Per Leoni, the bolognese system was also used on the battle field. I can see where giocco largha would have been effective in such a chaotic situation. Giganti, in his 2nd book, advocates continuous, long, strong cuts (∞) against multiple opponents. In fact, he insists that you have to practice until you can do 300 in a row. Imagine taking one of his classes.
A good comparison! I've recently started exploring I.33 specifically for Arming Sword and Buckler skills, but have been enjoying Bolonese style for sidesword. I haven't found a good translation of Marozzo yet, but I've gotten my hands on a copy of Manciolino, which I've been comparing to other Italian and German sources. To me, there's certainly much more information in the later manuals, usually spelled out in great detail. I.33 appears to use a much different kind of stance and footwork (depending on who's interpreting it), and there's more concern for keeping the buckler protecting the sword hand than with the more developed hilt of a sidesword. I'm particularly interested in where the various sources agree and disagree. So: this was good content!
Thank you! Jherek Swanger published an awesome translation of Marozzo over on lulu.com Body position in I.33 certainly looks like a bit of a middle ground between the usual stance in the Bolognese sources and Fabris for instance. As for protecting the buckler hand I think it comes down to the interpretations. The Bolognese sources deal with all kinds of swords, certainly one that do not have special hand protection as those are regularly depicted as well. And I.33 separates sword and buckler on a regular base as well. Better think about the buckler as protecting your most vulnerable lines in my opinion 😊 But then again, this is just interpretation as well ^^
I think I.33 has a tad bigger focus on wide play that it seems at a first glance. Sure, it's mostly focused on the narrow side of things, but it does tell us how to deal with wide play, and does so in verse and IIRC with red ink: the whole "ligans ligati" mnemonic. Not only is it the medieval equivalent of in bold and underlined, it's one of the parts of text that I.33 keeps explicitly calling back to. I'd say that it perhaps implies that wide play is comparatively easier to deal with, but if that is the case, it's once again kind of agreeing with the Bolognese. The biggest difference is probably in how the styles mask their intentions - Bolognese hides them in constant movement, I.33 has the Walpurgis ward and Lutiger's special langort that can transition into anything at the drop of a hat. Oh, and Bolognese sources are definitely the better written ones from the "how to pass information to other people" standpoint, but they do have the advantage of a few hundred years of experience in writing of manuals. Hence the much lesser mess of interpretations.
There are wide play actions in i.33 for sure. The whole 1st ward being an obsessio to 4th ward relies on an obvious invitation and parry for example. I wish i.33 had more text instead of the repeated pictures sometimes to explain their idea of timing and position better, but well... wouldn't be fun if it was easy :)
Great comparison, thank you Martin! I think, the way MS I.33 and most of the Bolognese sources are structured is the key to the topic at hand. The various Bolognese sources are immensly detailed in comparison to the MS I.33. In my perception, this fact leads to more similar interpretations within the Bolognese fencing texts. MS I.33 is way more open to seemingly contradictory interpretations, which all might fit to the source, even if they appear unothodox. Further more, the context of the source is way more clear for the Bolognese ones. MS I.33 again leaves room for speculation and interpretation. In my mind, the context is important in judging both the appearance of certain techniques and the setup of the plays discussed. So more interpretatatory space also in this field. As MS I.33 is certainly limited in regards to the didactic concepts and style of text and images, a true comparison of the systems appears quite challenging. Comparing the sources is can be done of course, but the systems are beyond our grasp, a am afraid. What we can do is compare the modern interpretation of these systems. The more room for interpretation there is for each source respectively, the more valid interpretations there are possible :)
Dude! I was just contemplating this and was about to search you tube for answers. No bull. It's like you felt a disturbance in the force 😂. Thanks man for all you do!!
Big shout out to Joshoa Wiest's Podcast L'Arte Dell Armi, which you really should check out and formulated quite a few of these thoughts already 😊
Thanks Martin, and awesome breakdown! This was really great!
@@joshuawiest5091 Thank you! I am still waiting on these new episodes 😁😉
Per Leoni, the bolognese system was also used on the battle field. I can see where giocco largha would have been effective in such a chaotic situation. Giganti, in his 2nd book, advocates continuous, long, strong cuts (∞) against multiple opponents. In fact, he insists that you have to practice until you can do 300 in a row. Imagine taking one of his classes.
Good point, fencing back then wasn't decided into civilian and military. One would just learn to fence and apply it according to the context. 😊
A good comparison! I've recently started exploring I.33 specifically for Arming Sword and Buckler skills, but have been enjoying Bolonese style for sidesword. I haven't found a good translation of Marozzo yet, but I've gotten my hands on a copy of Manciolino, which I've been comparing to other Italian and German sources. To me, there's certainly much more information in the later manuals, usually spelled out in great detail. I.33 appears to use a much different kind of stance and footwork (depending on who's interpreting it), and there's more concern for keeping the buckler protecting the sword hand than with the more developed hilt of a sidesword. I'm particularly interested in where the various sources agree and disagree. So: this was good content!
Thank you! Jherek Swanger published an awesome translation of Marozzo over on lulu.com
Body position in I.33 certainly looks like a bit of a middle ground between the usual stance in the Bolognese sources and Fabris for instance. As for protecting the buckler hand I think it comes down to the interpretations. The Bolognese sources deal with all kinds of swords, certainly one that do not have special hand protection as those are regularly depicted as well. And I.33 separates sword and buckler on a regular base as well. Better think about the buckler as protecting your most vulnerable lines in my opinion 😊 But then again, this is just interpretation as well ^^
I think I.33 has a tad bigger focus on wide play that it seems at a first glance. Sure, it's mostly focused on the narrow side of things, but it does tell us how to deal with wide play, and does so in verse and IIRC with red ink: the whole "ligans ligati" mnemonic. Not only is it the medieval equivalent of in bold and underlined, it's one of the parts of text that I.33 keeps explicitly calling back to. I'd say that it perhaps implies that wide play is comparatively easier to deal with, but if that is the case, it's once again kind of agreeing with the Bolognese.
The biggest difference is probably in how the styles mask their intentions - Bolognese hides them in constant movement, I.33 has the Walpurgis ward and Lutiger's special langort that can transition into anything at the drop of a hat.
Oh, and Bolognese sources are definitely the better written ones from the "how to pass information to other people" standpoint, but they do have the advantage of a few hundred years of experience in writing of manuals. Hence the much lesser mess of interpretations.
There are wide play actions in i.33 for sure. The whole 1st ward being an obsessio to 4th ward relies on an obvious invitation and parry for example. I wish i.33 had more text instead of the repeated pictures sometimes to explain their idea of timing and position better, but well... wouldn't be fun if it was easy :)
Great comparison, thank you Martin! I think, the way MS I.33 and most of the Bolognese sources are structured is the key to the topic at hand. The various Bolognese sources are immensly detailed in comparison to the MS I.33. In my perception, this fact leads to more similar interpretations within the Bolognese fencing texts. MS I.33 is way more open to seemingly contradictory interpretations, which all might fit to the source, even if they appear unothodox.
Further more, the context of the source is way more clear for the Bolognese ones. MS I.33 again leaves room for speculation and interpretation. In my mind, the context is important in judging both the appearance of certain techniques and the setup of the plays discussed. So more interpretatatory space also in this field.
As MS I.33 is certainly limited in regards to the didactic concepts and style of text and images, a true comparison of the systems appears quite challenging. Comparing the sources is can be done of course, but the systems are beyond our grasp, a am afraid. What we can do is compare the modern interpretation of these systems. The more room for interpretation there is for each source respectively, the more valid interpretations there are possible :)
Dude! I was just contemplating this and was about to search you tube for answers. No bull. It's like you felt a disturbance in the force 😂. Thanks man for all you do!!
Haha, awesome - I am glad it came out at the right moment for you 😁
Great video and I like the format.
Thanks a lot Mohamed! :)
Great points - really insightful perspective. Thank you for sharing!
My pleasure, thanks!
Thank You - i really like the point at around 10:35 and later !!! Who cares about the posters 😂 everyone should listen instead of just looking 😆
I like them both.
❤️
What an interesting video!
Thank you very much! :)
Did you and your wife have a kinder, Martin? So exciting! Congrats!
Yes indeed thanks 😊 we actually just started our vacation in our parental leave^^
H E R E S Y
Search your feelings, you know it to be true!