Cut and Thrust - Total BS or What?

[Saritor]

My only quibble was with the concept that Cut and thrust is somehow a movement towards "real" swordsmanship, which I disagree with completely.

I disagree with that opinion partially, though.

It's a movement towards "real" swordsmanship, in that it allows for the use of more proper cuts than regular rapier does.

That it's a movement towards "real" swordsmanship because the rapier isn't manly enough....well, Silver would agree with that, I guess. (Though only for definitions of "manly" wherein you really meant to say "English" ) I'd agree with you there.

[Dauyd]

In period, there were styles that used thrusts almost exclusively- just like we do in modern SCA rapier.

There were other styles that made primary use of cuts- just like the Cut and Thrust that is becoming popular in the SCA.

But that's what LOGOS was referring to, I think.

Cuts in Fabris and Capo Ferro do exist, and are part of the style. The emphasis is on the thrust, it's true, but the cuts are still there. I've used purely "rapier" styles in C&T -- Fabris being my favorite -- with my heavy rapier blade.

C&T doesn't preclude the use of rapier -- it just allows for a wider range of period styles in addition to rapier play.

Finally, we can recreate what Silver could only twitch and foam about!

Actually, what I understood LOGOS to be speaking about was completely different than my point. My point was referring to the differing styles in period- his was referring to the way the SCA ruleset treats them.

E.G- According to the SCA rules, most, if not all of the approved rapier blades are able to be used in C&T. In period, you wouldn't likely have used a sword designed to be primarily a thrusting weapon in a cutting style. While a rapier blade will work, they simply don't work as well.

I never claimed that C&T precludes rapier. Not at all. Heck there is mention in the period texts of how to fight a person using the cutting styles.

However, C&T is not just a step closer to period in rapier fighting. It isn't an evolution. Actually, in period, the evolution was the other way around.

[Dauyd]

It's a movement towards "real" swordsmanship, in that it allows for the use of more proper cuts than regular rapier does.

I can think of nothing in the Capo Ferro manual that I couldn't do under the regular rapier rules that isn't also against the Cut and thrust rules.

Is Capo Ferro not "real" swordsmanship?

[Saritor]

It isn't an evolution. Actually, in period, the evolution was the other way around.

Could you explain this quoted bit in more detail so I can be certain that I'm understanding it correctly, please?

I want to make sure I'm not misinterpreting it.

[iomtalach]

It's a movement towards "real" swordsmanship, in that it allows for the use of more proper cuts than regular rapier does.

I can think of nothing in the Capo Ferro manual that I couldn't do under the regular rapier rules that isn't also against the Cut and thrust rules.

Is Capo Ferro not "real" swordsmanship?

No, but it's an excellent introduction to swordsmanship. Great beginner text.

Of course, if you skip it, your game sucks.

[Dauyd]

It isn't an evolution. Actually, in period, the evolution was the other way around.

Could you explain this quoted bit in more detail so I can be certain that I'm understanding it correctly, please?

I want to make sure I'm not misinterpreting it.

Actually, I worded that really poorly.

It was meant to be a bit of a joke at the idea of Cut and thrust being the "natural evolution" of rapier- when in period, it was the other way around- the thrusting styles came later than the more cutting styles.

Just a weak attempt at humor that failed due to poor deliver.

[Dauyd]

No, but it's an excellent introduction to swordsmanship. Great beginner text.

I think I'm not going to touch that one!

[Saritor]

I can think of nothing in the Capo Ferro manual that I couldn't do under the regular rapier rules that isn't also against the Cut and thrust rules.

Is Capo Ferro not "real" swordsmanship?

C&T allows you to throw more accurate dritto and riverso cuts, as Capo Ferro describes at the end of the text, as opposed to the draw cut in rapier, which doesn't allow for the initial percussive part of the cut when it lands.

The rest of Capo Ferro? Fine, totally within the bounds of rapier as it stands, but the cuts are included, and more properly executed within the movement in C&T than in regular rapier.

[Saritor]

Actually, I worded that really poorly.

It was meant to be a bit of a joke at the idea of Cut and thrust being the "natural evolution" of rapier- when in period, it was the other way around- the thrusting styles came later than the more cutting styles.

Just a weak attempt at humor that failed due to poor deliver.

Ah, okay.

Rapier is really its own separate thing, since C&T styles existed before, during and after, but I'll leave the joke lie.

[Dauyd]

I can think of nothing in the Capo Ferro manual that I couldn't do under the regular rapier rules that isn't also against the Cut and thrust rules.

Is Capo Ferro not "real" swordsmanship?

C&T allows you to throw more accurate dritto and riverso cuts, as Capo Ferro describes at the end of the text, as opposed to the draw cut in rapier, which doesn't allow for the initial percussive part of the cut when it lands.

The rest of Capo Ferro? Fine, totally within the bounds of rapier as it stands, but the cuts are included, and more properly executed within the movement in C&T than in regular rapier.

I guess I don't see anythig there that says there need to be any percussiveness. (Is that even a word???) I do note the earlier mention of how to deliver a cut, where he says it should be in a slicing motion, using the length of the blade- which to me screams "draw cut".

[Dauyd]

Rapier is really its own separate thing,

Isn't that MY line?

[Count Johnathan]

I guess I don't see anythig there that says there need to be any percussiveness. (Is that even a word???)

Main Entry: per·cus·sive
Pronunciation: \pər-ˈkə-siv\
Function: adjective
1 : of or relating to percussion; especially : operative or operated by striking
2 : having powerful impact

— per·cus·sive·ly adverb

— per·cus·sive·ness noun

Yeah it actually is a word.

Edit to add: ??? How could that be a noun? I noticed it after I cut and pasted it. odd.

[cfournier]

I guess I don't see anythig there that says there need to be any percussiveness. (Is that even a word???) I do note the earlier mention of how to deliver a cut, where he says it should be in a slicing motion, using the length of the blade- which to me screams "draw cut".

Take it back a couple of hundred years. Consider Lichtenauer's three ways of wounding:


Hau: the root word from which English gets the word "hew". Powerful strokes that hew limb from limb.

Stoss/Stech: a thrust; the latter word is the root for "stick" in English

Schnitt: a slice. Like schnitzel!


So, if we think of the schnitt as a slice, like you make in your steak (push and pull the knife edge through the meat, in a sawing motion), well, there you are.

Is a schnitt a fight-ender? Probably not (depending on where your schnitt falls, and hundreds of other factors). Not nearly as sexy as the hauen, but it's right there, one of the three ways to hurt your foe, in Lichtenauer's merkvers.

[Dauyd]

I guess I don't see anythig there that says there need to be any percussiveness. (Is that even a word???) I do note the earlier mention of how to deliver a cut, where he says it should be in a slicing motion, using the length of the blade- which to me screams "draw cut".

Take it back a couple of hundred years. Consider Lichtenauer's three ways of wounding:


Hau: the root word from which English gets the word "hew". Powerful strokes that hew limb from limb.

Stoss/Stech: a thrust; the latter word is the root for "stick" in English

Schnitt: a slice. Like schnitzel!


So, if we think of the schnitt as a slice, like you make in your steak (push and pull the knife edge through the meat, in a sawing motion), well, there you are.

Is a schnitt a fight-ender? Probably not (depending on where your schnitt falls, and hundreds of other factors). Not nearly as sexy as the hauen, but it's right there, one of the three ways to hurt your foe, in Lichtenauer's merkvers.

If i'm reading you right (and I'm not sure if I am) your Schnitt sounds like a textbook push or draw cut. Place the edge on the target and push or pull.

[Saritor]

I guess I don't see anythig there that says there need to be any percussiveness. (Is that even a word???) I do note the earlier mention of how to deliver a cut, where he says it should be in a slicing motion, using the length of the blade- which to me screams "draw cut".

Read the section immediately before the one you posted. (15, On Striking -- I'm using the Swanger/Wilson translation) It covers the various cuts and methods of a cut, and mentions that the motion is from the elbow.

Further examples are given at the end of Capo Ferro's work, though plates are not included -- Capo Ferro writes that he's just going to give you advice on what to do instead.

The action of plate 41 (only one I can come up with off the top of my head, at the moment, since I'm about to pass out) involves a stramazzone riverso, which is by no means a cut where you end up laying the blade on and drawing.

A cut with the rapier is more of a slicing action, but the body mechanics aren't really what I'd call a draw cut.

This would be so much easier to explain in person. Interpreters who've done more research than I (and that's likely most of you), and anyone who's tried to write anything down to explain a style, you have my sympathies, and an offer of a free beer for being both braver and smarter than I.

[Uadahlrich]

[quote="SaritorThat it's a movement towards "real" swordsmanship because the rapier isn't manly enough....well, Silver would agree with that, I guess. (Though only for definitions of "manly" wherein you really meant to say "English" ) I'd agree with you there.[/quote]

Yes, but we still can't use, "A good English Kick to the Cods" against our opponents.



Thank GOD I'm German!

[Uadahlrich]

C&T allows you to throw more accurate dritto and riverso cuts, as Capo Ferro describes at the end of the text, as opposed to the draw cut in rapier, which doesn't allow for the initial percussive part of the cut when it lands.

The rest of Capo Ferro? Fine, totally within the bounds of rapier as it stands, but the cuts are included, and more properly executed within the movement in C&T than in regular rapier.

Pardon the intrusion, but I would just like to include that there is a historical precident for what could be termed and SCA Draw Cut in some period manuals.

The "Schnitt", or "Slicing cut" is one in the Liechtenauer tradition.

Now back to your enlightening discussion.

[Uadahlrich]

I guess I don't see anythig there that says there need to be any percussiveness. (Is that even a word???) I do note the earlier mention of how to deliver a cut, where he says it should be in a slicing motion, using the length of the blade- which to me screams "draw cut".

Take it back a couple of hundred years. Consider Lichtenauer's three ways of wounding:


Hau: the root word from which English gets the word "hew". Powerful strokes that hew limb from limb.

Stoss/Stech: a thrust; the latter word is the root for "stick" in English

Schnitt: a slice. Like schnitzel!


So, if we think of the schnitt as a slice, like you make in your steak (push and pull the knife edge through the meat, in a sawing motion), well, there you are.

Is a schnitt a fight-ender? Probably not (depending on where your schnitt falls, and hundreds of other factors). Not nearly as sexy as the hauen, but it's right there, one of the three ways to hurt your foe, in Lichtenauer's merkvers.

Ach! Danke Bruder for posting it clearer than my poor attempt.
That's why you're the Laurel.

[Dante di Pietro]

I guess I don't see anythig there that says there need to be any percussiveness. (Is that even a word???) I do note the earlier mention of how to deliver a cut, where he says it should be in a slicing motion, using the length of the blade- which to me screams "draw cut".

The word you are looking for is "percussion".

The cuts described by the later Italian masters are deep, slicing cuts done with the tip-to-eight-inches of the blade, give or take. Humorously enough, the mechanics of a good cut with a blade optimized for thrusting is neither purely a draw cut, nor a percussive one; it would be illegal in normal rapier and overkill in C&T.

[Steve S.]

I agree with the "Three Muskateers" being outside of the SCA's context. While I love the smallsword direction that swords were starting to take, it is definitely alien to the majority of the SCA's interest. Also by that point guns were becoming waaaay popular and making other field weapons obselete for anything but personal protection. I imagine that's part of the reason we stopped seeing so many cleavers (gross generalization) and instead saw more over grown needles (another generalization.)

I don't think the "three musketeers" is "outside the SCA's context". The SCA goes up to 1650 or so, and I'm not big on a hard and fast line in the sand for the opening and closing dates of our era.

I think Renaissance-era fencing is fine for those people who want to do it. It just holds no appeal to me.

Steve

[jester]

I view Cut and Thrust as an expansion of the rapier program which expands it to include the corpus of documented material extending earlier into the time period of the SCA. I.33 (the earliest known manuscript) is, in my opinion, closer to rapier (as practiced in the SCA) than rattan combat despite the fact that it's the only manuscript that's vaguely in the same age (mail) as the assumed armor standard. Good reasons for that and not, in any way, any sort of indictment against rattan fighting. The Cut and Thrust rules allow us to be 95% accurate in recreating the material in I.33 (grappling and striking still being, of course, right out).

[Alex Baird]

It was meant to be a bit of a joke at the idea of Cut and thrust being the "natural evolution" of rapier- when in period, it was the other way around- the thrusting styles came later than the more cutting styles.

Hmm. From foil and epee to practice schlaegers to rapier simulators to spada de lato simulators to longswords . . . Begorrah! We're devolving!

If this keeps up, we'll end up using clubs!

[Allen Reed]

I agree with the "Three Muskateers" being outside of the SCA's context. While I love the smallsword direction that swords were starting to take, it is definitely alien to the majority of the SCA's interest. Also by that point guns were becoming waaaay popular and making other field weapons obselete for anything but personal protection. I imagine that's part of the reason we stopped seeing so many cleavers (gross generalization) and instead saw more over grown needles (another generalization.)

I don't think the "three musketeers" is "outside the SCA's context". The SCA goes up to 1650 or so, and I'm not big on a hard and fast line in the sand for the opening and closing dates of our era.

I think Renaissance-era fencing is fine for those people who want to do it. It just holds no appeal to me.

Steve

Well, actually the _official_ cut off for the SCA is 1600.

We tend to use early 17th C texts for true rapier fighting. My arguement for that is most of the writers were teaching before 1600 but only got their words in print after the SCA's arbitrary cut off date.

Allen

[Leo Medii]

If they got elves and dwarves and gwar soldiers I'm sure we can squeak by with a 1639 musketeer.

Or are we going to start getting rid of those non-period things too?

[Amanda M]

A couple years ago at the Ladies Schlager tourney at Estrella there was a household of ladies wearing black velvet musketeer like outfits and they looked great. I would much rather have them around than goth kids or anime cosplayers.

[Dafydd]

Well, actually the _official_ cut off for the SCA is 1600.

Yep. That happened a very long time ago, and my ECW persona had to do. I went "early period" (1500!).

I do a fair bit of smallsword, but I haven't done much of it in an SCA context, primarily because it really is OOP. If I do my part, the weapon and techniques are devastating against rapier...but I can't shake the feeling of doing something I really shouldn't be doing...a sort of less over-the-top version of bringing a rifle to a swordfight.

As for C&T, I love the opportunity to do a heavier-contact, more realistic version of this sort of swordplay. There is often a tendency in SCA rapier to move a bit too far away from the contact martial art realm, further than a reasonable level of safety truly requires. When this movement begins to badly compromise the utility of SCA rapier in actually learning realistic rapier use, then that's a good sign things are drifting away from the goal. The very light armoring requirements and various combat conventions set the baseline pretty close to the "not realistic any more" line, but as long as care it taken to avoid sliding into sportfencing territory, that's okay. It gives some people who would otherwise be unable to play a chance to fight with swords. That's a good thing!

But let's make sure C&T never becomes "rapier with slightly different swords," okay? A more stringent armoring standard and a heavier (but still safe) calibration standard are, imo, the correct direction for C&T. That's how C&T will be a genuine progression in reproducing a period swort of swordplay.

[Tibbie Croser]

It appears that Cut and Thrust may engender conflict between people who want to do it as unarmored combat with late-period civilian weapons and those who want to use heavier weapons and more (metal) armor. There's certainly the potential for disappointment and misunderstanding.

[Dauyd]

It was meant to be a bit of a joke at the idea of Cut and thrust being the "natural evolution" of rapier- when in period, it was the other way around- the thrusting styles came later than the more cutting styles.

Hmm. From foil and epee to practice schlaegers to rapier simulators to spada de lato simulators to longswords . . . Begorrah! We're devolving!

If this keeps up, we'll end up using clubs!

Ah, yes- once again proving that rapier has a long ways to go to catch up to rattan...

[Amanda M]

I think it would be best kept as separate authorization and rules just so that it doesn't become watered down. It's my understanding that' the direction it's headed anyway though.

[Steve S.]

It appears that Cut and Thrust may engender conflict between people who want to do it as unarmored combat with late-period civilian weapons and those who want to use heavier weapons and more (metal) armor. There's certainly the potential for disappointment and misunderstanding.

As I've tried to express, from my inexperienced perspective it appears to me that Cut and Thrust is an evolution of rapier combat away from unarmored combat with late-period civilian weapons to heavier weapons and more armor, simply by virtue of the fact that as described, Cut and Thrust seems more "percussive" than the "parry and poke" style of combat I have always seen SCA rapier combat to be.

And again, I think this is a good thing. It might be a way to bring rebated steel armoured combat into the SCA. Provided, of course, it doesn't get beat down by the safety nazis.

Steve

[J.G.Elmslie]

It appears that Cut and Thrust may engender conflict between people who want to do it as unarmored combat with late-period civilian weapons and those who want to use heavier weapons and more (metal) armor. There's certainly the potential for disappointment and misunderstanding.

surely, the simplest solution to this is that the prerequisite for cut and thrust would be the dictated minumum safety standard, that additional protection is advised, and it is by the discretion of both participants to decline an opponent if protection is lacking...
if a participant wishes to fight wearing a facemask and underwear only, so be it.... but everyone else has the discretion to decline to fight with them.
if someone is using a longsword, and another mostly rapier, and feels that they dont have enough protection... they can decline to fight.

surely that's the simplest solution? ir is that far too close to common sense?

[Dauyd]

Suzerain-

I think the "problem" isn't as simple as that.

From reading this thread, It seems tome that there are several schools of thought on exactly what Cut and Thrust is meant to be.

First is the opinion that I think Saritor beleives*- that Cut and Thrust is basically rapier, but with cuts- thus allowing a more accurate re-creation.

Second Is where I stand- that Cut and Thrust is an outlet for the transitional styles of earlier rapier where cuts were more emphasized. That it ISN'T rapier, but rather a related, but very different style of swordfighting.

Third is what I believe Steve is thinking*- that it is basically a "backdoor" for getting rebated steel armoured combat into the SCA. That it is basically armoured combat, but with steel.

I can see some problems in this situation. When you go into a bout wiht a preconceived notion of what it is meant to be, and you meet somebody whose idea is very different, there is bound to be some issues.

*I hope I'm not misrepresenting here.

[J.G.Elmslie]

Suzerain-

I think the "problem" isn't as simple as that.

From reading this thread, It seems tome that there are several schools of thought on exactly what Cut and Thrust is meant to be.

First is the opinion that I think Saritor beleives*- that Cut and Thrust is basically rapier, but with cuts- thus allowing a more accurate re-creation.

Second Is where I stand- that Cut and Thrust is an outlet for the transitional styles of earlier rapier where cuts were more emphasized. That it ISN'T rapier, but rather a related, but very different style of swordfighting.

Third is what I believe Steve is thinking*- that it is basically a "backdoor" for getting rebated steel armoured combat into the SCA. That it is basically armoured combat, but with steel.

I can see some problems in this situation. When you go into a bout wiht a preconceived notion of what it is meant to be, and you meet somebody whose idea is very different, there is bound to be some issues.

*I hope I'm not misrepresenting here.

ah well, it was worth a try was'nt it? I wish there were a simple solution for you all. :/

personally, I'd also say there's potentially a fourth interpretation; that of the use of longsword or earlier weapons, unarmoured (effectively, echoing much of the historic depiction of combat training)

but that might just be talking out my arse there

[Dauyd]

I might be relatively new in the SCA, and I try to stay away for the most part from the political side of thisngs, but the one thing I have figured out about the SCA- there is NEVER a simple solution!

[Oswyn_de_Wulferton]

A couple years ago at the Ladies Schlager tourney at Estrella there was a household of ladies wearing black velvet musketeer like outfits and they looked great. I would much rather have them around than goth kids or anime cosplayers.

Agreed, but for the same amount of work they put into the black velvet musketeer garb, couldn't they have re-directed the effort into something a bit more period? Kind of like the people showing up with the amazing fantasy stuff. Yeah, it looks great, but why intentionally do something OOP, when it is just as easy (or if easier) to do something that is covered by the timeframe?