Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post - Fencing, Dueling and Rapiers in Spanish Colonial California

Interested Party · 13th January 2022, 02:16 PM

Jim, I love where your mind is going. The problem is there are very few Californians from California. Even less of "Spanish" descent. The early territorial government made sure of that. The Californios' literature was scant from what I can tell. The only book I run across referenced regularly is Encarnacion Pinedo's cookbook. A far cry from esgrima espanola. I wonder if the UC Davis, Northridge, or UCLA rare books collections would be of much help?

I know little of this system, so I started with this article. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verdadera_Destreza
I know a lot of people bag on Wikipedia but sometimes it is a good place to start especially if you need an overview and a bibliography to begin. It says that it was a system that included sword, sword and dagger, sword and buckler, and two-handed sword. The system seems to have been popularized by Jeronimo Sanchez de Carranza whose army latter occupied parts of Honduras and Guatemala. It was modernized by others with new texts published until 1882, but I would think a founder's style would have a legacy in a region. So, interestingly for the forum the system probably encompassed arming swords as well. My guess is that the system eventually became a new world system as the weapon choices evolved. The system may have been related to Camillo Agrippa whose Science was published about 30 years earlier. I always confuse Agrippa and Morozzo's systems. I don't have those reference books and notes with me currently, Jim I am sure you understand that problem. From what I saw it is a system of circles both foot work and I believe cuts as well, so once again not just for rapiers, not linear as later techniques that evolved into small sword. So, there may also be a neo-Platonic or neo-Aristotelian aspect to the systems overarching philosophy.

I would like to add a disclaimer that I am in no way an expert on this subject. I have responded with a general thought on the topic because I thought it was too fascinating a subject to let die without a proper discussion. I hope I can get people talking on Jim's narrower and more inciteful question.

13th January 2022, 02:16 PM	#2
Interested Party Member Join Date: Dec 2019 Location: Eastern Sierra Posts: 384	Jim, I love where your mind is going. The problem is there are very few Californians from California. Even less of "Spanish" descent. The early territorial government made sure of that. The Californios' literature was scant from what I can tell. The only book I run across referenced regularly is Encarnacion Pinedo's cookbook. A far cry from esgrima espanola. I wonder if the UC Davis, Northridge, or UCLA rare books collections would be of much help? I know little of this system, so I started with this article. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verdadera_Destreza I know a lot of people bag on Wikipedia but sometimes it is a good place to start especially if you need an overview and a bibliography to begin. It says that it was a system that included sword, sword and dagger, sword and buckler, and two-handed sword. The system seems to have been popularized by Jeronimo Sanchez de Carranza whose army latter occupied parts of Honduras and Guatemala. It was modernized by others with new texts published until 1882, but I would think a founder's style would have a legacy in a region. So, interestingly for the forum the system probably encompassed arming swords as well. My guess is that the system eventually became a new world system as the weapon choices evolved. The system may have been related to Camillo Agrippa whose Science was published about 30 years earlier. I always confuse Agrippa and Morozzo's systems. I don't have those reference books and notes with me currently, Jim I am sure you understand that problem. From what I saw it is a system of circles both foot work and I believe cuts as well, so once again not just for rapiers, not linear as later techniques that evolved into small sword. So, there may also be a neo-Platonic or neo-Aristotelian aspect to the systems overarching philosophy. I would like to add a disclaimer that I am in no way an expert on this subject. I have responded with a general thought on the topic because I thought it was too fascinating a subject to let die without a proper discussion. I hope I can get people talking on Jim's narrower and more inciteful question.