Manual del Baratero - A Review

Chris Evans · 27th October 2005, 01:04 PM

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

Mark · 27th October 2005, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Evans

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 · 27th October 2005, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Bowditch

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 · 27th October 2005, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renegade Conquistador

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 · 27th October 2005, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renegade Conquistador

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.

27th October 2005, 01:04 PM	#1
Chris Evans Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 685	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 Last edited by Chris Evans; 27th October 2005 at 01:31 PM.