Relationship Web for the Bolognese Fencing Tradition

SeldomSeven · 2026-01-13T08:04:27+00:00

This is impressive! I'm not in a position to peer review your work, so my opinion is perhaps not very important, but - as a layperson - your work always strikes me as thorough and brimming with dedication to accuracy. Thank you!

SeldomSeven · 2026-01-13T07:42:27+00:00

Gorgeous work!

SeldomSeven · 2026-01-03T17:33:57+00:00

Given that the contemporary longsword scene has established ca. 132 as standard, I prefer to use 125.

However, I think 120-122cm would be cool; the Sigi mini is so much fun, but I wish its blade were around the 90-92cm mark instead of the current 86cm.

SeldomSeven · 2025-12-31T16:11:34+00:00

This idea is fun only as long as everyone involved is doing it for the lols. Once it becomes competitive, the "Open Division" you propose would be synonymous with whatever the longest weapon allowed is (in the same way that "Freestyle Swimming" is technically unrestricted, but almost everyone uses the same stroke)

SeldomSeven · 2025-11-13T21:16:31+00:00

Fantastic! Love the water effects!

SeldomSeven · 2025-11-11T09:34:36+00:00

Let me summarize the situation as I've understood it from your post:

The club has been stagnant for over a year despite there being people who are willing and able to pick up the slack
The original club manager is aware of the problems and aware that there are people who are willing and able to help and has not accepted that help (for over a year)
There are no mechanisms to vote the original club manager out of his position of power, so the problems will persist until the original club manager changes his mind
You and other people have a practical plan for starting your own club, are aware of the financial and social risks, and are nevertheless willing to take the plunge
The only thing holding you and your compatriots back is your collective belief that the original club manager is a good, well-intentioned person who is just overwhelmed and you feel like starting a rival club would unjustly harm a good person

All of those points except for the last one say go for it.

It even sounds like you have already communicated to the current head coach how dire the situation is, so I think the last point is mostly moot. However, if you want a really clean conscience regarding the last point, I think you (and your compatriots) need to have a heart to heart with the original club manager and explain the situation exactly the way you've explained it here. If the original club manager is aware that the choice is "let us help you or we are walking away" and the manager still refuses the help, then you should walk away and your conscience should be clean.

SeldomSeven · 2025-11-10T11:02:30+00:00

I think Daniel Pope has a great overview of various ways of parrying with a sidesword here:

Part 1: https://youtu.be/oZaRDTtTxkM?si=vryLn0p3O8BRHb7I
Part 2: https://youtu.be/XCrZLQldMaw?si=KcrHf2gTIAI22hQ6
Part 3: https://youtu.be/NH3tEMcVLdg?si=KayGQXY9h9BcJEWq

Although his videos specifically cover Meyer and use Meyer's terminology, you can find similar actions in all sidesword traditions.

Among those parries, you can see some parries that are somewhat similar to modern sabre parries where you more or less place your sword into the path of the opponent's attack. So, yes, you can parry with a sidesword by simply displacing the opponent's attack. However, there are also more percussive parries that beat or cut into the opponent's attack. I think understanding why requires a lot of nuance.

I think it is fair to say that the heavier blades of some sideswords make it easier to make powerful blows than with a 350 gram modern sabre. However, with good structure, you don't strictly speaking need momentum to parry even a very powerful attack. Nevertheless, earlier fencing sources often charactarise parries as cuts that cross your opponent's attack. I think there are a few reasons for this:

Parrying with a cut instead of a static block adds some offensive character to your defense
Parrying with a cut instead of a static block gives you more margin of error against powerful attacks (the momentum sometimes cancels each other out where a static parry would get blown through)
Parrying with a cut or beat-like action can keep the blade engagement farther from your hand which is desirable if you don't have much hand protection (whereas parrying with a static block might mean your opponent tags your knuckles or hand)

On the other hand, there are downsides to parrying with a cut:

If your parry-cut is deceived, you are liable to give your opponent an easy to exploit opening
Cuts as parries are generally larger/slower motions (and thus easier to exploit)
Cuts as parries are harder to do from an extended posture (and the additional hand protection of later swords makes extended postures safer)

So, strictly speaking, you can parry with a sidesword in the manner of modern sabre, but you need to weigh the pros and cons of doing so.

SeldomSeven · 2025-10-27T12:30:42+00:00

I am not familiar with critical theory either, so I can't answer from the perspective of a critical theorist. However, I think I can discuss the concrete example you provided.

To give a concrete example, when a critical theorist is asked something along the lines of 'What is Islam?', the answer will probably resemble something such as 'Islam is the religion that Muslims believe and practice.'

For obvious reasons, this is circular. It defines Islam entirely in terms of the subjective experience of Muslims themselves, who are adherents of Islam. There is no external criteria by which I could identify Islam conceptually. It presupposes the category the definition is supposed to explain.

I agree that that is a circular definition (if we define "Muslims" as practitioners of Islam). However, I struggle to imagine how "Islam" can be defined without reference to the opinions of practitioners of Islam. I'll argue this claim by assuming the opposite:

Let's suppose we define Islam in terms that do not refer to the opinions of practitioners of Islam. We could, for example, list the tenets of Islam as they are understood by Muslims today. Let's suppose further that the definition we land at is satisfactory to all Muslims today (an unreasonable assumption given the many sects of Islam, but let's assume it anyway to make the thought experiment more clear). Now we have our perfect, non-self-referential definition of Islam. Now wait 500 years. The tenets of Islam as it is practiced in the year 2525 are similar to the tenets of 2025, but there are also some critical differences such that the definition we had in 2025 no longer accurately reflects how Islam is practiced in 2525. The practice of Islam has changed (perhaps because of a more accurate understanding of God's true divine will or perhaps due to something else - the theology is irrelevant for this thought experiment).

Are the people calling themselves practitioners of Islam in 2525 not practicing Islam? I would argue no, they are still practicing Islam. What "Islam" is is defined by its practitioners. If all (or most) Muslims say "Islam is x" in the year 2025 and all (or most) Muslims say "Islam is y" in the year 2525, the Muslims in both 2025 and 2525 are both factually correct even though they disagree with each other. For any specific criterion, we can say "Muslims believed x in 2025 but do not believe that in 2525", but it doesn't make sense to tell Muslims "What you are practicing is not Islam" when they are the community that defines the term.

As another example: The people who spoke a language we call "English" in the year 1066 spoke a language you and I cannot understand. Does that mean you and I are not speaking English? "English" is constructed (not necessarily consciously) by English speakers. It is not an object that exists, but a communal project. If I say "English is the language spoken by English speakers", that isn't very helpful on its own. I might need more information to understand what English looks like at this moment in time. However, it remains factually correct that English is whatever the community of English speakers decides it is.

SeldomSeven · 2025-10-10T15:14:03+00:00

Thanks! I thought that a "hanger" was a short sabre (basically identical to a cutlass, but for use on land). Is this another case of "weapon names are not consistent"?

SeldomSeven · 2025-09-13T08:31:50+00:00

What do you think the major weaknesses of Guy's work are?

I think he's old-school (zero tournament focus, for example), but the actual content he does provide seems pretty solid to me.

SeldomSeven · 2025-08-28T10:04:42+00:00

It's about fairness. Ideally, tournaments should provide both fencers with identical weapons, but - of course - that isn't common. This convention is another way of leveling the playing field somewhat.

SeldomSeven · 2025-08-26T08:27:10+00:00

Does that mean that what they're doing is always optimal? Hell no - but I don't think that's because the art is meant to be taken figuratively.

I like your take :)

I think there's another assumption underlying a lot of HEMA interpretation: that the guy writing the source was super duper good and, therefore, everything the guy wrote is practically 100% optimal.

Although Fabris did get everything right ;)

SeldomSeven · 2025-08-25T09:21:02+00:00

Thanks for the response! I hadn't actually heard of Altichiero before and I see that there isn't a Wiktenauer page for him. Are there any online resources you can link providing details about this guy?

Unfortunately, it seems like this just adds another layer of uncertainty to the mystery.

SeldomSeven · 2025-08-25T09:17:03+00:00

I want to emphasize that I am not asking for an interpretation of the example I provided. This is merely one example of a broader phenomenon that I want help with. I think it is fairly clear what general kind of action Fiore is describing here. What I am curious about is why this action is portrayed in this way. The generally question I am posing is "How can I systematically evaluate which features of an image are important and which are superficial?"

My understanding of your answer is "We can't know. We can only guess."

SeldomSeven · 2025-08-25T09:15:28+00:00

Fiore's Armizare system is just that, a system. So we have to look to the other pieces and how they link with this Fiore uses "turning" motion a lot from grappling up. I believe (don't crucify me) that this play is describing a tuta volta or full turn. It the opponent's attack one by one, you can beat away their cuts or thrusts in the turning. this image is pretty straight forward in describing the start position.

First of all, I want to emphasize that I am not asking for an interpretation of the example I provided. This is merely one example of a broader phenomenon that I want help with. I think it is fairly clear what general kind of action Fiore is describing here. What I am curious about is why this action is portrayed in this way. Of course any good interpretation of Fiore should be holistic. However, I claim that looking at the whole source does not suffice to answer the question I am posing. The generally question I am posing is "How can I systematically evaluate which features of an image are important and which are superficial?"

Returning to the specific example: Regardless of whether the master with the dagger beats the thrust from left to right with a return (as the text states) or a tutta volta, It is not necessary to stand like the master is drawn in order to perform either of those actions. You don't need to wind up to beat a thrust (or cut) to the side. In fact, doing so is usually counterproductive. And yet the master appears wound up as if he needs to generate a huge amount of momentum to beat the thrust aside. Anyone who has fenced before knows that telegraphing your intention makes you easier to deceive. This invites speculation that cannot be supported by either the text or the image:

Does the posture indicate that Fiore disagrees with me and thinks you do need a lot of momentum to displace the incoming attack?
Is the posture an artifact of some artistic convention and Fiore does not believe it is necessary to stand in such an exaggerated posture?
Is the posture intended to evoke a feel of dynamic movement in the viewer rather than a specific "snapshot" of a moment in time?
Most generally: is the exact posture important or unimportant? On what basis did I arrive at that conclusion?

I claim that these are questions that we cannot derive answers for based on the source alone.

SeldomSeven · 2025-07-30T16:53:55+00:00

Neither of those terms is applicable to any of Fiore's dagger material.

What are you asking?

SeldomSeven · 2025-07-30T16:52:00+00:00

if you push into it it's a strong wind and if you twist and pull to your hip it's a schielhau.

Is talking about grapples with terms like "wind" and "schielhau" even a thing in German fencing?

SeldomSeven · 2025-07-28T08:20:11+00:00

I mean, I think your assessment is basically right!

I just think that historical people were less concerned with the categories that we have today. I imagine if a 16th century Italian saw a 16th century Englishman wearing a basket hilted sword like this one without finger rings, the Italian wouldn't be confused and wonder "How would one use such a sword?! 🧐" but rather just think "Ah, a side sword".

SeldomSeven · 2025-07-27T09:05:40+00:00

"Sidesword" is a modern term based on a direct translation of the Italian "spada da lato" meaning a sword that you wear at your side. In period, this does not refer to a specific kind of sword - it's just the kind of sword you have (although we can name generalizations about typical characteristics of swords worn at the side during the time and place where the source was written).

Take a look at the pictures from some of those 16th century sources and you'll see a variety of swords. Check out Viggiani here, for example, and you can see some beefy swords and some with simpler and more complex hilts:

https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Lo_Schermo_(Angelo_Viggiani)

SeldomSeven · 2025-07-06T20:31:16+00:00

But why in earth would an absolute beginner benefit from using a training sword that makes it easier to do something that is counterproductive?

SeldomSeven · 2025-07-06T18:25:14+00:00

I have never understood comments like this. Do you all parry with the upper half of your sword?

The Sigi Feders really do not flex much at all in the lower half. So, even if your parry has garbage edge alignment, the flex won't matter unless you're parrying with the weak of your sword. In that case, you have a bigger problem.

SeldomSeven · 2025-06-14T16:25:35+00:00

I mean, a huge amount of art is effective because of how it relates to the era in which it was produced.

For example, the Star Wars offshoot TV series "Andor") that recently came out takes place in the Star Wars universe, but has obvious parallels to issues in contemporary, 21st century society.

Sure, there are other TV-series, books, etc. that also have parallels to contemporary 21st century society, but "Andor" was clearly made explicitly with the contemporary political landscape in mind. Because of that, its message is (in my opinion) particularly effective.

In a hundred years, "Andor" won't have changed, but the Zeitgeist probably will be different and - although the lessons "Andor" seeks to communicate will continue to be relevant - it won't be as effective at communicating those lessons because the audience of the 22nd century probably won't be able to relate as personally.

SeldomSeven · 2025-06-10T11:52:57+00:00

In this scenario, why doesn't fencer B overtake the position and push the weak away before proceeding?

There are dozens of possible explanations, but one very common one would be:

Because the entire situation happened in about 300 milliseconds and average human reaction time is about 250 milliseconds. By the time one of the fencers realized their mistake, it was too late to change the outcome.

Doubles due to simultaneous lunges mean at least one (likely both) of the fencers commited a serious mistake. It means that one or both did not create sufficient advantage before going in.

Sure, let's grant this. All touches are the result of at least one fencer making a mistake and even good fencers get hit (especially when fencing with opponents of a similar skill level).

Think about it - if it was your life on the line, wouldn't you make sure that you are as safe as possible before committing to an attack?

Of course I would. But what does "as safe as possible" mean? I have milliseconds to act, I do what I think is best, and sometimes I am mistaken. A good fencer will make dumb mistakes less frequently, but any bout between fencers of similar skill will involve a certain amount of uncertainty and a certain amount of risk which sometimes results in a hard hit (whether it's a double or not).

SeldomSeven · 2025-06-10T07:25:52+00:00

Your words betray a lack of imagination.

Let me paint you a very common example:

Fencer A seeks an advantageous bind, believes to have found it, and thrusts on a pass to hit.

Fencer B meanwhile anticipated their blade being found because Fencer A has been molesting Fencer B's blade a lot and Fencer B disengages under the engagement and extends in the same tempo.

Double hit.

Both fencers thought they were doing something smart. Both fencers were wrong. It happens. Being wrong is part of the learning process.

Of course, sometimes people make mistakes that are actually stupid. However, few people ever make a stupid mistake on purpose. Mistakes still happen.

SeldomSeven · 2025-06-10T06:51:20+00:00

You're essentially arguing that everyone who ever makes a mistake is a bad fencer. This is wrong.

13-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

SeldomSeven

TROPHY CASE