Talk:Italian school of swordsmanship

No Change Between 1696 and 1800?

There are some major problem in the following statements.

"Although there is a considerable gap in extant Italian treatises, between 1696 and 1800, we can see from the earliest 19th century treatises that the style had changed very little during this time - the major changes being the addition of certain techniques suitable for the somewhat lighter blades of the dueling swords typically used in 1800 as compared to the rapiers typical for the end of the 1600's (compare the techniques presented by Bondi' di Mazo in his 1696 manual with those in the 1803 manual of Giuseppe Rosaroll-Scorza and Pietro Grisetti)."

These statements appear to suggest that the evolution of Italian swordmenship almost completely stopped for a 104 year period. Yet, these statements also say that the rapier was dropped in favor of the ligher dueling sword, just as the rapier was drop in the rest of Europe in favor of the lighter smallsword. As written, this gives a false illusion that the 19th century masters of the light dueling sword were also master of the rapier. Many things did endure over that 104 year period but to suggest that almost no change occurred cannot be anything but completely erroneous - cultural evolution does not stop, even for swordsmenship. In the much shorter time period between Fiore and Vadi there are significant changes although both used basically the same sword in the same context. How is it possible then to have little change during a greater time period when not only did the sword change but also the context in which these swords were used changed? It is not possible! At the base level, these statements appear to have been written so as to support claims to living linages for the rapier. These statements need to be re-written from a neutural point of view.Ranp 2:25 pm, 26 August 2006

even more simple, as simple as WP:CITE, the claim has to be attributed to whoever has made it. If that is impossible, it should just be removed. (ᛎ) qɐp 20:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, how about you read the original sources before you decide what is and is not possible. The statement certainly wasn't written to "support claims to living lineages for the rapier." If you find it unlikely, exactly what part of Rosaroll-Scorza & Grisetti's 1803 manual do you find radically different from that of Marcelli's 1686 manual, or Bondi' di Mazo's 1696 manual? The theory of tempo and measure are the same. All of the fundamental techniques are the same (e.g. parry riposte, counter parries, voids, feints attacks in tempo, counter-attacks, fianconati, etc.) The only major difference would be in proportion of cuts (yet, the weapon described by Rosaroll-Scorza & Grisetti does have edges).

how about you just use inline citation when challenged instead of asking us to "go read the sources"? (ᛎ) qɐp 16:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

>>>Randall, you are reading too much into that statement. It is easily demonstrated that very little changed between 1696 and 1803 as far as Italian fencing is concerned. You are making inferences that "19th century masters are also masters of the rapier" the writer did not. You are talking philosophically, the writer states matters of fact that is easily verifiable if you read the treatises. Don't obsess about living lineages, since that's not what the writer stated, it's politics and if you ask me it's all BS anyway. There ain't no living lineage as far as I'm concerned. I have to agree with the guy who said that if you read the manuals you'll see why this statement was made. By the late 1600s, Italian fencing was pretty much solidified into a proto-classical style that obviously continued with a few changes throughout the next 2 centuries.

Preoccupation with Tempo

What is the bases of the following line from the beginning of the article?

"...the preoccupation with time (or "tempo") in fencing..."

Is there a style of fencing with any type of sword that is not preoccupied with time/tempo? For example, the German sword arts of Johannes Liechtenauer is completely centered around the time concepts of Vor (before), Nach (after), and Indes (during). It seems to me that no amount of preoccupation with time can set the Italian sword arts apart from any other sword art. I think this line needs to either be re-written or removed.Randall Pleasant 10:55 am, 30 August 2006

Although I could make a few arguments for keeping it, I feel that it is not really meaningful from the point of view of a layman. For that matter, if "tempo" is kept in, then measure should also be added to the beginning. Of course every martial art has some concept of timing and distance, but the Italians directly relate them almost mathematically, often defining one in terms of the other. Looking at that whole sentence:

"Some of these are the preference for certain guards, the preoccupation with time (or "tempo") in fencing as well as many of the defensive actions."

I think that this could be better worded something like:

"Some of these are the preference for certain guards, many of the defensive actions, as well as the manner of defining the concepts of timing and distance through a precise taxonomy with a specialized and unique terminology."

Although that really is true for many of the schools. I really think what the author was trying to say was not that the concept of time (and measure, although he left it out) is unique; rather, how it is explained is unique (or at least different from the German method). However, since the current sentence doesn't really explain it well, I'd concur on a re-write (as important as tempo and measure are in Italian fencing, I'd say that a least a paragraph to explain the Italian outlook, if not a paragraph for each).

Sounds good. Not only will such a paragraph make clearer why the Italian School is unique but it will also make it more interesting.Randall Pleasant 12:43 pm, 30 August 2006

Guys. The Italian school is the *only* swordsmanship school that borrows the definition of Time from Aristotle's physics and applies it to fencing with an almost obsessive consistency. Of course "timing" in general applies to every other style, like you say to vor and nach in German as well as countless other examples. But Tempo as a major, stand-alone edifice on which the whole art is built is rather an Italian trait. To dismiss the relative importance of tempo in Italian swordmanship saying that it's the same in other styles is misleading. Tempo is SO MUCH MORE than "timing."

If so, then make the case in the article. From this discussion I hope that you can see that the small section of one sentence that I had an issue with does not transfer all of the information contained in your statements. Therefore, please consider adding one or more paragraphs to the article explaining in good detail how the Italian concept of tempo/time is "a major, stand-alone edifice". Explain it, give some examples, and provide references. By the way, please use your name so that we know who we are talking to - thanks.Randall Pleasant 11:30 am, September 1, 2006

Reference for M-345/M-346 Manuscripts

Class handouts are very poor reference material because the public does not have access to them. In addition, class handouts seldom exist for very long and are much more likely to have typos and mis-stated information. The person who added the reference to the class handout by Tomasso Leoni and Steven Reich should make an effort to find an online article by them with the same information. If such an article does not exist then a request should be made to Tommaso Leoni and Steven Reich to have the handout put online.Ranp 21:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

it's not a big deal; Rubboli and Cesari insist on "primissimi anni del 1500" [1] but are willing to go as far as 1525. I'll happily extend that to "first half of the 16th century" and be done, in spite of a class handout of course not really satisfying WP:V. dab (𒁳) 22:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The handout is available online at their site [2]. I don't see what exactly makes the claim of Rubboli and Cesari any stronger than Leoni and Reich who say the middle 1500s. Marozzo 12:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have found it, and inserted it into the article, thanks. Well, Rubboli and Cesari are the editors of the manuscript, and they are emphatic about their date (hell, they have it in their title, "dell'inizio del XVI secolo"), while Leoni has a non-committal "(I would date it around 1550)". He doesn't make clear he is aware of the Rubboli-Cesari claim and is contradicting it, he appears to be merely giving his rough impression from glancing at the manuscript. I don't think this is a genuine dispute, and we shouldn't turn it into one on-wiki. Knowing that a lot of publications in this field are online, I won't insist on printed sources, but if you want to pursue it, I do think you should bring up some discussion (swordforum or similar) that actually contests the "primissimi anni" claim. I don't have the edition in front of me, but I think the argument involves evidence that the MS predates Manciolino and/or Marozzo. dab (𒁳) 12:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Having talked to Mr. Leoni, I can say that he does contradict them; he says they've dated the manuscript too early. Based on the Italian and the style presented as compared to the other Bolognese manuals, it fits more with a mid-1500s date. While I'm sure Rubboli and Cesari have their reasons for the date they give, I haven't seen anything compelling enough to give their opinion more weight than that of the Order of the Seven Hearts (and vice versa). Therefore, I think the reference to both is valid. Marozzo 13:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

that's great. "first half of 16th century" it is, then, I didn't remove your Leoni reference (I actually added it), and think it is perfectly valid as an alternative opinion. Also, could you sign your post? it's a Wikipedia thing. The difference in weight is due to one opinion being published in print, while the other is entirely based on hearsay (your account of your chat with Mr. Leoni). I have no doubt what you say is true, but there is still WP:V. Mr. Leoni is perfectly free to publish his opinion, and once he does, we can refer to it. dab (𒁳) 13:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Link Farm

I removed the link farm just as I did on the German School of Swordsmanship article. The links really took a lot away from the article. All organizations and groups were treated fairly.Ranp (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed another group link.Ranp (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi everyone - would it be a good idea to have a paragraph on how the modern Italian fencing style (and swords) differed from the French/current style? I remember in A. Nadi's book he discussed how he felt the Italian grip provided more strength than the French, but I suppose the french would provide more accuracy, so that is why it is still used today. Anyone with a bit more knowledge of Italian fencing (and computers/wikipedia) agree? Jamie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.44.25.242 (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Italian school of swordsmanship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928060939/http://www.salvatorfabris.com/BologneseIntroduction.pdf to http://www.salvatorfabris.com/BologneseIntroduction.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)