Customer Reviews

Renaissance Swordsmanship: The Illustrated Book Of Rapiers And Cut And Thrust Swords And Their Use

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(12)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(17)

 

 

Mr. Clements' work is an interesting read. It is also a great gift to those interested in Western European historical martial arts, as the library of modern materials dealing with this time period is extremely limited. That is, at root, part of the problem with Clements' work. While he makes an pseudo-scholarly attempt to bolster his work with period sources he is extremely short on citations. Why? Largely, I suppose, because Clements' work is more about the style his group, the HACA, has developed rather than what the period masters have to say.

Ironically, in this sense Clements is guilty of exactly what he accuses the SCA of; making up the techniques to fit his game rather than working to recreate purely historical techniques. (The only difference being that the SCA holds itself out as a spectator sport and makes no pretense of being a pure re-creation of medieval and renaissance combat while Clements and his group do.)

Clements is given to strong opinions, some of which appear to be unfounded, hyperbole, high falootin pretensions, vitrol and some level of personal promotion.

Further, because the field of re-creating medieval martial arts is so new, much of Clements misinformation is accepted by many as valid simply due to the fact that they have few modern works to compare it to. The fact is any serious student of renaissance or medieval martial arts should go "straight to the horse's mouth" and read the period masters.

That being said, Clements work is a boon to modern martial artists simply because it "gets the ball rolling" and adds another work to the scant library available today.

Recommended with reservations.

It is hard to think that less than a decade ago, such unadulterated tosh could have been seriously presented as the cutting edge of research into historical western swordsmanship. Quite apart from the author's vociferous criticism of anyone with a different opinion to himself (where, oh where was the editor?), there is more misinformation in this book than information.

We are told that the rapier "is incapable of delivering edge blows that cut" despite every original rapier master teaching such cuts. The author writes, "Its ability to riposte (counterattack)", suggesting that he believes the riposte and the counterattack to be one and the same (they are not). We are told that there were three basic rapier stances, Prima, Seconda and Terza, which are "roughly equivalent to a high, middle and low sword position." Then we are shown three guards, one high, one middle and one low, which bear no resemblance to guards shown in surviving rapier manuals and which show that the author doesn't have the first clue what Prima etc. actually mean. We are shown parries that bear no resemblance to the defensive actions shown in rapier manuals. I could go on and on.

Except for a few areas, (where the author gets it wrong) this book contains no discussion of any of the fundamentals of rapier fencing. There is no mention of distance, tempo, stringere etc. It is clear that the author hasn't read any of the major rapier works. The inaccuracy of the illustrations suggests that he didn't even look at the pictures.

Once upon a time, despite this catalogue of errors, this was the best book out there. Thankfully that hasn't been the case for a long time. Arte of Defence is itself dated, but is a better introduction to the rapier. In the last year a couple of very good translations have been produced, Italian Rapier Combat, a translation of Capo Ferro's manual and Art of Duelling, a translation of Fabris. These are two of the most significant works on the rapier, and they show just how far Clements was from reality. Most of the English language rapier manuals, Di Grassi, Saviolo, Swetnam and Pallas Armata are freely available on the net. All are better sources than Renaissance Swordsmanship.

No doubt in the future, more books on the rapier will be produced that will elucidate the works of the masters. Renaissance Swordsmanship should be withdrawn from sale immediately. It was a poor book when it was published. For it to still be available when it has been so comprehensively superseded is disturbing.

I have spent more than 15 years studying swordplay manuals actually written in the Renaissance and trying out those techniques with my fellow swordplay enthusiasts. While we have written a lot of short papers and booklets on what we have learned, "Renaissance Swordsmanship" is the first real book on this subject. In short, if you are interested in rapier play you need this book in your library.

That said, let me add some cautions:

- This book is only an introduction to the basic concepts and moves so you must realize more advanced techniques exist.

- Mr. Clements has studied several different renaissance masters and borrows freely from all without making it clear what technique come from which master. Instead he gives his own mix of techniques. What may look like a mistake to a student of Di Grassi might actually be correct according to Fabris.

- To master renaissance sword techniques you will eventually have to study the manuals of the period yourself but if you have read this first, that study will be a LOT easier.

- This is NOT a scholarly work, exhaustively researched and accurate in every detail. Use it as a learning resource, not a reference work.

- To really learn some of the material presented here it is necessary to actually pick up the equipment and try the moves described.

- I found "Renaissance Swordsmanship" to be light on the details needed to actually apply the techniques described.

- This is NOT fight choreography which is an entirely different science. It is an attempt to teach you to how real rapier and cut and thrust swordplay works. Real fights are over quickly and seldom entertaining to watch (except to other sword enthusiasts).

- Without the proper safety equipment these techniques are dangerous. Think about it -- with real swords these methods kill.

- These techniques do not work well with modern fencing weapons. If you start with an epee you will quickly find you need to be using reproduction or practice rapiers to do it right. Fortunately, you CAN buy those. (Hey, Amazon -- do you sell swords yet?)

And a few specifics (IMHO):

- Most of the manuals from renaissance masters present very poor, ineffective techniques for the use of two rapiers (i.e. case or brace), probably because actual use of case was rare. The technique presented in "Renaissance Swordsmanship" is similarly weak.

- The footwork and stance portions are particularly light, ignoring or almost ignoring important basics such as slope and circular paces. This is particularly important to the modern fencer who is likely to misapply his modern footwork to renaissance forms.

Finally, I will point out that the renaissance masters themselves disagreed -- hotly -- over the advantages of various techniques and weapons and there are significant disagreements among modern scholars on how to interpret those works. It is therefore not surprising to me that some modern scholars believe what Mr. Clements has presented is just "wrong, wrong, wrong!" In my own review of his book I found very little I did not recognize as coming from one renaissance master or another. Some of those techniques I would present differently, but that does not make them, "wrong, wrong wrong!"

What this book does:

...Let you know that there are people out there interested in European swordsmanship (this is the biggest value of this book)
...Let you know that Renaissance fencing is not what you see on the silver screen
...Let you know that there is a list of period manuals from which these fighting styles can be learned. This list is fairly complete, but is now widely available on many Internet sites, some of which have free downloads of the manuals
...Let you know that swordsmanship is a road, not a destination, and that practice is the way to travel it
...Give you a rough (and I mean rough) overview of three weapons commonly used between the Renaissance and the age of Enlightenment: the rapier, the cut-and-thrust sword and the smallsword
...Give you a few intuitive tips on how to swing these weapons.
...Tell you to distrust anyone whose approach does not match that of this book's author, which is the only valid one.

What this book does not do:

...Provide an accurate description of the swords discussed. For instance: rapiers whose point is broader than the rest of the blade were *hunting* swords, not swords designed to deliver "tip cuts." Besides, there were not at all that common.
...Give any foundations whatsoever on the use of the rapier. No, rapier fencing is not at all like boxing. There are four guards (unmentioned), precise footwork (not described), standardized theory on timing and measure (not even touched upon), specific rules on bladework (unaddressed).
...Give any foundations on the use of the cut-and-thrust sword. For instance, replicating the illustrations of Marozzo's guards would have been a simple yet valuable task.
...Give any foundations on the use of the smallsword. We are told that this weapon is a "nasty little tool" but, in spite of the slew of smallsword manuals available in English, not even a brief synopsis of a couple historically-correct actions is given
...Give accurate information on terminology. No guard-names, accurate cut names, accurate footwork nomenclature, and frequent misspellings.

Overall, this book's main worth turns out to be letting the reader know that there are other people around the world interested in historical European swordsmanship. But even a cursory look at the rapier-fencing videos on this author's website confirms that his approach to this weapon is one of raw reflexes, aggressiveness and no historical notions whatsoever, which explains the lack of period-coherent information in this book.

First, let me say I appreciate the efforts of all who do the research and record their findings on the Western Martial Arts. I know that few of us have the resources or time to do this, so every little bit helps.

That said, I feel John Clements does almost as much damage as he does good. While his techniques can be of value and his explainations are fairly thorough, the prevailing attitude within this book is one of superiority. It is as if Mr. Clements believes his assertions are the only ones worth following. Having had the pleasure of attending workshops by various other Western Martial artists and scholars, I am always impressed with their openess that this is a continually expanding and growing rediscovery of the "lost" arts. Some of them freely admit that what they write today may be reinterpreted by them tomorrow, and that others may have different views. I finished off Mr. Clements book feeling that you were either with him or against him. Unfortunately, because I also partake in stage combat and reenactments, I felt that I was automatically in the "against him" camp. He seemed to feel his was the best or only take on these techniques.

Those interested in pursuing the Western Martial Arts can certainly take some useful information from here, but read it carefully. Note what some of the other reviewers have said about innaccuracies. Read works by other authors. And best of all, attend some of the WMA symposiums and conferences which take place through the country

I have been practicing rapier for about two years and I must say that there is not much in this book that you wouldn't learn in a day or even half day. Thats because there are no real techniques from the old manuals, just Clement's intuitive ideas. And even these are wrong in many instances.

For example when Clements said that there must have been a lot of skipping and hopping in Renaissance rapier fighting he proves that he hasn't even read the English version of Di Grassi, who says "above all, do not skip or leap but keep one foot always firm and steadfast." That's right there in one of the first pages of one of the most basic of the old manuals. And mistakes of this kind are as glaring as the omissions of the basics in Renaissance Swordsmanship. I believe Clements had not even read a single manual when he wrote this book, perhaps knowing that nobody else had either.

I gave this book two stars because of how it's laid out and because of the cool graphics of the illustrations. But apart from that, there's not very much to learn from it. I now live in Australia so I don't get into the politics in the USA, only, I get the sense that a lot of the positive reviews here are by Clement's acolytes and the negative ones by everyone else.

While this book may have been useful when it first came out (given the dearth of easily available material on Renaissance swordplay at the time), this book has since slid to "scrap heap" status. Clements' theories and conclusions are sketchy at best, and play fast and loose with scholarly research and real-world study of the topic at hand.

Given the amount of research being done in the Western Martial Arts community, and the ever increasing translations of ACTUAL renaissance rapier manuals (which, despite what some contend, actually contain detailed *instructions* along with the illustrations), there is really no reason or excuse for Clements' shoddy work. Real scholarship is out there on how swordplay was done during the Renaissance - translations of Capo Ferro, Fabris, Giganti, Marozzo, etc. - that give a clearer picture than Clements' distorted lens. Likewise, there are now better researched, more comprehensive, and less ego-invested manuals out there for the beginner.

Anyone who REALLY wants an accurate view of Renaissance Swordsmanship can find far better resources than this work. Do yourself a favor and Google the topic -- you'll discover there are better options out there than this piece of dross.

Many here, including the author of this book, are of the impression that sport fencers, live-action role-players and theatrical fencers will dislike this book, while "true fighters" will. And then they proceed to equate the men who wrote the original manuals 400 years ago with "true fighters." This is pure nonsense.

Fact: I have been in the historical European martial arts community for over ten years, and the majority of individuals who dislike this book have no ties whatsoever with sport-fencing, live-action roleplay organizations or the theater.

Fact: The men who wrote the historical fencing manuals wrote precisely that: *fencing* manuals. Yes, there was form, like there is in any martial art; form is not just for sporstmen "far removed from martial intent." Form does follow function in martial arts: the more effective the art, the more precise and scientific the form.

Fact: The men who wrote the historical fencing manuals wrote of precise guards, rules on tempo and measure, subtle engagements, conservative footwork... all of which (curiously enough) *WAS* meant to make one win fights! Otherwise instead of large books they would have created one-sheet leaflets just saying "be quick, stay alive, kill your opponent and good luck to you."

Fact: This book gives NOTHING of these techniques, not even the foundations. If the historical fencing masters were "true fighters" why not address their preferred forms, guards, notions of timing and measure, etc? So they were "true fighters" but we can feel free to disregard their consistent instruction in favor of just... "being true fighters?" I don't get it.

Fact: I have yet to see a good rapier teacher come out of the organization to which the author of this book belongs. Sure, you may get the odd brutal "fighter" who does not mind giving and receiving bruises (bear in mind that a bruise with a sharp sword would count as a deep wound, so much for "realism"). But no rapier teacher, almost ten years after the publication of this book.

I am not saying that this book should not be bought. It is part of the revival of historical martial arts, but its value is more as an anecdote on some modern philosophies of "the fight" than as a set of usable lessons.

I bought this book after I attended some rapier seminars around the USA. I was hoping to get some further insights into the techniques I had learned about, but to my disappointment not even the basics are mentioned by Clements. I mean, not even the four hand positions... that basic! Also no explanation of the engagement, the disengage, time and measure... nothing.

Clements comes across as a modern person writing about a weapon he is unfamiliar with and that he uses as he would use a baseball bat or a sharp stick. There may be some sound streetsmart advice for a casual practitioner, but little or no historical information. Also did not appreciate the many digs at the SCA, although I don't belong, and theatrical fencers, which I am not one. Save your money and go to a seminar, you'll learn a lot more.

I have bought this book after reading Capo Ferro for almost a year. What a let-down. It makes me wonder if the person who wrote it had taken the time to even look at the illustrations of a manual like Capo Ferro (or Fabris, or any of the great rapier masters). I understand that when he wrote Renaissance Swordsmanship many of these books were not available in English, so I can forgive his not knowing the texts.

But now that they are, this book's value is extremely limited. Clements proceeds to tell you (again and again) that the rapier was used in an age when swords settled real disputes often with deadly results. OK. But how they were used, precious little is given, including (sadly) the very basics. Instead of techniques, Clements promotes a very anti-historical jockish spirit that flies in the face of the deadly aesthetics of these old martial arts. And the whole is peppered with very ungenerous remarks about people who approach period fencing from another starting-point, such as theatre, the SCA or sport fencing.

So, between the lack of information, the many serious mistakes (many of which have been pointed out by other reviewers) and the bad vibes against other communities, this book is not something I plan to read again, and that I somewhat regret buying.