The Knightly Art An Overview of European Martial Arts in the Late Middle Ages © 2006 Gregory D. Mele Introduction The history of personal combat has usually been relegated to fencing historians, who in turn defined medieval combat as rough, untutored fighting 1 on the battlefield, between nobles, whereas truly scientific, systematic, and civilian martial arts arose with rapier fencing in the mid- 16th century. It was perhaps inevitable that as most fin de siecle fencing historians looked at the evidence they had available to them, they looked at the records of the medieval masters-at-arms, and simply didn’t see what they thought of as fencing. Fencing derives from the word defense, and since the Middle “ges had simply meant the art of defense, specifically when armed with any hand weapon, be that a sword, knife or quarterstaff, be that in a duel, a street brawl or on a battlefield. But by the late 19th century, the art of fencing focused on single-combat within the formal, and increasingly non-lethal, duel. For most, training was really only for the friendly combat-sport that had grown out of the martial art. Broadsword, heavy saber and bayonet fencing continued to be practiced, but usually only by current or former military men, and with increasingly less frequency, as the revolver at last made the sword completely obsolete on the battlefield. Even in military fencing, the aesthetics of the age meant that grappling and in-fighting was strictly forbidden in the fencing salle. Unarmed combat was a separate discipline, divided into boxing and wrestling, each of which were also increasingly had their sportive, rather than defensive, applications as a focus. What was taught? In contrast, the medieval master-at-arms taught cognate martial arts: complete systems of armed and unarmed defense, designed for both the battlefield and personal defense. Their diverse curriculum combined unarmed and weapons combat, both in and out of armour, fought both on foot and on horseback. Training in this robust art was usually based on a foundation in close- quarter combat and swordsmanship. Close-quarter combat was itself comprised of two key components: wrestling and dagger combat. As a battlefield art, wrestling was particularly aggressive, focusing on ending a fight quickly through either joint-breaking, throws or lethal force, rather than seeking submission. Dagger combat was split between unarmed defenses against the dagger and dagger vs. dagger dueling; a far more likely scenario for the 15th century knife-fighter than it is for his 21st century counterpart. Swordsmanship formed the basis for training with all long, hand-weapons. The central weapon was usually either the longsword or the sword and buckler. The longsword, often called a hand-and-a-half sword by modern arms and armour enthusiasts, was a fairly new weapon that had appeared in the 13th century. The first sword to offer a two-handed grip, it generally 1 see Egerton Castle, Schools and Masters of Fence from the Middle Ages to the 18th Centur, Dover (reprint), 2003. p. 9 measured between 44" and 54" [112 and 137 cm] in length, and was stout enough to combat fully armoured foes, yet at roughly three to four pounds [1.4-1.8 kg] in weight, it was also fast enough to use against lightly armoured and unarmoured opponents. Like the older sword it evolved from, the longsword’s straight, double-edged blade was ideally suited for both cutting and thrusting, and could be flat and wide, narrow and hexagonal, or diamond shaped in cross- section. This versatility made the weapon extremely popular with the knightly classes; so much so that this so-called sword of war also became an element of civilian dress in the late Middle Ages and Renaissance. The older, one-handed or arming” sword continued alongside the longsword, and when combined with the buckler, a small hand shield measuring between and to cm, was the other common exemplar weapon for the medieval fencing instructor. Sword and buckler was a common sidearm for common soldiers and travelers, and fencing with them was a popular medieval sport especial with university students often to their professor’s horror.) Through the use of these weapons the master taught all of the basic blows, defenses, entering techniques and disarms of his martial art. Full plate armour had been developed by 1400, and was virtually impervious to sword cuts. To defeat this, the master-at-arms taught how to turn the sword into a short spear by gripping the blade in the left hand; this allowed it to be strongly thrust into gaps in the armour. This shortened sword or half-sword combat also included a number of disarms, throws and wrestling techniques, very similar to those taught with the dagger. Through these techniques, the student linked the lessons of close-quarter combat, armoured combat and swordsmanship. This formed a basis for fighting with the spear, the poleaxe a .’ to ’ two-handed axe or warhammer, similar to the halberd) and mounted combat. It was a diverse and complex martial art, perfectly in keeping with the ethos of the warrior culture that created it. What survives today? Sadly, these martial arts were victims of the same pragmatic culture that produced them. As the nature of both warfare and personal defense evolved what was no longer useful was abandoned. Although many of the older medieval weapons continued to be taught and practiced throughout the Renaissance, by the turn of the 18th century their use seems to have survived in only a few places as traditional curiosities. Today, there are a number of traditional European styles of stick-combat whose histories claim descent from the two-handed swordplay of the late Middle Ages, such as French grand baton or Portuguese jogo do pau. But in reality, there is no documental or lineage evidence and very little technical or lexiconal proof to support these claims, or show that any of these arts have a clear origin prior to the 18th century. A number of folk wrestling traditions surviving throughout Europe, such as those of Iceland, Cornwall or Brittany, some with claims of great antiquity to their art. Unfortunately, folk culture is oral culture, so there is little way to verify these claims. While, not surprisingly, there sometimes are a number of similar throws, holds and takedowns found between all surviving forms of Western wrestling and the medieval material, the techniques of the medieval masters were battlefield arts, not sportive ones. Consequently, the medieval material focuses on ending the fight immediately through a use of strikes, joint-breaks, chokes and potentially lethal throws; most of which are banned for safety in folk and Greco-Roman wrestling. There is also fairly little ground-fighting, which is a key element of most modern grappling. Although these folk traditions certainly may have grown from, or in parallel to, those taught by the medieval masters- at-arms, they have less in common with their curriculum than do most modern close-quarter combatives. What do we have, and where does it come from? The medieval masters-at-arms arts did not survive the centuries as a living tradition, but fortunately, they were prolific writers. By the turn of the 15th century, an entire corpus of fencing treatises documents not only the presence of highly developed cognate martial arts, but actual fencing guilds, whose masters were plying their trades in cities, universities, and courts throughout Europe. Surviving fencing manuscripts from Germany, Italy, England, Spain, Portugal, and Burgundy give us a detailed, and often reconstructable, look at martial arts more than half a millennia old. Of these, the lion's share of the medieval material are German and Italian treatises. Liechtenauer's Legacy. The surviving record of European swordplay begins with a unique, south German manuscript, Royal Armouries Ms. I.33,2 dated to c.1295. This curious manuscript, written by an anonymous priest, shows a cleric teaching his scholar, or student, sword and buckler combat. The manuscript is comprised of captioned illustrations that teach a clear, well-developed and elucidated system of combat. It also refers obliquely to a common method of swordplay, but does not describe how its own instructions might relate, or differ, from that method. While Ms. I. is a sophisticated text, when looking at it from our side of history, it’s hard not to see the anonymous priest as something of a medieval one hit wonder. Despite other German sword and buckler styles some common guards and techniques, and a few later manuscripts that seem to show small sections copied from Ms. I.33, there is no real, clear historical evidence that the priest’s art survived him in any kind of established tradition. The first evidence of a continuous, European tradition begins two generations later, with the German grandmaster, Johannes Liechtenauer. We know virtually nothing of this man, aside from shreds of data left by his students and their descendants. Johannes Liechtenauer was born sometime in the first half of the 14th century, possibly in Liechtenau, Franconia, but his actual birthplace, family and rank remain unknown. He traveled through the Holy Roman Empire (modern Germany, Austria, Switzerland and northern Italy) and Eastern Europe for a number of years, training with local masters and synthesizing their teachings into a new method. His primary weapon was the longsword, but his direct teachings also include wrestling, dagger and spear fighting, both in and out of armour. By the later 1300s, Liechtenauer had settled down and begun to teach, precisely where is unknown, although Swabia or Austria are likely. Tradition has it that he gathered a circle of 2 Ms.