it seems to be pulled back. 

At this point, I feel that the origins of nebenhut don't lie in longsword, but instead in rossfecten- armored mounted fencing. The earliest label and illustration of nebenhut I can find is from Pseudo-Peter van Danzig's gloss dating from 1452. This gloss went on to become the most widespread gloss in the Liechtenauer record, and is reproduced in over a dozen manuscripts.  In his description of the guard, he calls it Liechtenauer's third ward of equestrian fencing, which would imply it was in wide use. During the rise of the longsword through the late middle ages, it seems logical that widespread existent terms would be modified within the existing combat system. This concept carries through to one of the latest illustrated descriptions- nebenhut for the rapier.

Additionally, the most consistent illustrations of nebenhut are found in mounted combat, no doubt helped by how many times Pseudo-Peter van Danzig's gloss was copied. Counting the two above, three out of five labeled illustrations are of nebenhut in rossfecten. The other two are from Meyer, and his are both problematic. With those in question, the only clearly accurate labeled illustrations are all of mounted combat. 

It is also appears that eisenport is the same guard as nebenhut- or at least they were interchangable. The reason for this is two fold. First, nebenhut and eisenport seem to only rarely be found in the same manual. Most writers picked one or the other and use that as their low-right guard. Meyer has both in his longsword section, but dismissed eisenport, stating that contemporary German usage equates the guard to shrankhut. Andre Paurñfeindt also has both, and while I'm not as familiar with his work, he seems to treat nebenhut as a right, or possibly an open iron door. 

Second, Nebenhut and eisenport have actually been used interchangeably in manuals. Notably, Sigmund Schining ein Ringeck's Glasgow Fechtbuch (MS E.1939.65.341) uses eysen pforte to describe the start techniques that are starting from nebenhut in Codex Ringeck (MS Dresd.C.487).

For example in English this verse reads:

When you stand in the the Nebenhut out to the left side and one cuts against you down from above, sweep firmly from below up into his sword with the short edge. 

In the Dresden Ms:

It~ wann du ligst In der nebenhut vff dine~ lincken sÿtten Vnnd ainer hawet vff dich võ oben nider So streÿch Von vnden vff vast in sin schwert mitt der kurczen schnid 

And in the Glasgow Ms:

Wen du ligst in der eyserñ pforten von der lincken seÿttñ / hawt dan ainer auff dich von oben nÿder / so streich von vndten auff vast an sein schwert mit der kurtzn schneid 

 Translations thanks to Wiktenauer, emphasis is mine. 

The Glasgow Fechtbuch, unlike the Dresden Ms, also contains a gloss of Pseudo-Peter von Danzig's rossfecten gloss. If nebenhut was an equestrian guard first, the addition of an equestrian section could explain the compiler/editor's change from nebenhut to eysern pforten. Eisenport might also be a borrowed term from the Italian tradition. While porta di ferro does vary, it is extensively used throughout the tradition, and doesn't suffer from the same obscurity that plagues nebenhut.

Unterhut Pt. 1 Nebenhut

I've recently became aware of the lack of sources for nebenhut. Until now, I've always associated nebenhut with the Itialian posta di coda lunga for the longsword. Essentially as this plate from Talhofer 1467. 

Unnamed Guard- Hans Talhoffer Fectbuch 1467

Of course, Talhofer doesn't explicitly name the guard shown in this plate, stating only 'Both stand in their wards.' As it happens, there isn't a single place where nebenhut for longsword is both described and illustrated. The three places I know where nebenhut is described and illustrated are, unfortunately, an equestrian source and Meyer's rapier and staff. 

It currently seems clear to me that nebenhut, shrankut, and weschelhut should typically be treated as separate guards. They're listed separately too many times to not make a distinction. Eisenporten, however, is at one point or another associated with multiple guards. 

Unfortunately, while attempting to define nebenhut things become increasingly muddled. Some masters say nebenhut is on the right only, others on the left, others still say it can be done from both sides. So admittedly trying to make a distinction between guards is difficult, and there's always the possibility (likelihood) that the various masters don't actually agree with each other. 

Nebn Hut (right)- Andre Paurenfeindt

For a working definition I would propose:

• Left foot forward.
• Sword held to the right.
• Long edge forward.
• Point dropped, and roughly following the right leg.
• Additional consideration/research into fingering the cross I think is needed. 

Another point is the single handed sources consistently show a similar angle of sword, with the arms extended to the knee, knuckles out, and point forward.  

Nebenhut for Rappier- Meyer 1560

Nebenhut - Goliath Fetchbuch

If this angle were rotated to accommodate a 2-handed grip it would lead to a position much like the one pictured above in Paurenfeindt's manual. If this is how the longsword nebenhut developed, then the real question would be if the point should be back at all, since that would require additional rotation from the single sword guards.

I would also like to propose a term 'unterhut' and call it a day. 

Excerpt from Manciolino's Second Assault

Note: Guard positions are shown in orange, cuts and thrusts in red. Steps with the right foot are in blue and left steps are in green in both the diagram and the text. The diagram is only through the 'easy leap' in step 11. Thereafter, the movement is with the right foot only.

A typical guard to begin Step 1 in would be Guardia Alta. The dangling conjunctions are meant to symbolize that the motions only broken into steps for learning purposes. The assault is, in fact, a fluid motion.

1. Crossing forward with your right next, you will cut a tramazzone fallen into porta di ferro larga. And you will cause your apposed buckler to guard your head well.
2. Then drawing your left foot near your right you will do a falso from low to high going into guardia di faccia.
3. And casting your right foot immediately forward, you will throw a mandritto traversale to the face so that your sword falls into porta di ferro [not specified].
4. You will then go into guardia di testa with your sword, and will throw a mandritto to his leg, going under your arm, and
5. Immediately recoiling your right foot to the rear, you will throw a riverso to his sword hand in such fashion that it falls into coda lunga, and
6. Stepping forward from here with your right, you will extend a thrust to his face, and as he raises his sword to block that, you will immediately place your buckler under that, and
7. In that tempo you will pass toward his right side with your left foot, giving him a mandritto to the leg, and making your right foot then immediately follow behind your left, and
8. Thereafter retiring your left behind your right into large pace, you will make a half turn of your hand, so that your sword is finally reposed into coda lunga stretta.

9. Then you will extend a thrust to the face without moving your feet, and
10. Immediately after having done this, you will step toward his right side with your left foot, throwing a riverso to his right temple so that thereafter your right foot follows behind your left, and that your buckler is a good guardian of your head.
11. Then you will extend a stoccata into your enemy's face, lifting yourself to the rear with an easy leap, causing your sword to be reduced into coda lunga alta.
    
    

12. Passing forward then with your right foot, you will extend another thrust to the face.
13. Pretending to strike him in the head with a mandritto, nonetheless you will strike him across the right temple with a riverso, dropping your sword into coda lunga.
14. Then you will throw a falso traversale to the sword hand, that goes over-arm, and raising the sword hand into the air, you will throw a mandritto to the face going under-arm.
15. Then immediately drawing your right foot back you will strike his sword hand with a riverso.
16. Then stepping forward with the right foot you will extend a thrust to the face, and
17. Pretending to throw a riverso to the face, you will give him a mandritto across the left temple, reducing your sword into porta di ferro stretta, where you will shield your head well with your buckler.

18. Then withdrawing your right foot back you will make a half turn of your fist, recovering your sword into coda lunga stretta, and
19. Here cutting the enemy's hand with a mezzo mandritto falling into cingiara porta di ferro without moving your feet,
20. Thereafter you will step forward with your right foot and will extend a thrust to the face, redoubling two tramazzoni to the head, and making your buckler good, and
21. Then you will do a montante into guardia alta, retiring your right foot even with your left.

MS I:33 and German Literature

ROYAL ARMOURIES MS I.33: THE JUDICIAL COMBAT AND THE ART OF FENCING IN THIRTEENTH- AND FOURTEENTH CENTURY GERMAN LITERATURE by RACHEL E. KELLETT from Oxford German Studies: 41. 1, 32–56, April 2012

An interesting paper that attempts to place the earliest existing fight manual MS I:33 in the context of the literary and cultural tradition of the 1300-1400s. Link here.

German translation is as follows. Please note this is crowd sourced- but it seems to be reliable.

English:

 

He then caught¹ a fencing blow

Wolfhart went under the sword:

He cast his sword from his hand

he embraced the fighter²

 

^----

The King's servants carried shields to the court

Cudgels and bucklers, there was plenty of fencing^3,

fighting with swords, a lot of throwing javelins

at good shields. The young heroes were undeterred/untiring.

 

^----

?

?

?

?

They beat on the⁴ bucklers

they stood bent behind them⁵

and had drawn their swords

which were glowing and glistening

 

^---

Annotations:

1) = got hit by

2) in order to wrestle

3) as a show fight / contest, according to the .pdf

4) I guess what is meant here is that they used their swords to beat on their own bucklers, e.g. to challenge or intimidate someone or to applaud.

5) behind their bucklers

 

 

Modern German:

 

einen Fechtschlag(1) er dann einfing,

Wolfhart (er) unters Schwert ging:

sein Schwert warf er aus der Hand,

er umfing den Krieger.(2)

 

----

 

Des Königs Gesinde zum Hofe Schilder trug

Keulen und Buckler, gefochten³ war da genug

gekämpft mit den Schwertern, mit Wurfspeeren⁴ geworfen

viel auf gute Schilder. Die jungen Helden waren unverdrossen.

 

----

 

Sie ?⁵ und wagen

sich da so viel ?⁶

dass ?⁷ ? ?

von in ? hin und her.

Sie klopften auf⁸ die Buckler,

dahinter standen sie gebogen

und hatten heraus die Schwerter gezogen

die leuchten und gleißen.

---

 

Annotations:

1) schirmen = fechten; schirmslac = eine Fechttechnik, Bewegung

2) in den Ringkampf übergehen

3) schirmen = hier: Fechten als Turnierform

4) gabilôte = eine Art Wurfspieß

5) fleißig sein?

6) sehr, gewaltig, schmerzlich, Schmerz?

7) manger = Essen? mancher?

8) "schlugen für/vor"

A note on the blog title.

The martial arts tradition in Europe is a long one, and is actually fairly well documented. Beginning in approx. 1290 and continuing on through the Middle Ages, into the Early Modern period leading into the modern day. My principal area of interest is the High/Late Middle Ages into the Early Modern era.

Language is one of the most fundamental and important things to a written record, and it's one of the things most quickly lost to the shifting nature of culture. As languages evolve, the written word gets left behind. Soon transcription is needed, then translation. It remains a testament, it's nuanced meaning too often lost.

One example is the word 'vehten.' It is the most common medieval term used to describe combat- physical, spiritual, and moral. It is also used extensively throughout the fighting manuals, which makes it an odd choice since it's actually the word schirmen that describes sword fighting.

What led to this style choice? Was this a choice made by the monks that were so often writers of these documents, meant to reflect a spiritual or moral struggle? Does it denote a certain level of skill or sophistication? Membership to a school perhaps?

Schrimen itself has several interesting layers to it, the most prominent being that in addition to referring to sword fighting, it can also refer to shielding. In fact- what begins as a secondary meaning in the Middle Ages is how the word survives into the modern day, such as in the word 'Abschirmung.'

This brings me, in a round about way, to the name of this blog. A schirmære is simply a pratictioner of schirmen, in modern terms, a fencer.