I love it when ancient wisdom says exactly what I do :)

[Jean Chandler]

I think most of the Victorians were full of 'crap', to be honest. I'd be more blunt but I'm not sure of the mod policies on HEMAA. With a few partial exceptions like Sir Richard Burton. But generally speaking most of the more benighted historical errors which were the foundation of the obscuring of the real Western Martial tradition arose in the 19th Century. So I often disagree with them on this and many other subjects.

This particular quote isn't particularly controversial to me, but I disagree with your interpreation of it. Nevertheless I'm pleased to see you concede that it's not wise to do free-play with sharps.

I myself have never owned a Liechtenauer but I have had the pleasure to spar with one many times. If I was a wealthy eccentric sword collector like yourself I would indeed own one. I think the next blunt I buy though will be one of those Ensifer Feders.

J

[Mike Edelson]

For a madman like Edelson the sharp is the only realistic training tool.... and if you can't juggle at least 5 of them, you have no business claiming to study fencing.

I love being a madman!

[Kevin Murakoshi]

It's also worth pointing out that all those Victorian masters said you should start with foil. Yanno sport fencing....

[Mike Edelson]

It's also worth pointing out that all those Victorian masters said you should start with foil. Yanno sport fencing....

Look, no one is perfect. I'm sure they didn't bathe very often either, and they probably had all sorts of warts and boils. The important thing is that they agree with me. Me, me, me, me, me. Let's stop talking about other stuff, okay?

[DavidCoblentz]

I think most of the Victorians were full of 'crap', to be honest. I'd be more blunt but I'm not sure of the mod policies on HEMAA. With a few partial exceptions like Sir Richard Burton. But generally speaking most of the more benighted historical errors which were the foundation of the obscuring of the real Western Martial tradition arose in the 19th Century. So I often disagree with them on this and many other subjects.

I agree that there are issues with a lot of the work that they did, but I think sometimes we as a community go to far in dismissing the work that many of the Victorians did, especially, Castle, Hutton, etc... You can't mention Castle in a forum anymore without 5 different people telling you how biased he is as a source, and that you should dismiss everything he says. Yes...but, he still did some pretty cool stuff. Also, I'm still impressed that he wrote his book when he was only 26 I really enjoyed Tony Wolf's new book, Ancient Swordplay which gives a lot of background on these guys and what it is they were actually trying to accomplish.

[Jean Chandler]

It depends on your area of focus; if you are interested in 19th Century military saber or Bartitsu, obviously you have more respect for the Victorians. Even I openly admire guys like Burton, Jacob Burckhardt and some others in spite of their flaws. But as someone interested in the Medieval and Renaissance history, I despair of the avalanche of warped, stupid, bigoted, nationalistic, twisted propaganda that dominated mainstream and academic thought in that era, particularly as it relates to fencing and Martial Arts. If you are trying to sift through the b.s. to find the elusive evidence of the historical reality of the Medieval world, it's the Victorians most of all that you find yourself fighting against.

The sad thing is really how influential the Victorians were. The 20th Century was in many ways, intellectually, politically in terms of the horrific wars and political repression, the abused child of the 19th!

Here is hoping the 21st will be out from under their shadow.

J

[DavidCoblentz]

I despair of the avalanche of warped, stupid, bigoted, nationalistic, twisted propaganda that dominated mainstream and academic thought in that era, particularly as it relates to fencing and Martial Arts.

Yeah, but that's not much different than a lot of the historical fencing texts that we have

Any author from any time period is going to have a bias, and if you read them coming from a different background, you will probably have some serious problems with it. If we get upset by someone's biases, then we often miss the really interesting things that they actually do have to offer. I'm not trying to say that the Victorians were perfect or anything, but I think that there's a lot of really fascinating material there(even about renaissance and medieval fighting). A lot of these guys were trying to do the same things that we are, and it's really useful sometimes to step back for a minute and see how someone else has approached the material in a completely different way. They were in a completely different culture, they didn't have as many resources available to them as we do, and they also had some pretty different goals about what they are trying to do. It's fascinating to see how those things impacted what they did.

Our approach to this stuff is usually just as biased as there's was. The refreshing thing about the Victorians is that they are completely open about it

[DavidCoblentz]

Though stick-play[their stick is our modern plastic waster or steel blunt] is invaluable as an aid to work with the sword, it may be remarked that there are two reasons, and those important ones, why the single-stick should not be first placed in the hands of the beginner, and why it should never altogether usurp the place of the more lethal weapon[note the word lethal, implying real sword]. The reasons are—

(a.) The stick is very light, and short smart hits can be made, which are impossible with a sword. [Hmmm...who has been saying that since he learned how to type on the internets?? Hmmm?]

(b.) The hit with the stick is really a hit, and there need be no draw, which, as already explained, is so important in sword-play. [You mean hitting with a stick is not the same as cutting with a sword?? Who would have thunk it!]

To these may be added a third reason. With the stick there is always the temptation not to cut with the true edge, and it is very hard to detect faults in this direction—faults which are hard to cure, and which may quite spoil good swordsmanship.

Later on, the author gives more details as to what he would prefer as an alternative to single stick:

This is a grave objection to the game, when the game is regarded as representing real business; but for all that, the lessons learnt with the stick are invaluable to the swordsman. The true way to meet the difficulty would be to supplement stick-play by a course with broad-swords, such as are in use in different London gymnasiums, with blunt edges and rounded points.

[Mike Ruhala]

Yeah, but that's not much different than a lot of the historical fencing texts that we have

There's certainly some pretty crazy stuff in Dobringer! It should also be pointed out that people in the Medieval era had some weird ideas about ancient Greece and Rome.

Any author from any time period is going to have a bias, and if you read them coming from a different background, you will probably have some serious problems with it.

Funny you should say that. When I read this,

/ I despair of the avalanche of warped, stupid, bigoted, nationalistic, twisted propaganda that dominated mainstream and academic thought in that era

I was thinking to myself, "Hey! That sounds just like the evening news!"


In regards to the OP, they invented the blunt to replace the singlestick. In many cases they just dulled their sharps. edit: I see that David just pointed that out.

[Ghendrick]

This is my first post here, so I'll start with a short statement :

I agree with all of you re: swords & sword related topics, no matter how tangential the relation.

There, now that I've set the tone of all future conversations on this forum, I will continue with my point, which isn't about the specification of training weapons, but instead to the identity of the quoted victorian master fencer. And this really is an aside the the main conversation here, because I got a kick out of looking up these author's bone fides.
from project Gutenberg :

Author: R. G. Allanson-Winn
C. Phillipps-Wolley

We can assume that the lead author is a master fencer because he was published in the "THE ALL-ENGLAND SERIES" books along with such other indespensible works as, RIDING FOR LADIES. By W. A. Kerr, V.C., & ROUNDERS, QUOITS, BOWLS, etc. By J. M. Walker and C. C. Mott.

Rowland Allanson-Winn, 5th Baron Headley, was once offfered the throne of Albania & refused it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowland_Allanson-Winn,_5th_Baron_Headley
Clive Phillipps-Wolley doesn't have the honnor of a Wikipedia Page, but he does have a pretty interesting bibliography http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/creator/15874