Manual del Baratero - A Review

[Chris Evans]

A Critical Review of the

`Manual del Baratero'


1. Loriega's translation of the MdB is very well done. I have read it in the original Spanish and this work gets it across in a most readable manner. The numerous annotations by the translator make the many obscure colloquialisms of the era understandable and the work as a whole gains an additional depth. But..... The book itself, despite the exalted status that many in the English speaking world awarded it, is a classic example of the naked emperor. The MdB is such a flawed work that to fully analyze its contents, would require writing another book. Here I will confine myself to just giving the collector who attempts to understand this weapon through this old work, an overview of the problems inherent in it.

2. The MdB is considered by most Spanish speaking academics a literary hoax. It purports to have been written by a master of arms but in fact its author was Mariano de Rementeria y Fica, a well known Basque academic and professor who lectured at the "Escuela Normal de Instruccion Primaria de Madrid" and not known as a fighting man. He may well have had a secret life wielding knives, but this is unlikely on account of his privileged social status and is borne out by the numerous absurdities and inconsistencies in the book, that no one with real expertise would have written. Many of these Loriega picked up and critically commented on, but there are many more that he glossed over, such as the author recommending a navaja with a blade at most (CE:why at most?) a hand in length and three or four fingers wide (pg2): This is the description of a bizarre 6"x3" hatchet blade and not that of a navaja! Most navajas of the period were considerably longer and had slim fish-shaped, pointed blades...And then this same blade is supposedly able to pierce through a 2" thick plank (CE:styrofoam?). Ha!

But wait, there is more: According to Loriega (pg41), the whole section on defending oneself unarmed was taken, word for word from a small sword fencing book, but with the sides reversed! And then there are a series of extremely dubious tricks and rouses such as throwing a navaja which is attached to the `diestro' with a string; Of a `Passata Sotto' with a knife, or tripping ones opponent with an item of clothing whilst leaving oneself wide open for a counterstrike - Was this guy for real?

On the fixed bladed cuchillo he had very little of substance to say and when it came to the scissors, even less, so the book has to be assessed on the strength of its applicability to the navaja.

3. The MdB is the only historical Spanish manual known of fighting with navajas. No surprises here: Right up to 1900, around 80% of the Spanish population was illiterate and this means nearly all of the working class, those who used navajas - There just wasn't anybody to write for!

But Mariano had other ideas. He obviously targeted the wealthy young `wannabes' of his day with the promise of an invincible knife system (nothing new here), and along the way make extra income, or did it for simple amusement. That this was his intention is revealed in the line in which he claims that any pampered youth, by following his instructions, will be able to defend himself against the violent `barateros' (pg11). I cannot say how well the book sold, but is is interesting that the publishing house sought to increase the book's appeal by hiding the author's true identity behind the initials of `MdR', although at least one edition bore his full name. Presumably he was sufficiently well known as a man of letters that the book would not sell with his name. Far better to suggest a mysterious fencing master as the author!

He also wrote a host of other manuals, ranging from cookery to parlor games, all bearing the title "Manual del...." He must have been a very gifted man if he was an expert on all those subjects as well. But then, he was a renowned translator of foreign works, so it would not have been too difficult for him to access numerous foreign sources, all inaccessible to his Spanish readers.

4. In summary, whatever literary value the MdB may have, when it comes to knife fighting, the book has a serious credibility problem!

In any event, the techniques advocated for the navaja, namely the passes from hand to hand and the gyrating footwork, by Mariano's own admission, were not typical in his day (he tried to improve on them!) and were probably imported from other countries, most probably France or Corsica. The preferred fight with navajas and cuchillos, in old Spain, was with cape or hat in the left hand and knife in the right, in the manner of renaissance sword play - We know this from numerous paintings and other reliable accounts of the period.

So, if one wants a good and readable translation, then this is the best so far. But as for knowledge of traditional Spanish knife fighting goes, we are no better off than we were until now - Egerton Castle in a couple of paragraphs said as much on the subject that is useful as Mariano did in the whole book!

Unfortunately, according to most authorities, fighting with navajas came to an end in Spain over a century ago and nobody bothered to record the techniques in detail, if there were any worth recording. The foremost living Spanish authority Forton considers that only those navajas that were made before 1900 were true to the name and so he defines the breed.

Loriega claims to be the heir of a hitherto unknown living Spanish navaja tradition; This is useful, but, regardless of this tradition's practical merits (it may well be excellent), it nevertheless cannot be accepted as authentic because there are no reliable period records available to validate its techniques against. It is simply not possible to say whether it has remained truly Spanish or else has absorbed foreign styles over the last hundred plus something years. This certainly is the case with Filipino Arnis, just to name one combative art, which since WWII re-configured itself along Japanese karate principles.

Chris Evans

[LabanTayo]

if i remember correctly, blades were present in the philippines before the spanish raped the philippines.
(sorry everyone on the forum from spain, this is not directed towards you or spain in the present. i dont hold you accountable for what happened 400 hundred years ago. but, at least the spanish introduced Paella!!!! mmm mmm good :) ).
so, did the spanish steal filipino techniques, or vice versa? the malay / indo / philippine archipelego was a blade oriented society before spanish/dutch/portugese/british arrival. the philippines may have adopted some spanish fighting techniques and terminology, but i have never seen a spanish fencer/fighter move like filipino arnisador/fighter.

but as for your WWII comment, not all philippine fighting arts adopted the japanese stances. the ones that did, did so, because the filipinos were entranced by foriegn martial arts and had to adopt the japanese postures to make it more "fascinating" to the filipinos. but if you do your research and actually study with these systems, you will find the "true" filipino martial arts hidden within the system.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Laban,

=====================================
"...not all philippine fighting arts adopted the japanese stances. the ones that did, did so, because the filipinos were entranced by foriegn martial arts and had to adopt the japanese postures to make it more "fascinating" to the filipinos. but if you do your research and actually study with these systems, you will find the "true" filipino martial arts hidden within the system."
=====================================
Good point. I am aware that you have old arnis, if I remeber correctly, and the new.

Some 20yrs ago, a highly ranked karateka friend of mine went to your country and studied Arnis. He became fairly good at it after a short time because all his karate movements fitted in. He did mention the old style, but according to his observations it was very much in the minority for a number of reasons, including training methodology. I don't know how it is these days.

I don't think that any combative art can remain immune to foreign influences for long, unless it is practiced in a sheltered environment. The very fact that one's life is at stake compels change if the original techniques are inadequate or too difficult to teach/learn. Even karate has picked up a fair bit of Thai and English boxing.

Cheers
Chris

[Frank]

Chris,

I got interested in navajas after reading Sevillian stee. Really cool knives. Did you read it, what did you think of it and where can I buy a navaja. I live in Australia.

Best wishes
Frank

[Chris Evans]

Chris,

I got interested in navajas after reading Sevillian stee. Really cool knives. Did you read it, what did you think of it and where can I buy a navaja. I live in Australia.

Best wishes
Frank

Hi Frank,

1. I have read that book and do not think that it is the kind of work that serious collectors or historians of knives would use as a reference.

If you want to become acquainted with navajas you should read the works of the Spanish authority, Rafael Martinez del Peral y Forton. Unfortunately most of his works have as yet not been translated into English, save one: "Navajas Antiguas - Las Mejores Piezas de Coleccion", a magnificent book of 237 colour photo plates, with captions in Sanish-English and illustrating navajas from the era in which they were used in earnest. The standard reference on the subject is "La Navaja Espanola Antigua" by the same author.

1.1 You can buy Forton's books here (they sell all the others that are not listed at the site):

http://www.navajasantiguas.com/index1.html


2. Depends what you mean by a navaja; In Spanish that word applies to any folding knife. If you mean specifically those legendary clasp knifes that were used as both tools and weapons, then they went out of use over a 100 years ago and unless you have one made to order or go to an antique shop, you'll have trouble buying one. What's being sold these day as navajas are low quality thematic interpretations that only vaguely resemble the knives of the past and are aimed solely at the souvenier market - A bit like the wall-hanger stainless steel junk swords from Toledo. Only traditionalists and collectors in Spain bother with real navajas, their design and size having rendered them obsolete. I am not aware of anybody importing navajas into Australia, but there could be someone.

2.1 One notable exception to the above is the range offered by the Spanish cutler Exposito. Whilst his knives only loosely resemble those used up to 1900, being utilitarian in design, they are the last readily available examples of traditional Spanish folders, the kind that largely disappeared by 1970. Stay away from their `Serie Albacete' (the ones in the wooden display cases) since these are intended as souvenirs.The prices of Exposito knives are reasonable and the quality is fairly good.

You can buy one here:

http://www.cuchilleria-exposito.com/catalogo/principal.htm

2.2 If you want to buy a good replica try here:

http://www.knivesart.com/web/index.html

Or for a real antique try here:
http://www.knivescollection.com/cataloghi_e/cat_antichi_e.asp

Cheers
Chris

[Frank]

Chris

Thanks for all that info. I have to start taking Spanish lesons (lol)

You say that "fighting with navajas came to an end in Spain over a hundred years ago". What proof have you of this.

Frank

[Chris Evans]

Hi Frank,

The use of navajas started to decline sharply from around 1868 and by 1900 its usage was over. After that date a small number of new generation utilitarian folding knives based on the old navajas (as still made by Exposito) continued to be manufactured, but the demand and output remained relatively small.

We know this from cutlery industry figures re production and importation of navajas. This is a fact beyond debate, for to argue otherwise it would have to be demonstrated where the navajas that were supposedly being used came from.

Something that is not widely known is that during the halcyon days of the navaja, the mid 1800s, the majority were made in France and not in Spain (so much for the famous Santolios and Sevillanas!) - By that time the Spanish cutlery industry was in severe and irreversible decline.

Because of this, we know the number of navajas imported into Spain with great accuracy. Between 1850 and 1862 an average of a million and a quarter of such navajas were brought into Spain annually, yet by 1869 this figure fell to a paltry 690,000 and there was no increase in the local manufacture to make up the difference. By 1900 the Spanish cutlery industry almost disappeared and there was no importation.

So any talk of Spain having retained a navaja culture flies in face of hard facts.

Cheers
Chris

[Frank]

Chris

I came across someone who showed me a real old navaja. he said it was made in 1860. It was large all right and with a wide blade but was very slow and hard to open. Had it been sharp you would have to be real careful opening it and closing it. Didn't feel right, or not as right as my Voyager, kinda clumsy. He said he paid $1000 for it.

I like to know how they opened them in a fight. This one was so slow to open that I would have had to run away to buy time. My Voyager just flicks open. Were they all like this?

Frank

[Chris Evans]

Hi Frank,

1. Which of these two photos did that navaja you saw resemble? The uppermost one with the etched & painted blade is a native Spanish navaja with a secure ratchet lock and the lower one, with the broad blade, a French import, without a full lock.

2. Most navajas were very slow to open and close and were rather poor weapons. They are certainly not comparable to modern tactical folders in this regard.

This was the only reason why they were half tolerated by the authorities. I say "half tolerated" because after the early eighteenth century all effective weapons were banned in Spain. This included navajas that could be locked into the open position and thus used violently.

In time and in some jurisdictions, lockable navajas were turned a blind eye but every now and then there were crackdowns and the law was enforced - This is the reason why the Spanish cutlery industry was decimated by 1850.

Most navajas in the nineteenth century were of French origins and did not have a lock, only a very strong spine-spring - Needless to say they made for poor weapons and because of this the authorities more or less accepted them. Only the locally made navajas tended to have secure locks, but by the 1850s these were very much in the minority and largely outlawed.

Have a great Easter
Chris

[Frank]

Chris


1. Which of these two photos did that navaja you saw resemble? The uppermost one with the etched & painted blade is a native Spanish navaja with a secure ratchet lock and the lower one, with the broad blade, a French import, without a full lock.


It was exactly like the one on the bottom. It was very hard to open and close. Had to apply a lot of pressure on the blade. No locks or levers, just pressure on the blade.

Regards
Frank

[Chris Evans]

Hi Frank,

Yes, that's a French navaja. Contrary to common perceptions, by the middle of the nineteenth century, they made up the vast majority of navajas in Spain and the Spanish ratcheting `Santolios' and `Sevillanas' were very much in the minority. Between 1850 and 1870 over twenty million such folders were imported into Spain, a staggering number if we consider the then adult male population being only around 4 million!

What I find even more interesting is that whilst they were large and looked fearsome, in truth they made for rather poor weapons, because they lacked a proper blade lock, relying on mere spring pressure fixation and were very slow to open. The absence of a secure lock is what made these knives acceptable to the authorities and the significance of this fact cannot be overstated.

The absence of a lock made thrusting a rather risky, though not impossible, proposition and when used in fights, they must have relied more on the sweeping cut.

I just cannot help feeling that folklore aside, the Spaniards of old were not quite as ready to fight to the death as they are nowadays made out to be.

Cheers
Chris

[Frank]

Chris,

I see what you mean about French navajas. What about those huge sword length navajas as shown on page 71 of the Manual del Baratero. Surely they were meant for fighting. Why did the authoritys allow them?

Best wishes
Frank

[Chris Evans]

Hi Frank,

1. There has been a long standing tradition in Spain and Italy, just just to name two, where cutlers make oversize knives to enter into trade shows or kept as displays in their shops as capability statements. These are known in Spanish as "navajas de muestra/exposicion", literally showpieces. In the book `La Cuchilleria Artistica de Albacete' there is a photo of one such navaja, that was 48" long (closed) and weighed 26Lbs!

1.2 Contrary to the wishful thinking of Hispanophile romantics, these oversized navajas never saw use. The maximum blade length for navajas, before they become unpractically heavy or too weak at the hinge, is around 12". Even so, according to the Spanish authority Forton, on average, old navajas had blades of only 6"-9".

2. Re Illustration on pg71 of MdB:

First, we have to remember that Dore's decorative pictures were added, to later editions and were not part of the original. This was obviously done to increase the book's selling appeal.

Dore was requested to provide decorative pictures for the MdB and he rose to the occasion as only he could; With an excellent feel for what would sell the book, he depicted `Guapos/Matamoros/Barateros' (Spanish tough guys) brandishing gigantic and fantastic navajas in sword like manner. This ability to dramatize pictorially is what made Dore the most sought after illustrator of his age.

Nevertheless, the weapon on pg71 looks more like a weird machete rather than a navaja; Had it been a real folder, it would have weighed well over 5Lbs!

Something that ought to be pointed out is that Dore must have had little familiarity with navajas because all those that he drew only vaguely resemble these famous Spanish knives. But then, this is a fault shared even by Spanish artists of that era, underscoring the seldom appreciated fact that the navaja was the weapon of the masses and alien to the gentry, to whose ranks most painters belonged. So we have to be very careful in taking artists works as accurate depictions.

2.1 For inspiration, Dore could have based his pictures on showpiece navajas. Nevertheless, it bears commenting upon that the picture on pg71 looks remarkably like the principal character of an oil canvas by the painter Antonio Medina shown on pg 190 of Forton's `La Navaja Antigua Espanola' - Hummm.....

3. As soon as I get my scanner going I will post some pics of these showpiece navajas.

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Hi Frank,

This photo is from the book, `Introduccion Al Estudio De La Cuchilleria Artistica De Albacete' by Jose Sanchez Ferrer:

It is a showpiece navaja made by Cuchilleria Sarrion. It is 124cm closed and weighs 11,5Kg!

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Hi Frank,

This photo is also from the book, `Introduccion Al Estudio De La Cuchilleria Artistica De Albacete' by Jose Sanchez Ferrer:


This is a show case of exhibition pieces of varying length, all made by the master cutlers Jose Exposito Fernadez and Jose Exposito Picaso. Whilst it is highly unlikely that any of these masterpieces would ever see use, the two monsters, with blades crossed, were most assuredly not meant to do other than adorn.

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Hi Frank,

The upper photo is Dore's illustration that appeared in later editions of the MdB. The lower is Antonio Medina's oil canvas and replicated here from Forton's `La Antigua Navaja Espanola'.

The resemblance between the two navaja wielding characters is too strong to ignore. Seems like that neither had much of a mind for accurately depicting a navaja, nor was one of them averse to plagiarize. And Dore certainly liked to exaggerate to obtain a dramatic effect - He lengthened the navaja ridiculously!

Cheers
Chris

[Frank]

Hi Chris,

Thanks for those pics. Seems like everybody who touches this subject is telling fibs. It's unreal.

I have been looking around on the web and have seen a number of shops selling navajas. You said that the cutlery industry nearly disappeared by 1900. What's going on? I mean when did they recover and who are they making all these navajas for? Could these be used for fighting?

Best wishes
Frank

[Chris Evans]

Hi Frank

The Spanish cutlery industry was on its back foot by 1850 due to the harassment by the authorities and its overpriced and poorly made navajas. As I already said in an earlier post, the largely French
imports nearly eliminated the local product - We know this from importation figures.

After the civil war of 1868 and due to the threat of anarchy that followed, an extreme form of political conservatism set in and there was a clamp down on law and order issues; Gradually the use of the navaja, as a weapon, was removed from Spanish life by 1900 and nothing has changed since then. At that stage a few cutlers remained who made a utilitarian type `navaja' but the demand was small.

According to Spanish cutlery industry sources, in the principal manufacturing centre of Albacete, between 1955 and 1959, only three workshops employed more than ten workers and only one had more than fifteen. Most of the navajas that this cottage industry made were mostly low grade utility and souvenir `navajas'. To a significant degree, this was attributable to adverse legislation regarding knives under the right wing dictator Franco, who ruled Spain from the end of the civil war in 1939 to 1975 with an iron fist and which resulted, amongst other things, in the shunning of Spain by other nations.

After Franco's demise, Spain resumed normal relations with the rest of the world and their cutlery industry made a very strong comeback, but this wasn't achieved with navajas. They became export oriented modern manufacturers with the latest technology producing domestic and industrial cutlery.

The traditionally hand-made utilitarian navaja by this time was a complete anachronism and too expensive to make; Other and better pocket folder designs made their appearance in the interim, designs that could be mass produced more cheaply and to a higher quality.

All the same, the industry, for promotional reasons, chose to identify itself with the old navajas and for this reason alone they continue manufacturing a small number, albeit in the form of an updated design that eliminated much of the labour - The economic contribution by these navajas in negligible. Its is all about image and nothing else.

These modern `navajas' are aimed at the souvenir market as nobody in Spain buys them for actual use, given that there are much better alternatives available. A few of these are exported and these are what you probably saw on the internet.

As well as the cheaper navajas, there is a small but thriving custom knife industry specializing in making high class replicas or modern interpretations of the theme; These cutlers cater for collectionists and traditionalists. Prices start around $US500 and the sky's the limit. A good replica of a 19th century navaja will cost around $US2000.

In answer to your question whether these new type navajas could be used for fighting, the answer is yes, just like one can choose to fight with an antique flintlock pistol. But why bother? They are very slow to open, do not carry well, and excepting the custom jobs their quality leaves a lot to be desired. A modern folder like your Voyager, or similar, is infinitely better suited for the task. In any event, discounting the odd criminal altercation, nobody fights in Spain with knives (least of all with obsolete navajas), at least no more than in any other developed nation. As I already said, that sort of thing came to an end by the beginning of the 20th century.

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Hi,

On the top we have a real Catalan navaja from the 1870s. Underneath is a contemporary custom thematic re-interinterpretation. The overall shape and proportions are accurate but the locking spring is post 1900. The workmanship is far better than on the riginals, the blade is made from 440C stainless steel and the handle from buffalo horn.

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Hi,

Here we have several neo-classical navajas made in the 1900-1960 period. The top giant is a display knife, the second down is a working utilitarian navaja. Both of these were made around 1920. The shape and construction of these differed significantly from the Santolios of the previous century. Blades were broader and less pointed and as well the locking mechanism changed to an external spring with a convenient lever release.

The bottom three are souvenir navajas made in the 1950s or even the 60s.

The workmanship and overall quality of these is poor to mediocre.

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Hi,

Here we have three contemporary navajas.

The top one is a display knife that is built around a modern chrome plated cast brass frame and has synthetic resinated plywood handle scales. It weighs 2.25Lbs and its overall shape and proportions are fanciful rather than functional. It does not resemble anything made in the old days. The blade is some kind of stainless steel, probably 420. Although robust, it is too heavy and clumsy for any practical use.

The navaja in the centre is a very good quality current day interpretation of a traditional post 1900 (neo-classical)utilitarian folder. It has a 440C stainless steel blade, genuine horn handle and German silver bolsters. It made by the firm of Exposito and is the last over-the-counter traditionally made Albacetean folder that I am aware of.

The one at the bottom is a souvenir navaja with an etch engraved blade. Like the one at the top, it is also built around a modern cast frame and uses some kind of stainless steel for the blade and spring, probably 420. It is quite solid and could be put to use but it was not intended as a working knife. Its overall shape is also rather fanciful with only a slight resemblance to the navajas of olden times.

Cheers
Chris

[Frank]

Hi Chris

Great photos. They cleared up a lot of things. Now I understand navajas much better.

Something I still can't understand is that you said that navajas made not very good weapons. After handling that French navaja I mentioned I agree.

So why did the Spaniards use them at all and why not fixed blade knives or swords. After all thier swords were suposed to be very good.

I sent you a private message.

Keeo up the good stuff

Frank

[Chris Evans]

Hi Frank,

From 1723 onwards the Spanish rulers introduced extremely restrictive weapon bans and this is the reason that the navaja was invented. There were no navaja (as we know them) before that date. Up to that date Spaniards had far better weapons at their disposal!

After the bans, all effective weapons were restricted to the upper nobility. The lower nobility were allowed swords, but not firearms and the plebes nothing! In time the authorities accepted folding knives, but only if the blade could not be locked into position.

These bans were backed with an extremely harsh penal code. Anyone caught with a prohibited weapon got the works! (see pic of executed man for possessing a navaja). However, we do know that the degree of enforcement varied with the times and across jurisdictions, Southern Spain being more tolerant. Nevertheless, the laws were enforced sufficiently to just about kill off their own cutlery industry and ensuring that the majority of navajas in use by 1860 did not have full mechanical locks.

In my very carefully considered opinion, after examining all the facts available, the navaja is a vastly over rated knife, be it as a tool or weapon; Requiring two hands and being slow to open, as well as fragile, it cannot be considered an appropriate weapon - A mere 4ft wooden stick can overcome it with ease!

The Spaniards did not choose navajas because it was a great weapon, rather they defaulted to it, because:

a) Knives were an essential tool in agricultural societies and they needed a knife that they could carry; and

b) everything else was prohibited

They knew perfectly well that the fixed blade "cuchillo" (knife) and its variants were the best cut and thrust short arms, but so did the authorities and for this very reason they were banned.

That the opposite perception prevails is due to the misconceptions of present day writers who either make up their own version of history, or in their ignorance base their opinions on the Spanish myths and folklore invented by their intellectuals; These, in their nationalistic writings and paintings, mostly in the late 19th and early 20th century, eulogized the Spanish peasant and his ways, equating him with all that was noble and heroic in the land. Actually, this was in keeping with the then global literary trends and not unique to Spain. Just look at the image and lore surrounding the US cowboys, Argentinean Gauchos and our own pioneers and bushrangers.

None of this is to say that there was no violence in Old Spain, because there was plenty. But most of the blood-letting was in likelihood not committed with navajas, "mano a mano", but rather with whatever lay at hand, from kitchen knives, to axes and sticks, as was and remains the case today all over the world. As for the Spanish criminal elements, they considered themselves outside the law and used everything from swords to firearms, as they tend to do everywhere, regardless of bans.

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Hi,

Here is a rather somber reminder of how the weapon bans were enforced in Old Spain. This illustration is by the renowned painter Francisco Goya who was active in the Napoleonic era. Scan taken from Forton's "La Navaja Espanola Antigua"

Frank: Got your meassge and I sent you my email address.

Cheers
Chris

[tom hyle]

All very interesting. Really, basically no traditional folding knife is really intended for violence, and the idea that they are tends to arise in just the sort of sheltered/oppressed environment described in Spain, where the disarmed develop an exaggerated horror of weapons and anything weaponlike. Folding knives, like any small knife, are certainly no equal match to a club or dagger, but are often resorted to (here and now in N America, I very strongly assure you) for emergency self-defence, and it is thus helpful and not at all fantastical or unrealistic, for them to be designed and selected with features that aid in that, such as locks, points, swedged spine. Butterfly knife is one some N Americans get real excercised over now days; how silly; a very ordinary locking folder style; nothing especially violent about it. The only exception is for switchblades, which are, and frankly always have been, like unto the giant folders, largely basically a toy. No few folding knives I can swat in half with my left hand, if they're held securely enough not to drop, and none of them are the ideal weapon, but they do have their uses; you can let all the blood out of someone in a grapple pretty well with one, if it's sharp (this is the most valuable feature, followed closely by a decent sturdiness, fast easy opening, then a lock, point, concealability, legal nonweapon status, etc.)

[Chris Evans]

Hi Tom,

You make excellent and valid points.

I guess, that the object lesson, if there is one, is for future historians not to fall into the trap of assuming that just because tactical folders were popular at the start of the 21st century, they were the best weapon for SD and therefore they must chosen over and above other weapons. Rather, that's what people defaulted to, because better weapons were banned or too many obstacles were placed in the path to their ownership, as was the caase with navajas.

The situation here in Australia is very similar to what you describe - I guess, we just follow US trends. Your superbly well made tactical folders, such as by CS and Benchmade adorn the display cases of our shops and sell in substantial numbers- Why? Because we have some of the toughest anti gun, sword and knife laws . And yet we also have fatal violence in the bigger cities in alarming numbers.

Cheers
Chris

[Frank]

Hi Everybody,

I just got a couple of book recomended by Chris: "Navajas Antiguas - Las Mejores Piezas de Coleccion" . Terrific book and a real eye opener. It is in Spanish and English and easy to read. The modern navajas dont look anything like these.

Also "La Navaja Espanola Antigua". This one is in Spanish and can't understand a word but the lots of pictures tell a story and it is full of facts and figures. I know someone who is Spanish and he has been helping me a little to translate. It is all like Chris said. Thanks mate.

Best wishes
Frank

[Chris Evans]

Hi Frank

Happy to see that you are finding those books worth your while.

The one titled "Las Mejores Piezas de Coleccion" is the standard reference book for collectors and antiquarians. It is very useful for establishing the origin and approximate date of manufacture of navajas.

I don't know if you noticed the large number of absolutely fearsome looking and large navajas without a blade lock; It tells us something about the enforcement of the anti-blade lock laws and also that most were nowhere as formidable weapons as we are told - Hey, what did all those fearless Barateros fight with?

This is especially so, if we consider that by the mid 1800s the majority of the navajas in use in Spain had French origins and for most part these did not have locks (look at the French pages and what turns up on e-Bay).

What I found even more interesting is that some time ago I came across an antique that had a ratcheting mechanical lock in the typical Spanish manner but the rear of the blade notch was filed back so that the knife would close under pressure on the blade. Presumably this modification was done so as to conform to the laws forbidding locks.

Cheers
Chris

[Frank]

Chris

In your first post you said something about `Passata Sotto'. I couldn't see it in the book. What and wher is it and why is it bad.

Best wishes
Frank

[tom hyle]

Any commentary on that cool bolster?

[Chris Evans]

Hi Frank,

A `Passata Sotto' (PS) is an Italian fencing term, going back to the rapier era and which E.D.Morton describes a stop hit (counter thrust to a thrust attack) in the low line (see picture). The whole body is dropped under the opponent's incoming blade and the left leg is thrown diagonally across the line of attack, to the executant's right, whilst supported on the ground with the left hand.

It is considered as an extremely risky move and best deployed only against a purely thrusting sword. This is because:

a) It calls for great commitment;
b) recovery from the dropped position is very difficult;
c) it is all too easy to misjudge the direction of the attack, or the attacker can relatively easily change the direction of the thrust and thus hit the defender; and
d) if the opponent is using an edged sword and unless is instantly disabled, which is unlikely, he or she can execute a draw cut against the exposed neck and head, or even thrust into the equally exposed head/shoulder/back.

These risks increases dramatically as the length of the blade shortens and for this reason it is seldom performed with modern fencing swords (old rapiers were much longer); With knives, the PS becomes unacceptably dangerous, especially on account of d) above. If facing an edgeless thrusting dagger it is marginally safer as the threat of a counter cut is non existent, but of course, the possibility of a counter thrust into the defender's exposed back and neck remains, as do the other risks listed.

In the MdB a ridiculously complex and suicidally risky version is presented, as described and illustrated on pg18. I intentionally identified the core technique as a PS, to draw attention to that it was an adapted fencing move. It can be readily seen from the drawing how easy it would be for the upright attacker to execute a potentially fatal downward cut against the defender's exposed neck or even stab into his completely open neck, head, or back - And all this on top of the insane risks involved in falling down backwards, dropping the navaja onto the ground and then recovering so as to execute a PS, a difficult and overly risky move in its own right.

Hope this helps
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Hi Tom,

I presume that you are referring to that embossed bolster on the navaja with the modified lock.

That was on a French navaja made for the Spanish market and constructed in the manner of the Southern Spanish design, including the ratchet lock. The bolsters on the Spanish design were made from sheet-metal, usually brass, and hammer beaten to conform to the shape of the horn handle. Its function was to provide some extra strength once the blade's pivot pin was riveted, much like what a washer would provide. In fact, the cheaper navajas had only a washer.

The French decided to up the ante by embossing them - Little touches like these, and being cheaper, is what allowed their products to displace the Spanish made navajas in their own country. The absence of a full lock did not seem to bother the Spaniards much and that throws one hell of a question mark over their alleged propensity for fighting with navajas.

Cheers
Chris

[tom hyle]

Thanks. What would you estimate the period to be on that piece? It seems like it might tie in with known art movements; Egyptophilism or whatever it's called; I know that seems to go through modern Europe and N America in waves, from time to time. The images don't seem to be drawn straight from heiroglyphics, at least not entirely, but to be referential of them, and perhaps of other "ethnic" ie antiquitous and/or non-European symbols? Primitivism? Art movements are one of those things where the words in the name don't mean what the words mean, and that always confuses me when the humans do that..........it has something, perhaps, to do with social institutions........confusing to us Martians :D This seems like an European art movement I've seen. It reminds of deco, but is this knife older than that?.......a possible cross-reference, anyway.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Tom,

The rule of thumb for dating navajas, assuming that they are fitted with a spine spring, is by the locking mechanism.

Post 1900: External sheet metal spine spring, fitted with a release lever as per my earlier post.

Circa 1865-1900: Ring release and spring housed within the handle as per my earlier post.

Circa 1815-1865 Spring housed within the handle and no release mechanism (pick-lock)

Pre 1815: The spine spring is screwed to the back of the handle and no release mechanism (pick-lock) as in this picture.

The importation of French navajas into Spain commenced in earnest around 1850 and fell away after 1870. Given that that navaja has a ring release and a modified lock for the Spanish market, its date of manufacture was probably around 1865-70, maybe even a little later.

I do not know if these Spanish style navajas were sold in countries other than Spain. If they were, then it could have been made as late as 1890 or thereabouts. The Spanish authority Forton, simply dates similar ones as from the "late 19th century".

Cheers
Chris

[Frank]

Chris

Thanks for that explanation of the PS. I have seen the reference to it many times but never understood what it menas.

I am surprised that nobody woke up that it could get you killed! I have been reading about the MdB on teh net for some years and nobody seemed to pick up on that. . I have seen that move described in other knife fighting books too. Can't remeber which but I have seen it. Makes one wonder doesn't it.

Now here is a question for you. Were ANY of the navajas suitable for fighting. From what I can see in Fortons books, more than half did not even have a lock.

Best wishes
Frank

[tom hyle]

The idea of most dropped attacks is that they are done suddenly, taking the opponant by surprise and going under his guard by putting you suddenly below where he thinks you are. There are no magic bullets in hand to hand combat; instantaneity of deadliness is about 90% of it (and I'm leaving asid massed combat, which we aren't discussing and where grouping and communication are probably #1) and is much more important than skill, technique, etc. It's all about speed and anticipation (ESP helps). In other words, this is a trick. The more any such is seen, taught, practiced, and practiced against, the less use it becomes, of course. I remember in SCA heavy weapons combat a trick that only works on a hard smooth floor (or sometimes grass under the right conditions, but not so reliably.....) if you have hard, well-padded knee armour; you charge the opponant head-on, seeming to bull in like an unskilled fool, but at the last instant drop to your knees, sliding in beneath his guard, and strike. It is extremely effective against most people who haven't seen it, because it is unexpected and shifts the attack to a direction from which no attack was thought possible. the technique discussed is rather similar. The idea of the instant kill is a weakness of many sport/training fighting methods. It may be neccessary to them, but it is important for real fighters to train in such things as slide up on your knees then roll away and back to your feet, etc. The move discussed here seems eminently liable to such a recovery that uses gravity/momentum to continue the movement into a roll to the side. Many moves that "kill" an opponant in sport/practice leave you open should he, as we actual animals tend to do, rudely refrain from dying instantly and quietly. I also note a similarity to Spainish bullfighting, though, and to the idea of the perfect thrust, and the perfect understanding and control of the bull, and wherein the armpit of the killer ends up and even comes to rest directly before the point of the weapon of the victim as a very deliberate display that is considered of surpassing meaning and beauty by the afficionadi.
It is sometimes important to remember, too, in these matters, that though such a thing as fear of Death may seem a constant it is actually a cultural construct in some degree, and many cultures have not shared it in anything like the degree it is seen in modern/industrial culture. I recently heard a great saying; I can't remember it precisely, but along the lines of "When we learn to die, then we are able to live free." Killing the enemy, living and dying honorably/morally, and even the aesthetic beauty of movements and situations can all exceed the desire to continue living within traditional combat.
A further note on the soft pass (? low pass?) is that it not only puts you lower than expected, but "ups" your reach, allowing you to strike when the opponant thought he was out of range. There is a very similar extension thrust with a longspear (pike) that can be very effective. The best, most practiced, and stretchiest spearmen can get quite a notable range boost from it.
I'll also add that many fighting styles teach one how to fight from the ground; some even favour it, and styles that lack this typically find it hard to counter, mistaking the ground for a position of weakness; thinking only the feet can successfully interface with it or something; another limitting paradigm whose.....limitations can really come out in a fight.

[Chris Evans]

Hi,

Tom,

Fair comment - You draw attention to something that should be a mandatory recitation by all students of martial arts, be it Eastern or Western; Namely, that even the most seemingly devastating attack may not be instantly disabling, giving ample opportunity to the opponent to counter-strike. In the long history of dueling, there have been numerous examples of someone scoring a hit, thinking that the fight was over, only to receive an unexpected counter hit with grievous consequences.

Knives lacking a reach advantage bring both parties extremely close and expose the wielder to counter hits far more than swords do; This has to be kept in mind when choosing tactics.

Another point (no pun intended) is that the PS is infrequently performed with modern fencing swords, because they move too fast, yet it is worth remembering that knives are faster again, able to change direction even more quickly.


Frank,

Many of the 6"-9" bladed navajas that had a lock were capable weapons, but only once they were opened. Most were slow and clumsy in this respect, but there were a few notable exceptions. I have an old 10" bladed navaja, made in the French manner with a "teat" lock (as still found on Italian stilettos) the massive blade of which can be flung open like any modern tactical folder (see picture). It is very weak at the hinge but it can be deployed mighty fast - A shorter bladed version would have been rather formidable. Of course, for this very reason, it would have been banned in most Spanish jurisdictions, much in the manner that automatic switchblades tend to attract the full wrath of the law in modern times.

Much more research is needed before we can say with certainty just how common was the violent usage of navajas. There is some rather compelling evidence in Forton's works that a most attacks were committed with weapons other than navajas. Another factor to keep in mind is that in the old days, lacking forensic capabilities, the authorities could not easily disprove a confession in which the guilty party admitted to having carved up someone with a navaja (more or less legal) as opposed to the real weapon used having been a dagger or knife (highly illegal), rapidly drawn from concealment.

Personally, after having examined quite a number of antiques, I am of the opinion that actual fighting with navajas must have been far less frequent than alleged these days and when it did occur, it was in ritualized dueling that seldom went the distance and during which only easily parried sweeping cuts were being traded (most navajas did not have a lock and this made the more lethal thrust very risky).

Cheers
Chris

[Frank]

Chris,

In Fortons Navaja Antigua page 258 there is a navaja described as VIROLA GIRATORIA. My Spanish helper has not been able to translatte this for me. Does not seem to have a lock of any kind. What is this navaja.

Why has this book not ben translated? I find it very frustrating and hard to understand. Such a good book full of info and nobody has bothered with it. Cant believe it.

Best Wishes
Frank

[Chris Evans]

Hi Frank,

1. "Virola Giratoria" means a navaja fitted with a rotating bolster lock. The Spaniards in their search for a locking mechanism tried various solutions to the problem and this was one of them.

It consisted of a sheet-metal ferrule that rotated atop the bolster blocking the closure of the blade. It was easy to make and very secure, but was rather slow to open and tended to fall apart. Modern knives that use this type of lock are the French Opinel and the US Cold Steel Twistmaster.

You can see both these knives here:

http://www.physics.mun.ca/~sstamp/knives/opinel_large.html


2. Re Translation of Forton's Works: To date, as far as the English speaking world is concerned, there has been little serious interest in the navaja. The recent spate of interest seems to have came mainly from martial artists - Serious collectors and historians of edged weapons do not appear to be all that interested and in any event, such potential readers are not numerous. Maybe a market survey would contradict this, but even such surveys cost a lot.

A translation of La Navaja Espanola Antigua with its 490 pages, would be a huge task, requiring at least a year's full time work. You can chalk that up as at least $US60,000 and then there are also the publishing costs. To invest that kind of time and money, one would have to be sure of selling a lot of copies.

Perhaps a much more abridged work would have a better chance, but by necessity it would have to be a superficial coverage of the subject.

So, don't hold your breath waiting for a translation.

Cheers
Chris

[Frank]

Chris

Thanks for those answers.

So you don't think we'll ever get a translation of Forton. Thats a pity. Any other Spanish works worth translating?

I also noticed that in theMejores Piezas de Colecsion there are many navajas of other nationalities including India. Any coments?

Best Wishes
Frank

[Chris Evans]

Hi Frank,

1. It is not possible to write seriously on the navaja without drawing heavily on the work of Forton. As far as I am aware, there is only one other work worth considering, that of Arturo Sanchez De Vivar, titled La Navaja Clasica. It is a simple and concise work that also drew heavily on Forton and it was written to address mainly the needs of collectors. At least in Spanish, I consider it overshadowed by Forton's Las Mejores Piezas de Colecsion. May be worth translating, but with the same effort a more comprehensive book could be written. However even such a modest work would be a financial risk in terms of publishing costs, especially that of photography which would require going to Spain and hiring a local photographer.

2. The Spaniards claim that they invented the navaja and others copied its design. This may or may not be true, but remarkably similar clasp knives were in use in other parts of Europe, mostly in France and Italy and generally of significantly better quality.

Here is a superb Italian navaja:

http://www.knivescollection.com/cataloghi_e/foto_grande_e.asp?id_coltello=631

It was probably an early 19th century exhibition piece, with a 44cm (17") blade that was provided with a sheath, presumably so that it could be carried in the open position if the owner so desired and if the jurisdiction's law permitted it though the long handle would have made this very uncomfortable.

I strongly suspect that the Spaniards were not the only ones to have legislated against fixed blade knives, for why else would the Italians and the French, just to mention two , bothered with inferior (to a fixed blade) folders? That these nations also passed restrictive legislation of some sorts is evidenced by the old and curious practice of selling navajas with the blade's tip sporting a blunt appendage which the owner ground off to end up with the desired sharp point; This was done to circumvent the prohibition of selling pointed clasp knives. The attached phot is that of such an Italian navaja that never saw use and was sold some time ago by the internet firm (knivescollection) given above.

It is my opinion that to make a truly comprehensive study of the navaja one would have to broaden the scope of inquiry so as to include other European nations, besides Spain; However, linguistically this would require an unusually gifted researcher who is capable of looking through old police records and similar archival documents written in a number of different languages. This is why we cannot find anything worth reading in English on European knives and their usage.

As you rightly mention, there were navajas made even as afar as India, though that was around 1900. The basic design lending itself to being manufactured in low tech workshops.

Cheers
Chris

[Frank]

Chris,

I am thinking of getting a real navaja. I am tosing up between a replica or a real antique. Which do you reccomend wrom which dealer. The prices seem fairly much the same.

Best wishes
Frank

[Chris Evans]

Hi Frank,

It all depends on what you want it for. If you have actual usage in mind, that would impart wear and tear, then the only sensible option is to get a repro. On the other hand, if you wish to study the attributes of period pieces, then an antique is mandatory.

You are right, prices are much the same, with few exceptions. The most difficult decision is to choose the type that you want. Spanish made, in the southern style, or French, maybe even Italian; Then, late 18th century or mid or late 19th.

The bulk of the affordable repros, these days indiscriminately intermix early and late features and use stainless steel for the blades and springs - You have to be rather choosy whose products you buy.

If you want a working navaja, then it is hard to go past Exposito's, although these are entirely utilitarian and quite unlike the earlier ones that doubled up as weapons.

You have my address, so once you have decided on something, drop me aline and I'll tell you what I think. There are a lot of good antiques that turn up on e-bay, at reasonable prices. If you go to a dealer, expect to pay 50% more.

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Hi Frank,

You may consider one of these.

http://www.couteau-catalan.com/

Unfortunately the site is in French, but they appear to be fairly faithful repros, their only shortcoming being a rather short blade, presumably to fit in with current legislation. You can compare them with that photo I posted some time ago of a historical piece.

Cheers
Chris

[Frank]

Hi Chris and folks

I just got me Exposito navaja from Spain. After a lot of thinking decided to start of with a safe bet. Thanks Chris for recomeding it A great buy

It has a 6 inch blade and ratchet lock. As a toolmaker by trade I can tell that it is largely handmade. Quite a nice piece and a strong enough to be used as a work knife, not that I wpould do that as it it is too nice. The lock seems bomproof but I think it would soon develop a bit of slop if used hard. It compares quite well with my Voyager for sturdiness and the lock seems stronger. Tho I wouldnt wana use it to gut rabits as there is too many nooks where gunk can get traped and is hard to clean out.

When it comes to SD it is another story. Very slow to open and requires two handsNo way of doing it with one. The blade is not like the oldies which were very pointy but wide and madede for cuting. For SD the Voyager eats it fr breakfast Much faster :D

I now absolutely agree with you Chris that the navaja is a very beatiful but overated knife and I have the smae opinion of Italian stiletos. Anybody who now tells me othersise I reckon is full of BS. I now wonder if I could get my money back on those two books :(

Now I am starting to shop for an real antique

Best Wishes
Frank

[Chris Evans]

Hi Frank,

Glad to read that you are pleased with your Exposito. As far as modern navajas go, they are probably the best.

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Hi Everybody,

A friend and fellow collector recently acquired these two navajas for his collection.

One is a French hand made navaja, in the Albacetan Spanish manner, dating from probably the 1960s. It has a 11cm long stainless steel blade and ivory & German silver handle. It is extremely well made and was clearly intended as a luxury item, a gentleman's pocket folder. The only inscription on the blade's ricasso is "GARANTI", "FAIT MAIN". It has the traditional `window" lock, with a 7 teeth `carraca', though the spring, rather than being the post 1900 "muelle de teja", is encased between the liners of the handle

The other is a rather curious piece, made by Aitor, as one like it is featured in Loriega's book "Sevillian Steel". It has a 18cm long stainless steel blade photo engraved with the picture of the Spanish folk hero and bandit Luis Candelas Cagigal. It is a thematic recreation of navajas affecting the ones that Spanish cutlers made in the French manner during the closing decades of the 19th century. It has a
wooden handle and what appears to be cast brass bolsters. The design of the front bolster is most unusual in that it is made in one piece (with a slit to accept the blade), so that lateral leverages stemming from the blade are received with added restraint and thus is far stronger than those made in a more traditional manner, that is, with each bolster separately attached to the handle halves. The blade is quite effectively secured, when open, with a completely atypical lock, that nevertheless is based on the old Spanish `window' design; It is extremely unusual because the `window' is "blind", having been formed into the spine spring. - It has the rattling `carraca' feature, with three teeth. All in all, a serviceable, solid and hefty navaja, of historically accurate dimensions and shape, though not in construction. It is somewhat roughly made, for a price, and obviously intended for the souvenir market and not for day to day use.

For those interest in the life of Cagigal, he was born in 1804 and despite having inherited a modest fortune, he decided upon a life of banditry. In the end, he was caught and executed in 1837, infront the gates of Toledo. It is said that his preferred weapons were the `cuchillo' (fixed blade knife) and pistols. His popularity was attributable to his rakish good looks, the help he gave to the poor, his audacity and reckless courage - When his final moment arrived, he is said to have met his fate with remarkable composure, addressing the spectators with the exclamation "Happiness to my country".

Cheers
Chris

[Frank]

Hi Chris

That secon one is a mean looking navaja. Would you consider it a fighting weapon? Where can I buy one?

Best Wishes
Frank

[Chris Evans]

Hi Frank,

1. This one most decidedly would qualify as a fighting navaja as its general proportions replicates those of French origins, with a blade equally good at cutting and thrusting and as many used in Spain in the closing decades of the 19th century.

It is very well designed, with only three ratchet teeth (fast but not silent opening) and great potential lateral strength at the pivot pin, an area of significant weakness on most navajas. However it is badly let down by the aluminium bolsters, which are likely to be unreliably weak and its wooden handle. Since my original posting we found out that the bolsters instead of being made from brass are in fact made from a cheap and fragile aluminium die castings anodized to look like brass and varnished over.

Had it been made with proper brass bolsters and a horn handle it would have resulted in a navaja better than anything made in the old days. And had it been properly finished, it would be a very collectable knife - As it is, with its cheap wooden handle, fake brass bolsters and imprecise fitting, it amounts to little more than another souvenir grade Spanish folder.

I suspect that the reason that it wasn't made that way was the cost of the buffalo horn and the time and difficulties involved in making such a complicated bolster from brass sheet - No way of mass producing it.

2. The only way that you'll buy one is to look for a used one. I am told that they went out of production some years ago. A shame, because it has a damn good blade and lock.

Cheers
Chris

[Frank]

Hi Chris

Thanks for that info.

Regards
Frank

[Robert Gray]

Chris

I found this thread most interesting. It certainly goes against the current
image of the navaja.

From what you say, and you argue your case well, it would seem that there
is no live Spanish tradition of knife fighting. If so, what about other
European countries like Italy, especially its southern regions? After all, it is universally acknowledged that the Latin Europeans have a distinct penchant for knives.

Robert

[Chris Evans]

Hi Robert,

Chris

From what you say, and you argue your case well, it would seem that there is no live Spanish tradition of knife fighting. If so, what about other European countries like Italy, especially its southern regions?

First I should declare that as a collector, my focus is on the Spanish `navaja' and the Gaucho' `facon' and its usage in Spain and Latin America. As I have no useful command over languages other than Spanish, I cannot do more than hazard a guess as to what prevails in other European nations. However, I do feel that the situation is unlikely to be very different, for the simple reason that they have all came a long way from the harsh and labour intensive agricultural economies, and the attendant impoverished lifestyle that allowed knives to play such an important role.

BTW: I don't quite know what you mean by living tradition. If you mean the ongoing settling of private disputes with knives, that is dueling, then that went out of fashion a very long time ago - Social changes and modern law enforcement took care of that. If on the other hand you mean that some degree of criminal violence involving knives still takes place amongst the impoverished, as all over the world, then there is a living tradition, though its significance eludes me.

In the closing years of the twentieth century, various knife arts, of Asian and military provenance, have made their appearance in Europe as elsewhere. Also the WMA boom has caught up with Europe and in the wake of the recent enthusiasm for lost European combative arts, there are instructors who claim to have either re-discovered or being the heir to hitherto unknown but ancient and sophisticated knife fighting systems. Given the total absence of historical manuals and schools, it is impossible to validate any of these claims and as far as I am aware, none have demonstrated a credible link to the past.

Discounting intentional fraud, the best that can said for these newly discovered systems is that until their exponents bring forth convincing demonstration of their links to the past, it has to be assumed that what they are offering are re-packaged versions of the aforementioned new arts. This is not to say that they are bad, but that they are not traditional.

In any event, we have to remember that no fighting art can remain immune to the changes brought on by time; Nineteenth century, or earlier popular combative system evolved in regional isolation and in response to the legal, social and combative requirements of the times. Ancient `navaja' or `facon' fighting systems (if there were indeed any) could not possibly find application in settings as radically different as that presented by modern societies, unless so modified as to be unrecognizable - For one, anyone who tried to walk down a street with a large
`navaja' or `facon' tucked in the belt would face immediate arrest for being illegally armed and if the offender's declared intention was to fight a duel, then the mandatory sentence would be greatly increased.

Roughly a year ago this topic was given a good trashing on this forum when someone brought up the subject of Gypsy knife fighting. Have read of it:

http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/002305.html

Cheers
Chris

[Robert Gray]

Chris,

I must say this is one of the best and most informative threads I ever came
across on the subject.

Your argument regarding there being no living Euro traditions makes good
sense. In various places you made references to South America - Are there
living traditions there? If so, is their form anything like found in SE
Asia, say Filipino Arnis, with teachers and schools?

Regards
Robert

[Chris Evans]

Hi Robert,

Thank you for your appreciative words.

There is most certainly an ongoing tradition of solving personal disputes violently in SA. But the methods used to do so are changing even there. Fifty years ago, in the countryside, old fashioned knife duels were commonplace but these days a good deal less. Even so, a search in Google with the phrase "Duelo Criollo" (Creole Duel with knives) will return a large number of hits, some actual reports of fights, old and contemporary, and many literary and musical references to same. All this indicates that the tradition is very much alive, albeit different to what prevailed in the past.

The old Spanish ritualized duel with cape on left arm and long knife in the right has given way to impromptu encounters with shorter knives and guns, although for a number of reasons knives remain the most often used weapon. To a large extent, this reflects not just tradition but also an intractable crime problem, especially in the slums; If one is poor, it is next to impossible to become proficient with guns, which in any event are very expensive items.

As everywhere, Asian and other martial arts have found their way to SA and nowadays there is a huge variety of approaches taken to fighting. Those who are well off take lessons and hardly ever fight and the impoverished masses improvise and fight as they always did.

In all my readings and travels, I never heard of any knife fighting systems or schools in olden times - All the writers who extoll the old traditions are consistent in upholding that apart from some shared generalities, it was all done with courage and the adroitness that comes from working with knives on a daily basis.

Cheers
Chris

[dennee]

Terrific and informative thread!

The slowness of opening and common lack of lock would certainly seem to make the navaja inferior for some purposes. But they also made them acceptable to carry. For an attacker, the slowness of the opening is less of a problem than to a defender. And, as was mentioned above, lack of a lock probably dictated more slashing.

Consider a common weapon in American slums at the end of the nineteenth century--the straight razor. Portable, concealable, useful for other purposes, not inherently illegal, no lock, no thrusting capability, but a quicker open.

[Chris Evans]

Hi dennee,

You are absolutely right about locks, or rather their absence on the great majority of navajas.

The straight razor was in its heyday a much favoured weapon with all kinds of people all over the word, though I suspect that its power to intimidate far exceeded its potential as a weapon. Some years ago, I remember seeing a Brazilian film, the name of which now escapes me. Actually, it was more like a musical and set in the 1940s, in which a corrupt police officer fights a ritualized duel with razors with a slum hustler with whom he was in a racket and later fell out. They used Caoperia techniques and the name of the game was to "mark" the face of the opponent . The fight choreography wasn't terribly convincing, but it gave us some idea. And by the way, the cop lost and had a neat set of little vertical scars to show for his troubles, all adroitely planted there by his opponent.

Cheers
Chris

[Robert Gray]

Chris

You mentioned "Capoeria". Now isn't that a proper system of fighting, like
say the FMA and do they use knives and other weapons in Capoeria? Was this
art present in other SA countries and did it influence gaucho knife fighting?

Regards
Robert

[Chris Evans]

Hi Robert,

You ask very good questions. Whilst I know relatively little of the African aspect of Brazilian culture, I will try and provide some answers:

Capoeria was the martial art of the African slaves that the Portuguese took to Brazil to work their plantations. It was a secret art into which one had to be initiated. The slaves used it as self defense against the whites. Some decades ago, little by little it came out into the open, mostly in the guise of troupes of Capoerista entertainers putting on shows of acrobatics and fight displays in public places and then passing the hat around. On weekends, in Rio and other Brazilian cities, one can see many such displays. Also, most troupes have some white members, proving that the art is no longer segregated along racial lines. I was told that in the favellas (slums) it is widely practiced, but that nowadays it is an umbrella term for any martial art. Traditionally it was taught in a quasi formal manner but these days anything goes. Kids teach other but whether one gets to join a good group or not depends on one's innate ability - Obviously, to make money from public displays, they have to be reasonably talented.

I don't know what were the fighting techniques of early Capoeria, save that it involved a lot of acrobatics and kicking. Some fifteen years ago I witnessed a display by a superb group in a Rio night club and apart from the acrobatics, which were pretty fantastic and remarkably olympic gymnastics like, the mock kick fighting was high class Tae Kwan Do sans punches! That said, around the same time, in an Argentine province's city square I witnessed a similar display by a low end troupe who were so bad that it wasn't even funny and their mock fighting was again something like beginners Karate. Quite obviously, Capoeria has absorbed a lot of foreign influences and like so many ethnic arts it isn't what it used to be.

When it comes to knives and given their prevalence in SA, including Brazil, I am absolutely sure that Capoeria has techniques for its usage. However, apart from choreographed film fights, I have not seen them demonstrated.

The big question is whether Capoeria techniques have or have not found their way into other SA countries. It is possible, especially in Uruguay. Argentina had a substantial negroid population until the end of the nineteenth century and it is conceivable that at least some of these people had a secret martial art. However, I never have seen this suggested, though many years ago the Argentinean writer Osornio, in his book Esgrima Criolla (Creole Fencing) mentions a couple of Negroes who were highly skilled with knives and one who could even disarm his opponents! We will probably never know because if such an art existed amongst the Argentinean Negroes, it would have been kept highly secret.

For those who would like to do some further reading, here is an excellent link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capoeira

Cheers
Chris

[Frank]

Chris

Wow, that website claims that the cops used to cut the tendons of the caporistas!

From what you saw how efective is caporia as a fighting system?

Reagrds
Frank

[Chris Evans]

Hi Frank,

You question is very hard to answer meaningfully. For a start, save for broad generalities, we do not know what old Capoeira was really like and since it has come out of the closet it has absorbed all sorts of other combative influences, including boxing, Karate and its variants and on all accounts it relies heavily for its effectiveness on surprise. We must also remember that before WWII many Okinawans and Japanese migrated to Brazil and in the 1960s a lot of Koreans also found their way into the region, though most opted for Paraguay - These folks left their imprint on local fighting styles; The famous Gracie style Jiu-Jitsu coming to mind immediatley.

With that said, the effectiveness of any martial art depends disproportionately on the individual practitioner's athleticism, that is strength, speed and size, as well as muscular coordination. Things being what they are in South America, the ticket out of the slums and poverty is through soccer or boxing. Anyone who is good enough to walk the walk and not just talk, is hardly likely to waste his time with a obsolete MA when he could make good money and fame in the ring or in the stadium. In contrast, the best that any Capoeria practitioner can hope for is to become either a feared slum crim or at most a nightclub performer, perhaps an instructor at one of the schools - To put it differently, it does not offer a very attractive or rewarding career path. Still there are exceptions and in all probability a few must be very good fighters.

Cheers
Chris

[Robert Gray]

Chris

Throughout this thread and the other one you seem to be of the view that
there were not set techniques for knife fighting. Obviously you have given
this matter some thought. My question: In your opinion, are there or were
there any knife fighting systems that worked any better than improvisation , anywhere?

Reagrds
Robert

[Chris Evans]

Hi Robert,

I suppose it all depends what you mean by knife fighting, after all, it can cover a very wide variety of sins - And then there is also the question of what you mean by knives which comprise everything from a diminutive "tactical" folder to a Gaucho's facon with a 20" long blade.

Knives have been used throughout the ages, especially by men at arms, as:

a) Weapons of ambush (assassination);
b) backups to weapons of longer reach such as staffs, swords and guns; and
c) general weapons of last resort.

A detailed discussion of the above is beyond the scope of this thread and are well covered by extant literature, especially military manuals. In general, these applications are more about tactical considerations than knife specific skills.

However, in discussions such as this, most people associate knife fighting with dueling. In fact, the lores of the navaja and facon are inextricably linked with dueling, as attested to by the attention paid to the Manual del Baratero and the views that I have expressed on this thread and others in the past have to be understood in this context.

We must not lose sight of the fact that knives offer no advantage of reach and lack "stopping power". This means that a successful hit does not guarantee immunity from an equally damaging counterattack - As a result, knife dueling, if in earnest and it seldom is, tends to be a very uncertain undertaking in which both combatants are likely to end up seriously injured. There are any number of reported incidents that bears witness to this.

Also, in a technical sense, because of its short blade (compared to a sword) there is only so much that can be done with a knife. For example, the English renaissance swordsman, George Silver, wrote at length about techniques for the sword, but could give precious little instruction on the dagger, when used alone. Similarly, I have seen Asian masters of various martial arts demonstrate their usage of knives and their techniques came down to some very simple moves, but executed with extremely finely honed sense for timing and distance. One such master expressed the view to me that there wasn't all that much to it, except for understanding a knife and being able to move with speed and finesse.

So to sum up, neither the Spaniards of old nor others of European origins, have left us anything in writing that we could construe to be a system over and above what anybody with some thought could devise and the Far Eastern Asians have adopted the knife as an adjunct to complex unarmed or sword arts - However, when used alone, as say when dueling, I have not seen anything resembling a system from even those quarters. In South East Asia there are a number of blade arts, but on closer scrutiny it can be quickly discerned that these are derivatives of more comprehensive combative systems and outside of carefully choreographed demonstrations do not amount to all that much. What I have seen though, is a large number of tricks that can be devastating to the unwary, but only the unwary, and these must be seen in the same light as the "botta segrete" (secret thrust) of the old fencing masters, that is, very simple and easily countered basic moves, but set up with an unusual preliminary sequence and relying disproportionately on the surprise factor for success. Richard Burton, for one, was of the opinion that they were useless (with swords).

Cheers
Chris

[Bill]

Any comments on this one. I bought it with several Moro swords, all said to have purchased in the Southern Philippines. It opens rather easily with one hand flick but is very hard to close, needing both hands & then pushing blade on hard surface. Well made and could be used quickly.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Bill,

You got a good one there. That lock is what the Spaniards would describe as a `teat-lock', the teat being the little stub on the heel of the blade that engages with the hole in the spine spring. This type of lock was comparatively rare in Spain and much liked by the French and Italian cutlers who use them to this day. It provides great security and as you say, on some models, a very fast opening - For this reason the Spanish authorities did not like them nor did their cutlers because it required precision fitting by highly skilled labour, which was scarce in their country.

A near identical navaja is shown on plate 140 (pg 131) of Forton's "Antique Clasp Knives" and is described as probably made during the 19th century in French Rosellon (a border region near Catalunia). Depending on its overall state, it would fetch around $US500 on the open market and more if sold by a dealer.

Cheers
Chris

[Bill]

Thank You, Chris

[Frank]

Helo Robert

I agree completely with Chris. I am a senior black belt holder and have recived instruction in the knife and other common weapons. We use them as extensions of the body movments that we already mastered and back them up with our unarmed skills. This means that should somebody get past my knife they still have to face my kicks and other blows. But with all this knowledege I could not be sure to win aginst another knife in a fight (I tried this in the gym)

Bill

Thats a relly cool knife. How much did you pay for it?

Chris

It looks from Bills navaja that the idea of fliging a pocket knife open did not start with the tacticals. How comon was this idea?

Good wishes
Frank

[Robert Gray]

Chris

Thank you for your reply - Again it makes good sense, though I am still
intrigued by knife fighting systems derived from fencing. Any comments?

Regards
Robert

[Robert Gray]

Frank

Thanks for those comments. It supports the views of Chris

Regards
Robert

[Chris Evans]

Hi Robert,

When you ask about knife fighting systems derived from fencing, you have to stipulate what type of fencing you have in mind.

Sword play has two distinctly different forms, technically known as that of `single time' and `double time', `time' meaning a distinct phase or movement. Spanish knife dueling, indeed most knife dueling, parallels early sword play . What has to be kept in mind however, is that unlike with swords, fencing with knives will not deliver a victory through the application of mere techniques, as there is much left to chance and other factors. To a lesser extent this also applied to early sword play and was the driving force behind its eventual evolution towards the more scientific `double time' play, which provides a more reliable fight; One that is less dependent on luck and tricks and also less prone to the mutual double hits, entanglements and bloody wrestling matches that plagued rapier and broadsword fights.

For a brief explanation of the two styles I reproduce here an extract from a paper that I wrote some time ago on the rapier. I also would like to draw attention to that early rapier fencing was technically fairly simple relying greatly on the preparation of attacks and attendant deceits and for parrying on a left hand implement was used. Later rapier play was still conducted in `single time' but became a good deal more reliant on the use of the blade for other than just delivering thrusts or cuts. Nevertheless, sword play only attained its current complexity and sophistication with `double time' play.

"The great demarcator in the history of sword play was the transition from fencing in `single' to `double time'. In the former, the preferred tactic was to provoke an attack and counter into the opponent's offense, and (if necessary) blocking the path of the incoming blade with one's own, also known as `covering'; These days this type of counterattack is usually referred to as a `time hit', a `time hit with opposition', or a `covered time hit'. In contrast, in `double time' fencing, the incoming attack is first parried with the sword blade and then followed up with a counter attack, the `riposte'. Of course, the above description is of single swords opposing each other; With left hand parrying implements, as was the rule with rapiers, the action became more complex but still retained the same essential character described above."

It should be noted that full `double time' swordplay became possible only with the advent of the very much lighter and faster purely thrusting small-sword of the late 18th century; Its fight was characterized by leading with the sword arm and leg and the frequent use of the lunge. In contrast, early rapier consisted of leading with the leg opposite to the sword side, holding back the sword and delivering attacks by taking a step forward, called a `pass', with the sword side leg and extending the sword arm. The lunge was rarely used.

Spanish knife play, according to the English fencing authority Egerton Castle, was based on early rapier play, and of course `sans covering', with attacks being delivered on the `pass' and leading with the leg opposite to the sword side. It has to be understood clearly that later sword play, that is, in `double time', cannot not be adapted to knives because they cannot parry on account of their short length. Even the very long, short sword like Gaucho facons and Spanish left hand daggers could not parry reliably for being too heavy and or too short and for this reason were used in conjunction with a cape.

Over the years there were numerous attempts by fencing masters to incorporate sword techniques into knife usage, but inevitably these were reiterations of early rapier or left hand dagger play, as exemplified by the section dealing with daggers in Alfred Hutton's `Cold Steel'.

There were also a few questionable, and in my view unsuccessful, attempts to introduce modern fencing elements such as leading with the knife hand and leg and primarily attacking the opponents knife hand, as done in epee and sabre duels. These techniques are not likely to work against a fighter who does not oblige by leading with the knife hand and in any event such an on-guard position is very risky because of the ease with which the extended knife can be displaced, trapped or by-passed. In fact, the majority of the self defense moves taught assume that that is how the attacker will behave.

I should close with the observation that the majority of movie knife fights are based on re-hashed `double time' sword fencing moves and are intended to be mere entertainment rather than a exposition of a sound way to duel with knives.

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Hi Frank,

I have seen numerous antique large folders that could be flung open, but these had rather loose blades at the hinge to permit this action. Old navajas had riveted pivot pins and unlike the modern tactical folders, the tightness of the blade could not be finely adjusted, at least not easily in an age when few had the necessary tools - And a folder with a loose blade at the pivot pin is a very weak knife - So, it is a matter of guesswork if many were opened that way.

In any event and as we have seen, the Spanish authorities did not take well to locks of any kind and it is safe to assume that those that could be opened quickly on account of a fast action and lock would have been even less tolerated in most jurisdictions. Most lockers that can be opened quickly, like Bill's, are of French origins from the late 1800s, an era by which the navaja in Spain was in decline.

Cheers
Chris

[Bill]

The mechanics on the blade seems to be rather simple; folded, the hinged end is squared resting against the lock, holding the blade in. The blade is large and heavy. With momentum, the weight, makes the swing rather quick. The other side of the hinged end is curved, bringing the teat under the lock. I am surprised, that with the craftsmanship involved, that there is no makers mark, but I am unfamilar with navajas or french work. Frank, I don't recall the price, as I recall, I bought a couple of 19C Moro barungs with this one, all being described as Indonesian barungs, brought back by a WWll vet. It is possible that it once belonged to a Spanish soldier who served in the Philippines.

[Chris Evans]

I am surprised, that with the craftsmanship involved, that there is no makers mark, but I am unfamilar with navajas or french work.
.... It is possible that it once belonged to a Spanish soldier who served in the Philippines.

Hi Bill,

1. Is there a logo stamping anywhere on the blade?

2. You could be quite right in that it was a knife that belonged to a Spanish soldier, probably one of Catalan origins.

Cheers
Chris

[Bill]

No logo, it does have the sign of the Cross near the tip, on one side of the blade, & another on the lock.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Bill,

Any chance of a photo of those markings? Forton gives several pages of logo-brand stampings in his book, many French.

Cheers
Chris

[Bill]

Hi Chris, You can see the Cross on the 1st & 3rd pics, I already posted, made out of a series of dots. Not to clear, but they are there.

[Robert Gray]

Chris

I should have never asked! You ovewrhelmed me with technicalities - It will take me a long time to get my non fencing mind around all that, but many thanks all the same. :o

Keep up the good work
Robert

[Chris Evans]

Hi Bill,

I could not see the cross on the first pic, but on the third it looks like mere decoration.


Hi Robert,

Sorry about my rather longwinded answer. This article by Stephen Hand, a historical fencer, may be of some help in better understanding `single/doubletime' fencing:

http://www.stoccata.org/stoccata.nsf/Pages/961899C827FBB8F04A2567E300827FA2

Cheers
Chris

[Frank]

Chris

Thanks for that link to that article on fencing. Realy intersting. Now I understand the diference between Japanese/Asian and European sword fighting.

I know that small knives cant block another knife but what about the biger ones? Surely witha 20 inch blade something can be done?

Have a good one
Frank

[Chris Evans]

Hi Frank,

1. I presume that what you mean is that European swordplay evolved into double time play whereas the Orientals, never quite having discovered the science of the point, stayed with what we may call single time sword play in which defense was primarily by voiding (evasion). This a was also the case in the West, where the heavier military cutting swords, when fenced with, continued to be used in single time. Whilst a few double time moves can be made with a heavy-ish sword, only the very light small-sword and its descendants can be fenced consistently in double time.

2. Re Parrying With Knives: The 18th and early 19th century Gauchos, in keeping with Spanish tradition, used very long knives/daggers. After that time, their knives became shorter for a variety of reasons, but we need not go into this here. These long knives were made from cut down swords and bayonets - A good many had blades somewhere in between 16" and 20". Now, if we remember that a small-sword has a blade around 30", it is not hard to see that with say a 20" blade, some kind of blade to blade interaction is possible, indeed probable, but as we shall see, not necessarily beneficial. For parrying to be of use, the defender has to gain an advantage of leverage against the attacker so as to reliably displace his blade's point and thus open the way for a safe counterattack. This is achieved by the defending sword's first half (forte) engaging the attacking sword's second half (foible) - If this advantage of leverage is not attained, then the parry is largely a dengerously wasted move. Now, once the blade length decreases to less than that of a sword parries become increasingly unreliable and below some critical, but undefined length, completely unattainable. In addition, parry/riposte fencing also requires effective handguards, which apart from specialized left hand fencing daggers, knifes did and do not have.

Something else to keep in mind is that to use a knife for parrying, a knife side hand and leg forward stance is required, akin to that of a modern swordsman. However, this stance has the following disadvantages:

a) Prevents effective parrying with the left arm implement (cape etc);
b) makes it difficult to attack without resorting to the lunge, a move that is completely impractical with a knife;
c) the fighter that leads with the knife is vulnerable to be either cut on the arm, or worse still, rushed should his arm be displaced sideways.

For the above reasons, the Spanish style knife fighters lead with the left leg and arm defending (usually with a cape), whilst the knife arm and leg are held back, attacks being delivered on a "pass" or a step forward, as the knife arm is at the same time extended.

To sum up, any attempt to defend (parry) with a very long knife is fraught with disadvantages and with a shorter weapon completely impractical. And in my opinion, this is why knife systems derived from modern fencing, that is in double time, are ineffective and perilous in the extreme.

Cheers
Chris

[Renegade Conquistador]

Hi Frank,

1. I presume that what you mean is that European swordplay evolved into double time play whereas the Orientals, never quite having discovered the science of the point, stayed with what we may call single time sword play in which defense was primarily by voiding (evasion). This a was also the case in the West, where the heavier military cutting swords, when fenced with, continued to be used in single time. Whilst a few double time moves can be made with a heavy-ish sword, only the very light small-sword and its descendants can be fenced consistently in double time.

Mr Evans,

I must respectfully disagree with what you state above.

George Silver, in describing the use of the "short sword" of his day (a basket-hilted broadsword or backsword, that actually had a rather long blade of 37"-40"), said that one of the main defensive options was to "ward, & after to strike". This is what modern fencers call a parry-riposte, and thus we are talking about a double-time action.

The parry-riposte remained a staple for cut-and-thrust swordplay with the broadsword, backsword, saber, & cutlass.

Best,

R C

[Renegade Conquistador]

Everyone,

I'm not trying to jack this thread, but I felt compelled to respond to some of LabanTayo's comments below:

so, did the spanish steal filipino techniques, or vice versa?

The influence was possibly mutual, as is so often the case.

the malay / indo / philippine archipelego was a blade oriented society before spanish/dutch/portugese/british arrival. the philippines may have adopted some spanish fighting techniques and terminology, but i have never seen a spanish fencer/fighter move like filipino arnisador/fighter.

Given that there are no surviving schools of Spanish fencing (either civilian or military), I would be most curious to know how many actual "Spanish fencer/fighters" you have "seen".

There are, of course, modern classical fencers who are working on reconstructions of the civilian Spanish school of rapier fencing (the destreza of Carranza, that is), but that is not a method which was likely to have seen much (if any) use in the Philippines. No, the Spanish soldiers serving there would have made use of a more practical form of cut-and-thrust swordplay, with corresponding weapons like the bilbo (a type of broadsword with a rapier-like shell hilt). It's also worth noting that British officers observed Pampangan troops in Spanish service equipped with such swords.

As for a possible relationship between the Spanish military esgrima (fencing) and native Filipino blade methods, the similarities are certainly there. FMA's redonda resembles the moulinet (or molinello) of Western saber work. FMA's "wing block" looks like saber fencing's #1 parry (prime), while the "dropstick" appears equivalent to parry #2 (seconde). In FMA, attacks to the leg are met with what European broadsword and military saber men call "slipping" or "shifting the leg". In both FMA and European cut-and-thrust fencing, cuts are categorized by angles--vertical, horizontal, and diagonal. Are these things the result of cross-cultural influence, or parallel evolution?

As for "terminology", it's interesting to note that about 65 percent of the technical terms used in all eskrima styles are Spanish-derived, which seems somewhat odd when one considers that most Filipinos do not speak Spanish.

Then again, perhaps it's not so odd after all--Romy Macapagal, the current archivist for Kalis Ilustrisimo, has declared that Kalis Ilustrisimo is a full 40% Spanish-derived.

And other FMAists, like Dr. Ned Nepangue and Celestino Macachor, are postulating new theories concerning the origins of eskrima and arnis--the crux of their argument is that they are a result of a synthesis of Spanish military fencing, and native blade arts. The main goal for creating this hybrid form was to help defend the Spanish-occupied areas against Moro piratical incursions.

FWIW.

Best,

R C

[Renegade Conquistador]

There were also a few questionable, and in my view unsuccessful, attempts to introduce modern fencing elements such as leading with the knife hand and leg and primarily attacking the opponents knife hand, as done in epee and sabre duels. These techniques are not likely to work against a fighter who does not oblige by leading with the knife hand and in any event such an on-guard position is very risky because of the ease with which the extended knife can be displaced, trapped or by-passed. In fact, the majority of the self defense moves taught assume that that is how the attacker will behave.

Many knifefighting methods make use of a strong-side (weapon-hand) lead. It can be seen in FMA, as well as modern Western military knife combat. In regards to the latter, the most obvious example would be the USMC "Biddle System" of Lt. Col. A.J. Drexel Biddle, and that of his protege, John Styers. Keep in mind that the original Biddle system was intended for use with the '03 Springfield sword bayonet, with a 16" blade.

As for the "fighter who does not oblige by leading with the knife hand", his weak side therefore becomes vulnerable instead, and he has sacrificed a good deal of reach with his own weapon.

No single guard position is going to be the right answer for every situation, but for knife-on-knife duelling, the strong-side lead clearly has its benefits.

[Chris Evans]

Hi RC

1. Welcome to the discussion and thank you for the very interesting points you make.

2. RE FMA: Whilst I do not wish to bite into this one, as such discussions rightly belong to MA forums and here we are collectors. But I agree that there are no surviving traditions of old Spanish fencing, save with the later small sword/epee, which in any event were adaptations of the French school, with Hispanic touches added.

2. Re Double Time & G.Silver:

Several issues here:

a) The notion of what we mean by double time (DT) has to be defined. In modern fencing it is generally understood as being able to parry with the sword's blade in all four lines, something only possible with the light weight smallsword and its descendants.

b) If you read my post again, you'll see that I did say that some DT moves are possible with a heavy sword. But only some - Do read that article by Stephan Hand as to why (link given in an earlier thread). The old fencing treatises dealt with fencing in DT with a heavy sword and were unanimous in condemning the practice. A heavy sword just cannot be moved with sufficient speed to intercept all incoming attacks and to successfully riposte.

c) Re George Silver: After having been dismissed by generations of fencers as a reactionary who obstinately refused to see reason and preached mostly fallacies, Silver has found new favour with English speaking historical fencers and has gained quite a following. A lot of his writings, as all historical treatises, have to be interpreted with considerable caution and in the light of expertise. To be sure, he made many valid observations worthy of our consideration, but he cannot be uncritically accepted, otherwise totally unwarranted conclusions may be drawn.

Silver used a sword and buckler, or dagger, or cloak for parrying, as did everybody else in his day when fencing with either broadsword or rapier. Despite Capo Ferro, upholding that the rapier alone was sufficient for defense, the practice of using an auxiliary parrying implement persisted right into the nineteenth century, at least for brawls - Obviously, it was more reliable than relying on the blade alone.

All the fencing treatises of the Renaissance era allowed for the possibility that one may have to fight with sword alone and a good deal of their advice, including Silvers', has to be understood in that kind of scenario. Using the sword to parry with had some merit in such a situation, as was parrying with the left hand, but these methods were far from being the preferred option.


3. Re Leading With The Knife Side:

a) This topic can be debated endlessly and I have my opinions on the matter, which I have already given and my reasons. With that said, we have to distinguish whether we are talking about dueling or general combat situations - My remarks were in the context of knife dueling.

b) One can use whatever stance one wishes, but the Spaniards of old led with the left side because they dueled with parrying capes. To do otherwise would mean largely negating the benefit of the cape and eliminating the possibility of advancing with a "pass".

c) As for the military, generally they are not into knife dueling, neither are they particularly consistent in what they advocate nor are they to be considered as the final arbiters on knife usage - The knife, as the pistol, ranks very low in their priorities, even with special forces. As I am led to believe, the US army currently advocates leading with the left arm and leg, but the Argentinian army prefers a hybrid stance in which the left arm and right leg lead. What is significant in both of these systems is that the free arm is there to parry with.

That said, I take your point about Biddle, though it is held that Applegate did not think much of him and he (Applegate) advocated leading with the left arm and leg.

I read Biddle and he gave me the impression that he had no hands on experience other than in fencing and this was reinforced by his recommending the very questionable Passata Sotto. He gave precious little in terms of technique, except to emphasize that the "scientific" knife fighter attacks the knife hand of his opponent and that there were many advantages to be obtained from using fencing moves - He used the bayonet in the manner of a dueling sabre, which it is not, though even he had the good sense of advancing the unarmed arm so as to be ready to parry.

We have to remember that Biddle was a wealthy socialite schooled in sport fencing who turned soldier; He was enthused, perhaps over enthused by all manner of close combat arts, and much of what he advocated did not reflect military realities or needs. Here is a link to a rather interesting article on him:

http://ejmas.com/jnc/jncart_Svinth_1201.htm

Military men are forever writing about this and that, with the aim of furthering their careers; Some of their material is sound and a lot not so sound. Also a lot of the stuff in army manuals was put there primarily to build confidence and raise morale, and must be read as such, rather than as definitive technical statements.

Cheers
Chris

[Renegade Conquistador]

Chris,

Hi RC

1. Welcome to the discussion and thank you for the very interesting points you make.

Thank you.

2. RE FMA: Whilst I do not wish to bite into this one, as such discussions rightly belong to MA forums and here we are collectors. But I agree that there are no surviving traditions of old Spanish fencing, save with the later small sword/epee, which in any event were adaptations of the French school, with Hispanic touches added.

According to maestro William Gaugler, modern-day Neapolitan fencers maintain that there is a Spanish element to their fencing, though they don't know what the element actually is. Aside from that (which obviously isn't much, given the sheer lack of details), there is no surviving Spanish swordplay of any kind.

2. Re Double Time & G.Silver:

Several issues here:

a) The notion of what we mean by double time (DT) has to be defined. In modern fencing it is generally understood as being able to parry with the sword's blade in all four lines, something only possible with the light weight smallsword and its descendants.

Broadswords and backswords are actually well-balanced and responsive. Double-time actions (parry-ripostes) are quite feasible with them. As a collector yourself, I would have thought that you would agree on this.

b) If you read my post again, you'll see that I did say that some DT moves are possible with a heavy sword. But only some - Do read that article by Stephan Hand as to why (link given in an earlier thread). The old fencing treatises dealt with fencing in DT with a heavy sword and were unanimous in condemning the practice. A heavy sword just cannot be moved with sufficient speed to intercept all incoming attacks and to successfully riposte.

Keep in mind that I'm not talking about the German longsword school. I'm talking about Anglo-Scottish broadsword/backsword, as well as later military sabers and cutlasses.

c) Re George Silver: After having been dismissed by generations of fencers as a reactionary who obstinately refused to see reason and preached mostly fallacies, Silver has found new favour with English speaking historical fencers and has gained quite a following. A lot of his writings, as all historical treatises, have to be interpreted with considerable caution and in the light of expertise. To be sure, he made many valid observations worthy of our consideration, but he cannot be uncritically accepted, otherwise totally unwarranted conclusions may be drawn.

What about later manuals of broadsword and saber, then? The parry-riposte is a standard method.

Silver used a sword and buckler, or dagger, or cloak for parrying, as did everybody else in his day when fencing with either broadsword or rapier. Despite Capo Ferro, upholding that the rapier alone was sufficient for defense, the practice of using an auxiliary parrying implement persisted right into the nineteenth century, at least for brawls - Obviously, it was more reliable than relying on the blade alone.

Swords were used alone as well. Basket-hilts are especially suited to this.

All the fencing treatises of the Renaissance era allowed for the possibility that one may have to fight with sword alone and a good deal of their advice, including Silvers', has to be understood in that kind of scenario. Using the sword to parry with had some merit in such a situation, as was parrying with the left hand, but these methods were far from being the preferred option.

Nobody is discounting counteroffensive actions, body voids, "slipping", etc., but the parry-riposte was a greater part of the arsenal of these weapons than you are leading people to believe.


3. Re Leading With The Knife Side:

a) This topic can be debated endlessly and I have my opinions on the matter, which I have already given and my reasons. With that said, we have to distinguish whether we are talking about dueling or general combat situations - My remarks were in the context of knife dueling.

Indeed--a knife vs knife scenario.

b) One can use whatever stance one wishes, but the Spaniards of old led with the left side because they dueled with parrying capes. To do otherwise would mean largely negating the benefit of the cape and eliminating the possibility of advancing with a "pass".

That's fine, but what about fighting with a knife without the use of a secondary?

c) As for the military, generally they are not into knife dueling, neither are they particularly consistent in what they advocate nor are they to be considered as the final arbiters on knife usage - The knife, as the pistol, ranks very low in their priorities, even with special forces. As I am led to believe, the US army currently advocates leading with the left arm and leg, but the Argentinian army prefers a hybrid stance in which the left arm and right leg lead. What is significant in both of these systems is that the free arm is there to parry with.

That said, I take your point about Biddle, though it is held that Applegate did not think much of him and he (Applegate) advocated leading with the left arm and leg.

Why should we favor Applegate over Biddle? Applegate designed a nice knife after the War, but I don't see what makes him "more of an authority" on the subject of knife combat than Biddle.

Applegate was a student of Fairbairn, and you should consider that Fairbairn's curriculum has met its share of mixed reviews (see Robert W. Smith's critique in Martial Musings).

So, to infer that leading with the weak side is better simply because Applegate said so, doesn't mean all that much me.

I read Biddle and he gave me the impression that he had no hands on experience other than in fencing and this was reinforced by his recommending the very questionable Passata Sotto.

I'm not a fan of passata soto for knife fighting either, thought it's at least more feasible with a 16-inch '03 bayonet than a smaller fighting knife.

He gave precious little in terms of technique, except to emphasize that the "scientific" knife fighter attacks the knife hand of his opponent and that there were many advantages to be obtained from using fencing moves - He used the bayonet in the manner of a dueling sabre, which it is not, though even he had the good sense of advancing the unarmed arm so as to be ready to parry.

You said yourself that much of the material on knife combat doesn't amount to a great deal, in terms of technique--Biddle was hardly unique in that department. Look at Applegate's Combat Use of the Double-Edged Fighting Knife and you'll see what I mean.

We have to remember that Biddle was a wealthy socialite schooled in sport fencing who turned soldier; He was enthused, perhaps over enthused by all manner of close combat arts, and much of what he advocated did not reflect military realities or needs. Here is a link to a rather interesting article on him:

http://ejmas.com/jnc/jncart_Svinth_1201.htm

Military men are forever writing about this and that, with the aim of furthering their careers; Some of their material is sound and a lot not so sound. Also a lot of the stuff in army manuals was put there primarily to build confidence and raise morale, and must be read as such, rather than as definitive technical statements.

That should be considered with ALL "military men", then.

Including Applegate.

Back to the subject of the strong-side lead in a knife vs. knife situation, I would recommend what Cold Steel head honcho Lynn Thompson does--spar it out.

The results will speak for themselves.

Best,

R C

[Chris Evans]

Hi RC

....Aside from that (which obviously isn't much, given the sheer lack of details), there is no surviving Spanish swordplay of any kind.

I don't think that you read my post fully. But any kind? That's rather broad isn't it? Just what do you mean by Spanish school? For example how would you classify maestro Carbonel?

Broadswords and backswords are actually well-balanced and responsive.

a) For what application? Cutting? Thrusting? Dueling? On horse back or afoot?

b) Responsive is very subjective, but balance can be measured. Where would you say that their point of balance is in relation to the quillons or end of the grip (not the shell or forward parts of the guard)? And where should it be for (i) cutting and (ii) thrusting? (iii) fencing in ST and DT?

Double-time actions (parry-ripostes) are quite feasible with them... Keep in mind that I'm not talking about the German longsword school. I'm talking about Anglo-Scottish broadsword/backsword, as well as later military sabers and cutlasses.

I already conceded twice that SOME DT actions are possible with them. If you mean full DT play, in all four lines, then please say so and quote your historical sources.

What about later manuals of broadsword and saber, then? The parry-riposte is a standard method.

Standard? And what do you mean by saber? Even then, in which century and which country? Again, please quote your historical sources.

Swords were used alone as well. Basket-hilts are especially suited to this.

I already acknowledged this. If you disagree with the context that I gave for such usage then please state your alternative understanding, otherwise you assertion does not add up to more than a tautology.

....but the parry-riposte was a greater part of the arsenal of these weapons than you are leading people to believe.

Are you suggesting that they parried and riposted in all four lines as in say the stage fight in the film Prisoner of Zenda(1937)? Again your historical sources please.


That's fine, but what about fighting with a knife without the use of a secondary?

I already wrote what Castle in the late nineteenth century wrote about knife usage by the Spaniards. If caught without a parrying implement the Gauchos used a stance very similar to that of Applegate and tried to protect the torso with the left arm and hand. Of course, there being no schools as such, it is and was every man to himself, but that was the general approach 50 years ago. These days all sorts of arts have found their way there, so there is no way of predicting what anyone would do.


Why should we favor Applegate over Biddle? Applegate designed a nice knife after the War, but I don't see what makes him "more of an authority" on the subject of knife combat than Biddle.

I think that you misunderstood my words. I did not uphold one over the other. I only quoted those two to illustrate my contention that the armed forces are not entirely consistent in their approach and therefore cannot be used to support one view or the other as being more valid.

So, to infer that leading with the weak side is better simply because Applegate said so, doesn't mean all that much me.

I never quoted Applegate or any other knife teacher in support of my views. Throughout all my writings I consistently upheld the view that all this talk about knife fighting schools and techniques is much about very little. In real combat with knives, luck, aggression, agility, timing and surprise over-rode the advantages of mere technique. We have ample historical evidence for this and indeed Castle said as much himself. In short, knives make for poor dueling weapons and if used as such, deliverer either stalemates or bloody and uncertain results for both combatants.

I'm not a fan of passata soto for knife fighting either, thought it's at least more feasible with a 16-inch '03 bayonet than a smaller fighting knife.

Amen to that.

You said yourself that much of the material on knife combat doesn't amount to a great deal, in terms of technique--Biddle was hardly unique in that department. Look at Applegate's Combat Use of the Double-Edged Fighting Knife and you'll see what I mean.

You quoted Biddle in support of your views. I never upheld either of those gentlemen as the purveyor of the ultimate truth. Of course, I have my opinion of each, but it is irrelevant to this thread, which is about the navaja and associated themes.

That should be considered with ALL "military men", then.Including Applegate.

After re-reading my original post, I think that we got yet one more tautology here masquerading as an argument. I cannot understand your point, as you seem to be merely repeating what I already said.


Back to the subject of the strong-side lead in a knife vs. knife situation, I would recommend what Cold Steel head honcho Lynn Thompson does--spar it out. The results will speak for themselves.

I fail to see what that would prove, after all, for a combat system to be validated it has to be tested for real and even then by a large number of people to give a representative result - Not very feasible these days. In any event, sparing always contains an element of unreality and whilst it has its uses, it cannot substitute for actual combat.

Nevertheless if Lynn found a better way than the Spaniards or others, then good on him. All sorts of things have been improved upon with the passage of time - For one, he makes far better folders than the Spaniards of old ever did.


Cheers
Chris

[Robert Gray]

Hi gentlemen,

What a fascinating and superb thread!

Renegade Conquistador, you sure raised some really good points, but may
I suggest that you read Chris's replies with a little more care. Sorry to
say this Chris, but he writes in a rather academic or legal style. Long
sentences that have to be read several times over before the full significance
of what he says can be taken in.

I know nothing of this subject, but I greatly enjoy learning from all
of you. Keep it up fellows.

Best Regards
Robert

[Frank]

Renegade Conquistador

I just came home from the country and this tread has grown like grass.

I tell you ufpront that I know a litle about Jap swordsmanship. I studied it a bit for my MA gradings. Not much only enough to know the basics. What Chris wrote made alot of things clear for me.

If you were to block a cut with a european sword like a saber, which part of the blade would you use?

Have a good one
Frank

[Renegade Conquistador]

Robert,

Hi gentlemen,

What a fascinating and superb thread!

Yeah, this thread was pretty darn compelling long before I arrived. :)

Renegade Conquistador, you sure raised some really good points, but may
I suggest that you read Chris's replies with a little more care. Sorry to
say this Chris, but he writes in a rather academic or legal style. Long
sentences that have to be read several times over before the full significance
of what he says can be taken in.

If I have "misread" anything Chris has written, I apologize.

I know nothing of this subject, but I greatly enjoy learning from all
of you. Keep it up fellows.

I'll do my part, and I'm sure the others will too.

Best,

R C

[Renegade Conquistador]

If you were to block a cut with a european sword like a saber, which part of the blade would you use?

Parries are made with the forte (strong base) of the blade, which is typically blunt.

[Renegade Conquistador]

Chris,

Hi RC

....Aside from that (which obviously isn't much, given the sheer lack of details), there is no surviving Spanish swordplay of any kind.

I don't think that you read my post fully. But any kind? That's rather broad isn't it? Just what do you mean by Spanish school? For example how would you classify maestro Carbonel?

By "Spanish school" I mean just that--a distinct Spanish school of fencing. None, to the best of my knowledge, have survived.

Forgive me, but I am not familiar with maestro Carbonel.

However, I can say that recent Spanish fencing masters have taught from the surviving French and Italian schools (Julio Castello, who used a saber to defeat a kendoka in the early 20th century, comes to mind).

Broadswords and backswords are actually well-balanced and responsive.

a) For what application? Cutting? Thrusting? Dueling? On horse back or afoot?

For all of the above.

In my own experience, I have handled numerous original basket-hilted broadswords and backswords from the 17th and 18th centuries, and they certainly fit Silver's description of a "short, sharp, light sword".

My old maestro from BCAF noted the same thing when he receive a special tour of the Tower of London Armouries many years ago--he told me how much lighter the originals were, when compared with so many replicas today. "You could fence with these," as he put it.

b) Responsive is very subjective, but balance can be measured. Where would you say that their point of balance is in relation to the quillons or end of the grip (not the shell or forward parts of the guard)? And where should it be for (i) cutting and (ii) thrusting? (iii) fencing in ST and DT?

Obviously the POB is further down the blade that with a purely thrusting implement like a smallsword, but that doesn't change the fact that these weapons can be used for double-time actions.

Double-time actions (parry-ripostes) are quite feasible with them... Keep in mind that I'm not talking about the German longsword school. I'm talking about Anglo-Scottish broadsword/backsword, as well as later military sabers and cutlasses.

I already conceded twice that SOME DT actions are possible with them. If you mean full DT play, in all four lines, then please say so and quote your historical sources.

By "all four lines" I assume you mean inside and outside, high and low. Parries with the point up, and parries with the point down. If this is "full DT play", then yes, I don't see a problem there (though, FWIW, many broadswordsmen took all their parries in pronation).

What about later manuals of broadsword and saber, then? The parry-riposte is a standard method.

Standard? And what do you mean by saber? Even then, in which century and which country? Again, please quote your historical sources.

By saber I mean the military saber. No specific country. We're talking largely about a "pan-European cut-and-thrust method" here.

Of course, there's also the "Radaellian" duelling saber--the sciabola di terreno of the late 19th century. That weapon is lighter than the military types, and likewise can be used for double-time actions.

Swords were used alone as well. Basket-hilts are especially suited to this.

I already acknowledged this. If you disagree with the context that I gave for such usage then please state your alternative understanding, otherwise you assertion does not add up to more than a tautology.

Am I being repetitive? I am genuinely sorry if I was. :confused:

In any case, you stated:

Silver used a sword and buckler, or dagger, or cloak for parrying, as did everybody else in his day when fencing with either broadsword or rapier.

In reply, I simply stated what you left out--i.e., the fact that Silver also taught the use of the sword alone.

....but the parry-riposte was a greater part of the arsenal of these weapons than you are leading people to believe.

Are you suggesting that they parried and riposted in all four lines as in say the stage fight in the film Prisoner of Zenda(1937)? Again your historical sources please.

I don't have them in front of me (I'm at my gal's house at the moment), but the manuals I have seen list a slew of parries, so let me get back to you on that.


That's fine, but what about fighting with a knife without the use of a secondary?

I already wrote what Castle in the late nineteenth century wrote about knife usage by the Spaniards. If caught without a parrying implement the Gauchos used a stance very similar to that of Applegate and tried to protect the torso with the left arm and hand. Of course, there being no schools as such, it is and was every man to himself, but that was the general approach 50 years ago. These days all sorts of arts have found their way there, so there is no way of predicting what anyone would do.

I was talking about knife vs. knife in general, not from a specific culture.


Why should we favor Applegate over Biddle? Applegate designed a nice knife after the War, but I don't see what makes him "more of an authority" on the subject of knife combat than Biddle.

I think that you misunderstood my words. I did not uphold one over the other. I only quoted those two to illustrate my contention that the armed forces are not entirely consistent in their approach and therefore cannot be used to support one view or the other as being more valid.

I see.

So, to infer that leading with the weak side is better simply because Applegate said so, doesn't mean all that much me.

I never quoted Applegate or any other knife teacher in support of my views.

Perhaps your original post was unclear. Or perhaps I misread it.

Throughout all my writings I consistently upheld the view that all this talk about knife fighting schools and techniques is much about very little. In real combat with knives, luck, aggression, agility, timing and surprise over-rode the advantages of mere technique. We have ample historical evidence for this and indeed Castle said as much himself.

Indeed, he did.

In short, knives make for poor dueling weapons and if used as such, deliverer either stalemates or bloody and uncertain results for both combatants.

I think that's why various Southern states chose to outlaw the Bowie knife--as one legislator put it, "a sword can be parried", but the knife cannot.

I'm not a fan of passata soto for knife fighting either, thought it's at least more feasible with a 16-inch '03 bayonet than a smaller fighting knife.

Amen to that.

I figured that one out by "sparring it out". ;)

You said yourself that much of the material on knife combat doesn't amount to a great deal, in terms of technique--Biddle was hardly unique in that department. Look at Applegate's Combat Use of the Double-Edged Fighting Knife and you'll see what I mean.

You quoted Biddle in support of your views. I never upheld either of those gentlemen as the purveyor of the ultimate truth. Of course, I have my opinion of each, but it is irrelevant to this thread, which is about the navaja and associated themes.

I quoted Biddle because it is a good system for its intended application.

That should be considered with ALL "military men", then.Including Applegate.

After re-reading my original post, I think that we got yet one more tautology here masquerading as an argument. I cannot understand your point, as you seem to be merely repeating what I already said.

The only "tautology" will take place right now--I'll repeat that, either your original post wasn't clear, or I misread it. No big deal either way, and things seem clearer now. :)


Back to the subject of the strong-side lead in a knife vs. knife situation, I would recommend what Cold Steel head honcho Lynn Thompson does--spar it out. The results will speak for themselves.

I fail to see what that would prove, after all, for a combat system to be validated it has to be tested for real and even then by a large number of people to give a representative result - Not very feasible these days. In any event, sparing always contains an element of unreality and whilst it has its uses, it cannot substitute for actual combat.

It's not the same, but it's as close as we can practically get. Sparring is actually a pretty good indicator of what will and what will not work. It must be used in conjunction with other training methods (drills, test cutting, etc), but it is certainly a crucial component, and has been at least since Roman times, if not earlier.

Nevertheless if Lynn found a better way than the Spaniards or others, then good on him. All sorts of things have been improved upon with the passage of time - For one, he makes far better folders than the Spaniards of old ever did.

LOL.

In any event, I have no problem with a weak-side-lead in the Spanish context, when a secondary is used. Without a secondary, however, the weak-side-lead is distinctly at a disadvantage in a knife vs. knife fight.

Best,

R C

[tom hyle]

Another interesting tidbit about the "Ice Man"; his knife, with its tiny blade (around 2", I think) had on it the blood of either two or three humans, none of them him. Just an interesting tidbit about tiny knives. The man was, of course, mudered with an arrow.

[Chris Evans]

Hi RC

1. In Reply:

By "Spanish school" I mean just that -a distinct Spanish school of fencing. None, to the best of my knowledge, have survived.

The late Spanish schools, which I understand are still practiced under the rubric of "classical" fencing, were certainly a rehash of the French school, but had a local flavour, as exemplified by their hilts, and the attendant grip, much in the manner of the Italian school.

Forgive me, but I am not familiar with maestro Carbonel

He and Sanz were two great early twentieth century exponents of modern Spanish fencing, in the manner described described above. Both developed hilts of their own. The one by Sanz could be seen as the forerunner of the modern orthopedic grip. See attached pictures of their swords. These masters left descendants who are still around today.


Broadswords and backswords are actually well-balanced and responsive.

a) For what application? Cutting? Thrusting? Dueling? On horse back or afoot?

For all of the above.

I cannot see that. First they vary greatly in length, weight, general shape, all with intended use - Cavalry swords tending towards greater length and weight. What they all have in common is that their point of balance (BP) is far forward and are very point slow.

I noticed that you declined to give BPs for applications. My reason for asking was that one cannot possibly discuss what a particular sword can or cannot do unless one understands its physical characteristics and limitations.

An all steel epee or French smallsword or dueling sabre has its BP very close to the hilt, within 3" and weighs a pound or a bit less - This is only attainable with the light hollow triangular French blade or the cannelured sabre blade and this is why such swords can be be used to parry fairly reliably with, in all four lines and at speed - They have a very low angular inertia, that is they can be shifted in an arc very easily, essential for DT play. Once a cutting blade, is substituted, even if very light, the BP unavoidably moves forward and is very hard to bring the it closer than 5" from the end of the grip (see Angelo). Such swords are point heavier, that is, have greater angular inertia, and much greater reliance has to be placed on ST moves, as exemplified by the Italian and Spanish schools up to 19th century. (see paragraph 3 below)

Military cutting swords have BPs at least 6" from the end of the grip. If they did not, they would make ineffective cutters. With the BP so far forward, they are very point heavy. That and their overall weight raises their angular inertia so much that they just cannot be moved with sufficient speed to reliably intercept incoming attacks to all parts of the body, which if they are cuts, are even harder to parry than thrusts, as correctly pointed out by Silver and later by Hutton.

In my own experience, I have handled numerous original basket-hilted broadswords and backswords from the 17th and 18th centuries, and they certainly fit Silver's description of a "short, sharp, light sword".

My old maestro from BCAF noted the same thing when he receive a special tour of the Tower of London Armouries many years ago--he told me how much lighter the originals were, when compared with so many replicas today. "You could fence with these," as he put it.

Some facts: A typical 19th century infantry officer's light C&T sabre-sword with a 32" blade weighs around 28oz with a BP at 7" from the hilt. Of this the blade is 19oz and the Gothic hilt and handle 9oz. A serviceable basket hilt & handle weighs around 16oz. If we re-hilt our blade with a basket-hilt, we have an all up weight of 35oz, twice the weight of a small sword and very point heavy in the bargain. And then the broadswords of Silver's era had longer blades and were consequently heavier, more like 44oz or above. The longer Scottish basket-hilted broadswords weighed around 3 pounds.

Obviously the POB is further down the blade that with a purely thrusting implement like a smallsword, but that doesn't change the fact that these weapons can be used for double-time actions.

If they were anywhere as good at DT play as the small sword, then the small sword would not have been invented. McBane acknoweldged this disparity when he emphasized that the small sword was the dueling weapon of choice since the broad sword left too much to chance; Godfrey also said that the smallsword was the weapon to duel with - I read that as broadswords parries and subsequent ripostes were too uncertain.

By saber I mean the military saber. No specific country. We're talking largely about a "pan-European cut-and-thrust method" here

I don't think that any such sword or method ever existed. A Mameluke style sabre such as carried by Wellington or Jose de San Martin, much in vogue during the Napoleonic wars, is vastly different from a Blucher or Brit 1796 which in turn are completely different weapons from their contemporary Spanish cup hilted 1796 cavalry sword. Then we have spadroons and nineteenth century light straight bladed infantry officers swords which were different again as were the curved US civil war era sabres; And what are we to make out of later Brit 1908 pattern and the Patton cavalry swords?

Then there is the issue of the hilt:

a) Is it sufficient to provide adequate hand protection? The Mameluke sabre had only a simple cross quillon and the Blucher/1796 only a stirrup hilt, as many German sabres did;

b) does it incorporates a thumb ring to facilitate holding onto and directing such a heavy blade?; and

c) Whether the handle is long enough to permit other than a restrictive "hammer" grip.

For a summary on how military type weapons were fenced with in England and how this fencing changed with time, I refer readers to Castle, from whom I quote in part: "....Cuts below the hips were usually avoided rather than parried...".

However, before going on, I should point out that such fencing was not without its conventions to make it possible. In the days of Silver cuts below the waist were considered un-gentlemanly (too hard to defend) and later English backsword play excluded the use of the point - My instincts tell me that there were probably more conventions, but cannot prove it. In short, it was a mixture of parries to protect the upper body and lots of defense by evasion. Only the light spadroon, could be used to defend all of the body, yet because of its lightness proved marginal for military usage.

We have to remember that DT, that is parry/riposte fencing only started to become feasible with the shorter and lighter transition rapier, which the lighter 19th century sabre-swords approximate. To that extent they can be fenced in DT, but only to that extent. Yet the transition rapier was further lightened and made nimbler into the Colichemarde, the edged smallsword and the hollow triangular bladed smallsword. These changes did not occur without a compelling reason; Less reliance on ST and a shift to the safer DT parry/ripostes.

In any event it is important to remember that in the days when the infantry had a real use for broadswords, they used them with bucklers or shields - The Scots used their basket-hilted Claymores with targes (a buckler). After the bayonet was invented, the need for the infantry to carry swords disappeared and were used only by the cavalry. Mounted use of the broad sword/sabre is not fencing as is commonly understood, even in melees, and survival depends far more on horsemanship and team work than on skill with the sword. In any event, on horseback, the number of moves possible with a sword is extremely limited and in eastern Europe they were used in conjunction with a small shield right up to the 18th century.

The opportunity and need to fence with broadswords were few and far in between, usually when a cavalryman lost his mount and had only his sword to defend himself with. Afoot it was only of interest to officers, for only they carried swords and even then they were often discarded once action commenced - For real fencing, that is dueling, there was the smallsword and later the featherweight dueling sabre.

Military instruction in sword usage is very different to that of the fencing school - Patton objected even to the teaching of parries deeming them to be superfluous. In naval usage the broadsword was used by boarding parties, but not in the manner of fencing in one to one duels, but rather relying on team work and over-running shell-shocked enemy crew to clear the decks, much as modern riot police does its work after the water cannon or tear gas has done its job..

Around forty years ago, I met some emigre eastern European ex military fencing masters and they told me much of what I write here. Yes, officers learned to fence with the light training sabre, mostly for dueling and sport, but that was largely inapplicable to the heavy sabre; Yes, they used light practice sabres for drilling troops and to instill dexterity, but the actual techniques had little application in battle - You either got the enemy or he got you or you moved on. Same for the bayonet. The speed of action was just to fast to allow fencing duels.

Of course, there's also the "Radaellian" duelling saber--the sciabola di terreno of the late 19th century. That weapon is lighter than the military types, and likewise can be used for double-time actions.

With this I completely agree and would like to add that:

a) This is the only "sabre" that can be used in full DT play on account of its extremely favourable BP and light weight;

b) even with this sword, the sword arm was difficult to protect and for this reason in duels, protective bandages were wrapped on the forearm; and

c) this is not a true sabre at all, rather a derivative of the edged small sword.

In reply, I simply stated what you left out--i.e., the fact that Silver also taught the use of the sword alone.

I thought that I covered that by stating that all fencing treatises had to allow for the possibility that a sword may have to be used alone.

I don't have them in front of me (I'm at my gal's house at the moment), but the manuals I have seen list a slew of parries, so let me get back to you on that.

No need to. I know that the parries were there, Castle, Hutton, Angelo, all give them, but that does not mean that they were used to a great extent, as opposed to here and there, or in the manner of a smallsword/dueling sabre. However, the spadroon, a very light C&T sword, was indeed used much like a small word and hence its popularity with officers who were proficient fencers.

We have to keep in mind that if we persist in believing that much parry/riposte fencing took place then we run into that intractable debate of whether the parries were made with the edge or flat of the blade. Based on surviving specimens in museums and collections, with hardly any blade damage I say neither.

To me fencing with broadswords, for which they were never intended, is an exercise of trying to make the best of a bad situation with what one has on hand. Another point I would like to make is that practice bouts with broadswords is a very dangerous exercise because of their weight; Even a blunt blade will split a scull or crush a bone if the blows are not pulled back - Fencing masks and leather aprons being totally inadequate protection. For this reason military sword usage was taught by way of set drills or with a light practice sabre as advocated by Hutton. With the lighter practice sword all sorts of fencing moves are possible, but not with the full weapon.

I was talking about knife vs. knife in general, not from a specific culture.

I can't answer that because the world is a big place and different paradigms apply in different localities. Knife dueling nearly always has some constraints imposed on it, otherwise people would end up using swords, since blade length confers an advantage. Without the knowledge of what these constraints are, it is not possible to generalize. Then, for example, in colder climates slashes pose little threat to a heavily clad opponent and the thrust has to be resorted almost entirely to inflict injury, whereas in the tropics the opposite applies.

I figured that one out by "sparring it out".

In that case you did your homework better than Biddle.

It's not the same, but it's as close as we can practically get.

But not close enough with knives, which are heavily dependent on factors other than technique, at least not in my opinion.

Sparring is actually a pretty good indicator of what will and what will not work. It must be used in conjunction with other training methods (drills, test cutting, etc), but it is certainly a crucial component, and has been at least since Roman times, if not earlier.

If we are taking about mere technique, I agree entirely.

2. With the above out of the way, I suggest that the correct way to duel with a heavy sword (used alone) is as advocated by Musashi and as was done in olden times in Europe, that is to just stay out range, constantly threatening the opponent, compelling him to shift to unfavourable ground or position and then when he either wavers under pressure or begins to make a badly commenced attack move straight in, displacing his blade, or covering against it if necessary, and hit him. If one engages in parry/riposte exchanges with a broadsword, the outcome will be far from certain. Even with epee/smallswords one does not duel as in competition, for victory requires a decided tactical advantage before committing to an attack as one is not playing a game where the winner is the one who scores the best of so many hits. Where these weapons differed from broadswords is that a good deal more feinting and probing was possible without committing to an attack, and even after a failed attack, there was a good chance of recovery.

3. Something Else:

3.1 I noted how you declined to comment on Stephan Hand's article on ST fencing. Do you have a reason for this?

3.2 We have trashed the subject of swords as far as I am prepared to take it because this is becoming the rewriting of the history of swordsmanship and that has already been done. In any event, it is irrelevant to this thread, which is about the navaja.

3.3 I would like to point out that some time ago Stephan Hand and William Gaugler got involved in a heated controversy. This came about after Hand's review of the publication of Gaugler's History of Fencing, which was heralded in some quarters as the successor to Castle's work. One of the major points of contention was Gaugler's views on ST, DT parry/riposte in old sword play, which have some semblance to your arguments. Hand's full review can be read here:

http://www.thearma.org/bookreviews.htm

and Gaugler's reply here:

http://www.swordhistory.com/excerpts/hacareply.html

Now, I have Gaugler's book and read whatever Stephan has to say and consider both experts worth listening to, even though sometimes they are less than clear or muddy the waters a bit. However, if they are read simplistically, like so much of fencing literature, all kinds of unwarranted assumptions about parry/riposte are likely to be made, something made amply clear by the above exchange.

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Hi Tom,

Another interesting tidbit about the "Ice Man"; his knife, with its tiny blade (around 2", I think) had on it the blood of either two or three humans, none of them him. Just an interesting tidbit about tiny knives. The man was, of course, mudered with an arrow.

Interesting!

I wonder what legislation prevented him from carrying a more substantial knife :D

Cheers
Chris

[Renegade Conquistador]

Hello Chris,

Hi RC

1. In Reply:

By "Spanish school" I mean just that -a distinct Spanish school of fencing. None, to the best of my knowledge, have survived.

The late Spanish schools, which I understand are still practiced under the rubric of "classical" fencing, were certainly a rehash of the French school, but had a local flavour, as exemplified by their hilts, and the attendant grip, much in the manner of the Italian school.

Indeed, but this does not change the fact that it was the French method that was being taught.

Forgive me, but I am not familiar with maestro Carbonel

He and Sanz were two great early twentieth century exponents of modern Spanish fencing, in the manner described described above. Both developed hilts of their own. The one by Sanz could be seen as the forerunner of the modern orthopedic grip. See attached pictures of their swords. These masters left descendants who are still around today.

Very interesting--thank you VERY much for the attached picture.

I have a "wallhanger" version of a Sanz foil, which I'm having copied by a blacksmith friend of mine, so as to have a functional version. It is, as you indicated, closer to modern orthopedic grips than any other "period" hilt. It is close in concept to the "modern" Spanish orthopedic grip, as well as the "Gardere" (both of which feature French pommels, and are thus illegal for modern competition).


Broadswords and backswords are actually well-balanced and responsive.

a) For what application? Cutting? Thrusting? Dueling? On horse back or afoot?

For all of the above.

I cannot see that. First they vary greatly in length, weight, general shape, all with intended use - Cavalry swords tending towards greater length and weight. What they all have in common is that their point of balance (BP) is far forward and are very point slow.

I noticed that you declined to give BPs for applications. My reason for asking was that one cannot possibly discuss what a particular sword can or cannot do unless one understands its physical characteristics and limitations.

An all steel epee or French smallsword or dueling sabre has its BP very close to the hilt, within 3" and weighs a pound or a bit less - This is only attainable with the light hollow triangular French blade or the cannelured sabre blade and this is why such swords can be be used to parry fairly reliably with, in all four lines and at speed - They have a very low angular inertia, that is they can be shifted in an arc very easily, essential for DT play. Once a cutting blade, is substituted, even if very light, the BP unavoidably moves forward and is very hard to bring the it closer than 5" from the end of the grip (see Angelo). Such swords are point heavier, that is, have greater angular inertia, and much greater reliance has to be placed on ST moves, as exemplified by the Italian and Spanish schools up to 19th century. (see paragraph 3 below)

Military cutting swords have BPs at least 6" from the end of the grip. If they did not, they would make ineffective cutters. With the BP so far forward, they are very point heavy. That and their overall weight raises their angular inertia so much that they just cannot be moved with sufficient speed to reliably intercept incoming attacks to all parts of the body, which if they are cuts, are even harder to parry than thrusts, as correctly pointed out by Silver and later by Hutton.

Thank you for that very scientific dissertation concerning the POB of various swords. My WWI-era copy of a 1796 pattern light cavalry saber matches your description.

In my own experience, I have handled numerous original basket-hilted broadswords and backswords from the 17th and 18th centuries, and they certainly fit Silver's description of a "short, sharp, light sword".

My old maestro from BCAF noted the same thing when he receive a special tour of the Tower of London Armouries many years ago--he told me how much lighter the originals were, when compared with so many replicas today. "You could fence with these," as he put it.

Some facts: A typical 19th century infantry officer's light C&T sabre-sword with a 32" blade weighs around 28oz with a BP at 7" from the hilt. Of this the blade is 19oz and the Gothic hilt and handle 9oz. A serviceable basket hilt & handle weighs around 16oz. If we re-hilt our blade with a basket-hilt, we have an all up weight of 35oz, twice the weight of a small sword and very point heavy in the bargain. And then the broadswords of Silver's era had longer blades and were consequently heavier, more like 44oz or above. The longer Scottish basket-hilted broadswords weighed around 3 pounds.

Allow me to offer some facts as well.

Here's a comparison of various sword weights (from the collection of J. Christoph Amberger):

1. Sports saber (circa 1930): 12 ounces
2. Modern sports saber w/S2000 blade: 15.2 ounces
3. British military smallsword (circa 1790): 17.6 ounces
4. British military spadroon (1780): 20.8 ounces
5. Italian Radaelli saber (1890): 20.8 ounces
6. German fechtsabel (circa 1880): 22.4 ounces
7. Practice version of British 1796 Light Cav saber (1796): 24 ounces
8. British Gymnasia pattern (1899): 24.8 ounces
9. German fechtsabel (circa 1890): 24.8 ounces
10. Austrian cavalry saber (1840): 25.6 ounces
11. German mensur schlager (basket-hilt) (1849): 26.8 ounces
12. American Light Cav saber (1812): 31.2 ounces
13. German fechtsabel (circa 1880): 31.2 ounces
14. German Mounted Artillery saber (1903): 40 ounces
15. German Pauk-Schlager (2000): 45.6 ounces
16. German Mensur saber (1910): 50 ounces
17. German Pauk-Saber (1930): 54 ounces

Notice how even the American cavalry saber from 1812 is just under 2 pounds flat.

There seems to be some misconceptions over the weights of certain weapons. As for basket-hilts, repros will nearly always be heavier than originals, since they feature an oversized "one-size-fits-all" basket. Certainly, the John Simpson basket-hilt I once had the honor of handling was not 3 pounds.

Obviously the POB is further down the blade that with a purely thrusting implement like a smallsword, but that doesn't change the fact that these weapons can be used for double-time actions.

If they were anywhere as good at DT play as the small sword, then the small sword would not have been invented.

The smallsword is a specialized weapon for the duel--a refinement of the rapier. I don't see where your comparison is going there.

McBane acknoweldged this disparity when he emphasized that the small sword was the dueling weapon of choice since the broad sword left too much to chance; Godfrey also said that the smallsword was the weapon to duel with - I read that as broadswords parries and subsequent ripostes were too uncertain.

I don't recall Godfrey ever saying that broadsword parry-ripostes were "too uncertain"--could you provide the actual quote? I know that he simply said that the smallsword was for duels, and the broadsword/backsword was for military usage.

As for McBane, he simply went on and on about how the smallsword, being a thrusting implement, was like a "pistol ball" (i.e., lethal), whereas a man could supposedly take 40 cuts without being disabled (one wonders what kind of "cuts" he was talking about--it certainly seems a strange comment from someone who was at Killiecrankie).

By saber I mean the military saber. No specific country. We're talking largely about a "pan-European cut-and-thrust method" here

I don't think that any such sword or method ever existed.

The method certainly did exist, as noted once by Amberger. The broadsword methods shown in manuals of McBane, Godfrey, Angelo, Roworth, et al. are of this "pan-European" variety (eg., "Hungarian & Highland broadsword"; "...uniting the Scotch and Austrian methods into one regular system", etc).

A Mameluke style sabre such as carried by Wellington or Jose de San Martin, much in vogue during the Napoleonic wars, is vastly different from a Blucher or Brit 1796 which in turn are completely different weapons from their contemporary Spanish cup hilted 1796 cavalry sword. Then we have spadroons and nineteenth century light straight bladed infantry officers swords which were different again as were the curved US civil war era sabres; And what are we to make out of later Brit 1908 pattern and the Patton cavalry swords?

By "military saber" I mean a curved cavalry saber.

Then there is the issue of the hilt:

a) Is it sufficient to provide adequate hand protection? The Mameluke sabre had only a simple cross quillon and the Blucher/1796 only a stirrup hilt, as many German sabres did;

b) does it incorporates a thumb ring to facilitate holding onto and directing such a heavy blade?; and

c) Whether the handle is long enough to permit other than a restrictive "hammer" grip.

For a summary on how military type weapons were fenced with in England and how this fencing changed with time, I refer readers to Castle, from whom I quote in part: "....Cuts below the hips were usually avoided rather than parried...".

Yes--"slipping" or "shifting the leg", which I already noted in a previous post here.

However, before going on, I should point out that such fencing was not without its conventions to make it possible. In the days of Silver cuts below the waist were considered un-gentlemanly (too hard to defend)

That was only for competitions, not for actualy fighting.

and later English backsword play excluded the use of the point - My instincts tell me that there were probably more conventions, but cannot prove it.

Again, for competition. Prizefighting.

In short, it was a mixture of parries to protect the upper body and lots of defense by evasion. Only the light spadroon, could be used to defend all of the body, yet because of its lightness proved marginal for military usage.

We have to remember that DT, that is parry/riposte fencing only started to become feasible with the shorter and lighter transition rapier, which the lighter 19th century sabre-swords approximate.

On the contrary, it was "feasible" in Silver's day (see below).

To that extent they can be fenced in DT, but only to that extent. Yet the transition rapier was further lightened and made nimbler into the Colichemarde, the edged smallsword and the hollow triangular bladed smallsword. These changes did not occur without a compelling reason; Less reliance on ST and a shift to the safer DT parry/ripostes.

In any event it is important to remember that in the days when the infantry had a real use for broadswords, they used them with bucklers or shields -

Only if the sword was the primary weapon (as was the case with Spanish rodeleros, etc)

The sword was an important sidearm to many other types of "armed men" (armored close-combat troops) at that time. Pikemen frequently had to make use of their swords.

The Scots used their basket-hilted Claymores with targes (a buckler).

Strictly speaking in both modern terminology (and Silver's, for that matter) a targe is not a "buckler", since it is worn on the arm.

After the bayonet was invented, the need for the infantry to carry swords disappeared and were used only by the cavalry.

This was not universal. Hangers were retained for some time, as were the basket-hilts of the Scots. The Scots even executed a successful "Highland Charge" with drawn broadswords against the French at Quebec in 1758.

Mounted use of the broad sword/sabre is not fencing as is commonly understood, even in melees, and survival depends far more on horsemanship and team work than on skill with the sword. In any event, on horseback, the number of moves possible with a sword is extremely limited and in eastern Europe they were used in conjunction with a small shield right up to the 18th century.

A small shield? Where in Eastern Europe?

Light and Heavy hussars were armed to the teeth, but I don't recall a shield being in their arsenal. They did, however, carry more than one sword--a curved saber, and either a long, saber-hilted broadsword (pallasch), or a saber-hilted estoc (koncerz).

The opportunity and need to fence with broadswords were few and far in between, usually when a cavalryman lost his mount and had only his sword to defend himself with. Afoot it was only of interest to officers, for only they carried swords and even then they were often discarded once action commenced - For real fencing, that is dueling, there was the smallsword and later the featherweight dueling sabre.

Military instruction in sword usage is very different to that of the fencing school - Patton objected even to the teaching of parries deeming them to be superfluous.

And Patton was clearly wrong--he was going against literally centuries of established and proven cavalry technique (see Amberger's critique of Patton's method in The Secret History of the Sword).

In naval usage the broadsword was used by boarding parties, but not in the manner of fencing in one to one duels, but rather relying on team work and over-running shell-shocked enemy crew to clear the decks, much as modern riot police does its work after the water cannon or tear gas has done its job..

Around forty years ago, I met some emigre eastern European ex military fencing masters and they told me much of what I write here. Yes, officers learned to fence with the light training sabre, mostly for dueling and sport, but that was largely inapplicable to the heavy sabre; Yes, they used light practice sabres for drilling troops and to instill dexterity, but the actual techniques had little application in battle - You either got the enemy or he got you or you moved on. Same for the bayonet. The speed of action was just to fast to allow fencing duels.

And yet, there was clearly merit to those drills and bouting with singlestick, and a successful parry might mean the difference between life and death.

Of course, there's also the "Radaellian" duelling saber--the sciabola di terreno of the late 19th century. That weapon is lighter than the military types, and likewise can be used for double-time actions.

With this I completely agree and would like to add that:

a) This is the only "sabre" that can be used in full DT play on account of its extremely favourable BP and light weight;

b) even with this sword, the sword arm was difficult to protect and for this reason in duels, protective bandages were wrapped on the forearm; and

The sword arm is always going to be a major target. The arm will be more vulnerable to counteroffensive actions when the movement is wider, and as we both know, the Radaellian method made use of cuts from the elbow.

c) this is not a true sabre at all, rather a derivative of the edged small sword.

Please provide a source that lists the smallsword in the Radaellian saber's pedigree.

The Radaellian saber resembles a "true" saber in every way, except that it is lighter. It is a totally different form of sword than the smallsword.

In reply, I simply stated what you left out--i.e., the fact that Silver also taught the use of the sword alone.

I thought that I covered that by stating that all fencing treatises had to allow for the possibility that a sword may have to be used alone.

It was more than just a "possibility"--it was the norm for pikemen and the like.

I don't have them in front of me (I'm at my gal's house at the moment), but the manuals I have seen list a slew of parries, so let me get back to you on that.

No need to. I know that the parries were there, Castle, Hutton, Angelo, all give them, but that does not mean that they were used to a great extent, as opposed to here and there, or in the manner of a smallsword/dueling sabre. However, the spadroon, a very light C&T sword, was indeed used much like a small word and hence its popularity with officers who were proficient fencers.

We have to keep in mind that if we persist in believing that much parry/riposte fencing took place then we run into that intractable debate of whether the parries were made with the edge or flat of the blade. Based on surviving specimens in museums and collections, with hardly any blade damage I say neither.

To me fencing with broadswords, for which they were never intended, is an exercise of trying to make the best of a bad situation with what one has on hand.

I heartily disagree. It was Silver who criticized the Italians of teaching offense not defense.

Another point I would like to make is that practice bouts with broadswords is a very dangerous exercise because of their weight; Even a blunt blade will split a scull or crush a bone if the blows are not pulled back - Fencing masks and leather aprons being totally inadequate protection.

That's why the fencing masks for broadswords and military sabers were extremely stout, and the padding of the jackets very thick and stiff. Later fencers would comment on how such contestants looked like "deep-sea divers".

For this reason military sword usage was taught by way of set drills or with a light practice sabre as advocated by Hutton. With the lighter practice sword all sorts of fencing moves are possible, but not with the full weapon.

See my comment right above.

I was talking about knife vs. knife in general, not from a specific culture.

I can't answer that because the world is a big place and different paradigms apply in different localities. Knife dueling nearly always has some constraints imposed on it, otherwise people would end up using swords, since blade length confers an advantage. Without the knowledge of what these constraints are, it is not possible to generalize. Then, for example, in colder climates slashes pose little threat to a heavily clad opponent and the thrust has to be resorted almost entirely to inflict injury, whereas in the tropics the opposite applies.

I figured that one out by "sparring it out".

In that case you did your homework better than Biddle.

It's not the same, but it's as close as we can practically get.

But not close enough with knives, which are heavily dependent on factors other than technique, at least not in my opinion.

Not in your opinion, then.

Sparring is actually a pretty good indicator of what will and what will not work. It must be used in conjunction with other training methods (drills, test cutting, etc), but it is certainly a crucial component, and has been at least since Roman times, if not earlier.

If we are taking about mere technique, I agree entirely.

2. With the above out of the way, I suggest that the correct way to duel with a heavy sword (used alone) is as advocated by Musashi and as was done in olden times in Europe, that is to just stay out range, constantly threatening the opponent, compelling him to shift to unfavourable ground or position and then when he either wavers under pressure or begins to make a badly commenced attack move straight in, displacing his blade, or covering against it if necessary, and hit him. If one engages in parry/riposte exchanges with a broadsword, the outcome will be far from certain.

See below.

Even with epee/smallswords one does not duel as in competition, for victory requires a decided tactical advantage before committing to an attack as one is not playing a game where the winner is the one who scores the best of so many hits. Where these weapons differed from broadswords is that a good deal more feinting and probing was possible without committing to an attack, and even after a failed attack, there was a good chance of recovery.

3. Something Else:

3.1 I noted how you declined to comment on Stephan Hand's article on ST fencing. Do you have a reason for this?

I was simply waiting until I got back home, so I could refer to an article by Mr. Hand which contradicts what you claim about Silver. The following article, "Counterattacks with Opposition: The Influence of Weapon Form", can be found in the book Spada: Anthology of Swordsmanship. Here's the pertinent point regarding Silver and his parry-riposte method:

"When we come to the shortsword (a straight bladed, double-edged single-handed sword that was no at all short) and the backsword (a straight bladed, single-edged sword, otherwise similar to the shortsword) counterattacks with opposition become less frequent. George Silver describes the three actions available to a defender who is at the correct distance:

'1. The first is to strike or thrust at him, at that instant when he have gained you the place by his coming in.

2. The second is to ward, and After to strike him or thrust from that, remembering your governors.

3. The third is to slip a little back and to strike or thrust after him.'

So, Silver's three options are to counterattack in single time, to ward and strike, or in other words parry and riposte and lastly to move out of distance and attack after the initial attack has fallen short.

...The emphasis in Silver is on the second type of defence, ward and strike."

Hand noted that the same held true for Joseph Swetnam.

3.2 We have trashed the subject of swords as far as I am prepared to take it because this is becoming the rewriting of the history of swordsmanship and that has already been done. In any event, it is irrelevant to this thread, which is about the navaja.

3.3 I would like to point out that some time ago Stephan Hand and William Gaugler got involved in a heated controversy. This came about after Hand's review of the publication of Gaugler's History of Fencing, which was heralded in some quarters as the successor to Castle's work. One of the major points of contention was Gaugler's views on ST, DT parry/riposte in old sword play, which have some semblance to your arguments. Hand's full review can be read here:

http://www.thearma.org/bookreviews.htm

and Gaugler's reply here:

http://www.swordhistory.com/excerpts/hacareply.html

Now, I have Gaugler's book and read whatever Stephan has to say and consider both experts worth listening to, even though sometimes they are less than clear or muddy the waters a bit. However, if they are read simplistically, like so much of fencing literature, all kinds of unwarranted assumptions about parry/riposte are likely to be made, something made amply clear by the above exchange.

I'm familiar with the debate, and I likewise feel that both parties have made legitimate points. I would like to mention, however, that most of Hand's arguments regarding to single-time actions revolve around the rapier, and I think that it where much of the confusion on this issue is coming from. As Hand said himself, the situation was different with the broadsword and backsword of Silver.

Best,

R C

P.S. My own martial art/combat sport background is in modern foil & saber fencing (French school) and Filipino sword, stick, & knife (Inosanto blend). I'm curious as to your background.

[Rick]

Gentlemen , I'm afraid you digress into off topic material ; this subject would be much better discussed on a M.A. board which this one is not .

Please refrain .

[Frank]

Renegad Conquistador,

>Parries are made with the forte (strong base) of the blade, which is typically blunt

Thanks for that. You couldnt do that with a Jap sword because it is very sharp all the way to the handle. I was told that bloking was not done and if it had to be made the katana was turned around and the block made with the back of the sword. I only used the boken and some junk replicas. Just mucking around with it I managed to ruin the edge very fast.

You and Chris would know this beter but I have seen many old Euro swords sharp all the way to the handle. Would you turn it around and blok with the back?


Best Wishes
Frank

[Chris Evans]

Hi RC

1. My apologies Rick, but this is not about swords but communication.

2. On the subject of the Spanish School

My Post 83:

But I agree that there are no surviving traditions of old Spanish fencing, save with the later small sword/epee, which in any event were adaptations of the French school, with Hispanic touches added.

My Post 85:

I don't think that you read my post fully. But any kind? That's rather broad isn't it?...

My Post 92:

The late Spanish schools, which I understand are still practiced under the rubric of "classical" fencing, were certainly a rehash of the French school, but had a local flavour, as exemplified by their hilts, and the attendant grip, much in the manner of the Italian school.

Your Post 94:

Indeed, but this does not change the fact that it was the French method that was being taught


Comments: If you don't mind me saying so, on this issue, you are attempting to convert the converted. Can't you see that I am agreeing with you?

What do I have have to do to get across what I made amply clear in my posts 83 and 92, namely that the late Spanish schools were an adaptation of the French school? I pointed out in my post 85 that you did not read me fully - But Robert is probably right, the fault must be with my writing.


3. On Sparing:

My words:

But not close enough with knives, which are heavily dependent on factors other than technique, at least not in my opinion.

Your reply:

Not in your opinion, then.

Comments: No sarcasm is intended but you are needlessly repeating me because I already stated: "... not in my opinion."

4. On Sword Alone:

My words:

I thought that I covered that by stating that all fencing treatises had to allow for the possibility that a sword may have to be used alone.

Your words:

It was more than just a "possibility"--it was the norm for pikemen and the like


Comments: `More' than a `possibility' does not make logical sense. Within the group of all possible ways of using a sword there is the sub-group of swords being used alone. The pikemen and all others who used a sword alone belong to this subset - Those who used a sword in combination with a parrying implement belong to the rest of the overall grouping.

What you are in effect saying is that those who used a sword alone, used it alone. I have no problem with that. But why say it?


5. Off Topic: Rick is right. We got OT and we should continue this privately. I am happy to oblige, but let's get our communication right.

I will soon reply to your other points, sometime towards next week because here we have a public holiday coming up. It will be by way of a private message to conform with the rules of this forum. Some of the points that you raised are really interesting and worth further discussing.


6. My Background:

Just a simple collector and an incurable aficionado de armas blancas, that is, an enthusiast of swords and daggers. Like Don Quijote I spend my old age musing about olden times and tilting with windmills every now and then ;) . Perhaps being a metallurgist has given me a keener appreciation of what old weaponry was all about.

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Hi Frank,

I was told that bloking was not done and if it had to be made the katana was turned around and the block made with the back of the sword.

I knew that trick, but you know, it just made me realize that the Japanese thereby invented triple time fencing :D The first time being the turning around of the sword, the second the actual parry and the third the riposte.

Cheers
Chris

[Mark]

1. My apologies Rick, but this is not about swords but communication.

No, it has become about a "he said - she said" that is starting to be very unproductive. There is simply nothing useful in going back and forth pointing out how one or the other has misquoted, misunderstood, or misconstrued one's comments.

Please stop the endless cycle of correcting one another's posts, and move on with the substantive discussion.

And remember the rules: RULE (1) The Moderator is always right; Rule (2) Listen to the Moderator when he speaks in his official capacity, because there are extremely valuable suggestions as to how to avoid such things as closing a thread, deletion of posts, or banning.

Your loyal servant,
The Moderogre. :)

[Renegade Conquistador]

No, it has become about a "he said - she said" that is starting to be very unproductive. There is simply nothing useful in going back and forth pointing out how one or the other has misquoted, misunderstood, or misconstrued one's comments.

Please stop the endless cycle of correcting one another's posts, and move on with the substantive discussion.

And remember the rules: RULE (1) The Moderator is always right; Rule (2) Listen to the Moderator when he speaks in his official capacity, because there are extremely valuable suggestions as to how to avoid such things as closing a thread, deletion of posts, or banning.

Your loyal servant,
The Moderogre. :)

Mark,

I'll be happy to continue the current discussion with Chris via PM.

However, since I'm the newb here, could you please clarify what is and is not allowed on this forum?

Are we allowed only to discuss the weapons themselves, and not the corresponding techniques?

Thanks,

R C

[Rick]

Mark,

I'll be happy to continue the current discussion with Chris via PM.

However, since I'm the newb here, could you please clarify what is and is not allowed on this forum?

Are we allowed only to discuss the weapons themselves, and not the corresponding techniques?

Thanks,

R C

You guys have gone way beyond the original intent of this thread and into another subject matter altogether . You were asked to refrain and failed to do so .
This forum is for the study and appreciation of swords , spears, daggers , and knives from all cultures . A certain amount of methodology discussion is fine .
In this case however enough is enough .
I'm closing this thread .

[Mark]

Mark,

I'll be happy to continue the current discussion with Chris via PM.

However, since I'm the newb here, could you please clarify what is and is not allowed on this forum?

Are we allowed only to discuss the weapons themselves, and not the corresponding techniques?

Thanks,

R C

RC -- Read the "sticky" posts up at the top of the forum. Pretty much everything is in there. If you still have questions, feel free to PM me, or one of the other Moderators. Not to seem overly-harsh, but you should at least have read the one entitled "PLEASE READ BEFORE YOU POST -- FORUM RULES, GUIDELINES AND FEATURES" before you posted.

You also should have taken to heart Rick's and my posts. We have adopted a hands-off approach to moderating at this point, so you can be sure that when we do chime in, it is because we consider the line one step away from being crossed.