german & italian longsword

[jarrod]

from what little i understand of WMA, these are the two main branches of european longsword. what are the differences between the two, or are the basically the same but just originated in different areas?

also, when i think of longswords i think of claymores (the old two-hand ones, not the basket hilt). was there any sort of scottish longsword method, or did they just adopt the teachings from the continent?

jf

 

[Langenschwert]

from what little i understand of WMA, these are the two main branches of european longsword. what are the differences between the two, or are the basically the same but just originated in different areas?

also, when i think of longswords i think of claymores (the old two-hand ones, not the basket hilt). was there any sort of scottish longsword method, or did they just adopt the teachings from the continent?

The two main branches are indeed German and Italian. However, the position of ARMA (for example) is that there was ONE pan-European longsword tradition, with regional variances. I can certainly see their line of reasoning.

However, the German and Italian systems are not identical. Whether they're actually separate styles is not a question I'm qualified to answer as I'm not a practicioner of Fiore's and Vadi's systems.

There are no extant treatises on Scottish longsword. There are verses on English longsword that are being presented by two ARMA members along with interpretations in an upcoming publication.

With regards to the differences between the German and Italian systems, the German system is predicated on the use of the Master Strikes to create single-time defences so that the opponent is struck even as he would strike himself, and to "break" an opponent's stance if the Master Strike is used offensively. Most of the techniques take place along the high line.

The Italian system (from what I understand) is focused more on the crossing of swords, creating a safe place to counter from. It tends to use lower guards more often than the German system, and there is more happening along the lower line.

How's that for starters?

Best regards,

-Mark

 

[lklawson]

from what little i understand of WMA, these are the two main branches of european longsword. what are the differences between the two, or are the basically the same but just originated in different areas?

It is unlikely that the regional styles "originated" in vacuums from each other. Most sword blades came from relatively few manufacturing locations and were distributed throughout Europe (and locally mounted) so it it only logical that there was a general knowledge which influenced and impacted the development of the art regionally. I think it would be similar in some ways to the way the shinken Koryu developed. They certainly didn't develop independent of each other.

also, when i think of longswords i think of claymores (the old two-hand ones, not the basket hilt).

Yes, two-handed, cruciform, double-edged, symmetric sword is pretty much the standard Longsword definition among modern researchers and, I admit, a personal preference of mine (amounting nearly to a pet peeve, honestly).

was there any sort of scottish longsword method, or did they just adopt the teachings from the continent?

We don't know for sure. I've seen the subject discussed at length by others. Some suggest that the Scottish and Irish most likely were taught and copied the style of the English at the time (whatever that might have actually been), suggesting that Scotland and Ireland had to import the blades and would have most likely imported the blade tradition as well. Some have suggested that there would have been, nearly of necessity, regional differences, first because it's nearly impossible for people in isolated regions (as nearly everyone was in pre-industrial Europe) to not develop regional stylistic preferences, and secondly because the Scotts and Irish were known for taking something and "making it theirs."

In any case, until more definitive historical evidence comes to light, all we have is guesswork.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

The two main branches are indeed German and Italian. However, the position of ARMA (for example) is that there was ONE pan-European longsword tradition, with regional variances. I can certainly see their line of reasoning.

I see their point and share some of their opinions on this but I think the main thesis is too simplistic and needs to be much more nuanced than is currently (usually) presented.

I think that what's more likely is that there were local sword masters which famliarized themselves with the weapon, in practice and in combat, and developed their own, regional, styles in response to the basics of what is required by the blade itself and interactions with other regional styles.

Sort of a mish-mash of general knowledge, regional independence, divergent evolution, and individual creativity/stylization.

Not that I'm anyone to listen to though.

There are verses on English longsword that are being presented by two ARMA members along with interpretations in an upcoming publication.

And some non-ARMA folks, ims.

It's really interesting to see people running with the English Longsword. They've got a long way to go with it but it's a beginning.

From what I've gleaned part of the issue is the paucity of source material. Only three "sources" and, of those, only one that has anything even aproximating "detail" (and that's stretching the word).

Still I'm excited for them and wish them lots of luck.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[jarrod]

thanks guys, very helpful. the history nerd in me is having a lot of fun reading up on this stuff.

jf

 

[Langenschwert]

thanks guys, very helpful. the history nerd in me is having a lot of fun reading up on this stuff.

jf

For further reading, may I suggest the following:

http://www.chivalrybookshelf.com/titles/fighting/Fighting.htm

http://revival.us/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=111

They offer a good introduction to the German and Italian traditions. Keep in mind that they are both a few years old now, and some of the authors' interpretations have changed from what is presented in the books. They both detail these changes on their website. Such is the nature of historical swordsmanship... as we learn more about the arts, we have to correct previous interpretations.

Best regards,

-Mark