Sean M wrote:Michael, it seems like most of your points in the last post are based on ignoring things I said, or removing qualifiers from what I said and asking me to defend the unqualified statements.
False claims. I challenge you to find a single example of me asking you to defend an unqualified statement
which you yourself did not make! And disagreeing
with something is most certainly not the same as ignoring it. I've challenged the veracity of a few of your claims (as I challenge the veracity of this one). This does not mean I am ignoring them—and indeed, I most often quote you directly when responding. On the other hand, when someone disagrees with oneself, there is a certain appeal to claim that they are "ignoring" one's arguments, rather than contradicting or refuting them...
I also won't address the interesting side points you raise, since I find its best to keep online discussions focused.
Naturally. This is why you brought up Fiore in a discussion on the Spanish approach to the German longsword.
(I still don't understand why you brought up what people in the 15th century thought about the origins of the Normans).
Historiography, my dear Mr. Manning! You don't seem to have been paying attention to the discussion, so I'll reiterate how it's gone for you:
1. You made the assertion that consensus is an indicator of truth.
2. I challenged this and pointed out that consensus can be clearly and obviously false, and should never, without some sort of external reinforcement, be used as a test of truth. I used earlier perspectives on the Normans as a fitting example that your assertion was demonstrably false, as these are an example of a misguided and entirely incorrect (but extremely pervasive) consensus.
3. You have claimed to not have understood the relevance of this example.
Does that help?
I think that researchers like Guy Windsor, Greg Mele, Bob Charrette, Mark Lancaster, Matt Easton, and Sean Hayes have similar interpretations of Fiore's art. When different researchers found each other in the 1990s and early 2000s, they often found that they had been working in similar directions despite diverse martial backgrounds and scholarly educations. Since then, the teachers in that group have come to agree on many things through debate with words and with swords, even though they live in different countries and don't have power over each other beyond choosing who to invite to teach at events they organize.
Thank you for being slightly
more specific. I have a few questions:
1. Do you have evidence or examples of the specific directions¹ these specific researchers were working in prior to that time period (and, most importantly, before they came to be aware of any
of the other specific researchers in question)? Assuming you do, what is the nature of this evidence?
2. How do you define "similar"? This is important—I know of, for example, at least half a dozen different interpretations of the Zornhau. I consider them all similar
. Though they may be similar from mutual influence, I expect it is a factor of working with a longsword for the same text. At the same time, despite these interpretations being similar
, I do not find that there is any clear and specific consensus
what the Zornhau is and is meant to do coming from those with these "similar" interpretations.
3. Do you know of any Fiorists who are outwith this "similarity" in interpretation? If so, who are they?
¹And, when it comes to longsword research, what does the word "direction" even mean?
Sean, if you could please start being less vague, it would make this discussion significantly more profitable.
If, as Miguel seems to think, Fiore interpretations were mostly products of people's modern backgrounds and educations, then the interpretations that are supported by the sources would be more diverse.
I cannot speak for Miguel or his arguments, but I would like to here quote his claims that you are arguing against for clarity's sake:
-those interpretations share more or less the same environment, and that environment is radicaly different than the historical original one.
-those interpretations hasn't been developed in isolated environments, but in a networked community, so spontaneous convergence cannot be taken as a rule beforehand.
I personally find nothing in his statements:
a) which talks specifically about Fiore interpretations at all (as far as I can tell, Miguel has never studied Fiore. If I am wrong, I hope he'll correct me!) He seems to be making a broad generalization about HEMA reconstruction in general. This does not mean that your points regarding the reconstruction of Fiore aren't necessarily relevant; they certainly may be (and Miguel did make this statement after you had made a point about Fiore)—but there may be a difference in perspective between you and him which one or both of you may not have taken into account.
b) which states that diversity is a requirement of isolation (and this is important, as half of your argument seems to hinge on this assumption).
I think, rather than conflating his two arguments, it may be more helpful to address them in isolation:
His first is that modern interpretations are made in an environment (also known as the developed, contemporary Western world) which is "radically different" than the one in which these manuals were written. Do you agree or disagree with this particular point?
His second is that modern interpretations have not been developed in isolation. You seem to challenge this statement with your argument that Fiorists have indeed worked from isolation and then spontaneously converged upon "similar" interpretations. This is the argument I have attempted to explore further above.