Most Helpful Customer Reviews
136 of 144 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Second Thoughts, December 27, 2002
When I wrote my first review of this book I had just read the first two chapters and I was incensed at the number of mistakes they contained. I've now read the rest of the book and have received correspondence from the author. My view of the book is now a little different. Don't get me wrong, the chapters on the early history of fencing are still replete with errors. To answer some points made by other reviewers, horse armour WAS in the vicinity of 60lbs, not 450, for example, the 15th century Gothic horse armour that forms the centrepiece of the Wallace Collection weighs 66lb, 5 1/2 oz. Medieval fencing systems did rely heavily on parries with the sword. For example, Manuscript I.33, a sword and buckler (small shield) manual and the oldest extant fencing text displays parries with the blade on about 35 of its 64 plates. These far outnumber the parries made with the buckler. The reviewer who claimed that the blade was not used for parries might care to explain this manuscript and indeed all the other medieval manuscripts, because every one teaches parries with the blade, from I.33's overbinds and underbinds to Fiore Dei Liberi's incrosada's, Ringeck's absetzen etc. etc. La Destreza, the system of Spanish rapier fencing created by Don Hieronymo Carranza may not be comprehensible to Mr Cohen, but it is comprehensible to me. It is more than comprehensible to Maestro Ramon Martinez, the world's foremost expert on the system, who as Tony Wolf stated, lives in the same city as Mr Cohen. I have fenced Spanish rapier and consider it to be a suberb and most logical system. In fact Maestro Martinez and I have written a paper on the system. Too many hatchet jobs have been done on La Destreza. Carranza's contemporaries (such as George Silver) wrote in praise of his system. Credit them with some discernment. Finally and most importantly, medieval fencing systems were every bit as sophisticated as any fencing system from any period of history. The oldest fencing treatise in existence is the aforementioned MSS. I.33, referenced in "By the Sword". I don't believe that anyone can read this treatise and claim a lack of sophistication in medieval fencing. All the core principles behind modern fencing, timing, distance, line, blade sensitivity, parries, beats, binds etc. are present in this, the very oldest work there is. As an Italian fencing master I know said when he saw it, "It is being so good that I think it to be a false". He was astounded to see so much sophistication at our earliest substantive point in the fencing record. But, why should he have been astounded? Men have been fighting with swords for thousands of years. Their lives depend on them doing it well. Of course they developed good combat systems. In case Mr Cohen doesn't read medieval Latin (the language of I.33) he should have taken a look at Christian Tobler's "Secrets of German Medieval Swordsmanship". This is a translation and analysis of Sigmund Ringeck's treatise of c. 1440. I don't believe that any impartial observer could read this book and deny the subtlety and sophistication of medieval swordsmanship. In my first review my signature contained my title as editor of Spada, the world's only peer reviewed journal devoted to the history of fencing. I did this in the hope that people would read this title and recognise that here was someone who didn't make statements on this subject without being 100% sure of his facts. I'm sorry to have to embarass those people who didn't appreciate this point. So, why does this matter? Am I just being a pedant? Well, no, because Mr Cohen has essentially denied the existence of the arts that I study, both academically and physically. So I feel that my criticisms are justified. Saying, "hang on, the subject that I've devoted my life to studying does exist" is hardly pedantry. The level of scholarship in the first two chapters of "By the Sword" is simply not acceptable given current knowledge on the subject. However... That's the first two chapters and there are a lot more than two chapters. As is my wont, I stuck with the book and found that it improved dramatically. Once the author is on topics about which he is more familiar (basically once fencing becomes recognisably modern)the book improves dramatically. I enjoyed it and I learned a lot about a sport I've been involved with for decades. I hope that people read the book and become enthusiastic about fencing. I also hope they read this review and look more deeply into the rich history of fencing. I hope publishers realise the deep interest the public has in swordsmanship and I also hope that future authors make use of the easily available material on historical fencing. There is a lot more to "By the Sword" than the early history of the art, but that's what I'm primarily interested in, hence the fact that it still only gets two stars. However, it deserves praise for what it does well, praise that it didn't get in my first review. At the time I wrote that I had yet to read a part of the book that deserved any praise. Hence this second review. I still have mixed feelings about "By the Sword". Like the little girl in the rhyme, when it's good it's very, very good and when it's bad, it's horrid. Sincerely
Stephen Hand
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
177 of 192 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Full of mistakes, November 17, 2002
I am surprised by the extreme number of basic factual errors in this book. In a single reading of the first two chapters I identified numerous errors including the following, 1)"A horse's armor could weigh up to 450 pounds" - more like 60
2)"parries were not attempted" - the world's oldest fencing manual (Mss I.33 c.1300 - which the author refers to) is full of parries.
3)"the use of heavy armor and heavy weapons allowed only simple movements, forcing contestants to concentrate on one blow at a time, so that complicated phrases were impossible." - complicated fencing phrases are described in medieval fencing manuals, including those referenced by the author.
4)"Up until the start of the sixteenth century there were few solid principles of how best to fight with swords. Masters, mainly army veterans, passed on a hodgepodge of techniques" - There are approximately 50 medieval fencing manuals, all of which describe advanced fencing systems that conform to the same fundamental principles of timing, distance and line that underly modern fencing.
5)"Johannes Lecktuchner, a famous master at Nuremburg. Lektuchner's treatise is full of hints about feints, secret thrusts, and surprise parries." - the man's name was Liechtenauer and he described an incredibly subtle and sophisticated system that dominated central Europe for 250 years. The system is described in exquisite detail in Christian Tobler's excellent book "Secrets of German Medieval Swordsmanship".
6)Of Talhoffer's treatise "it is as much a manual for survival as a book about fencing." - As the word fencing is derived from the word defence, this statement is tautological.
7)"Marozzo was the first to establish a regular system. Parrying had not been invented:" - despite being illustrated ad nauseum in treatises over 200 years earlier, treatises which the author writes about? Nobody thought to put his sword in the way of the other chap's attack? Honestly, what does the author take his ancestors for?
8)Carranza "in 1582 published his country's earliest known treatise on fencing... The book, dedicated to his king, Philip II, propounds a thesis so abstruse as to almost to defy understanding." - there are five earlier Spanish works and there are modern practitioners who fence using Carranza's system. The system is extremely practical and was acknowledged as such by authors like Silver (who the author referred to).
9)On Thibault's treatise "It was also, like Carranza's textbooks, quite unusable" - which apart from being wrong is just plain rude.
10)"Henry VIII invited the best-known teachers in the country to join a new, royally sanctioned academy." No actually, he granted them letters of patent, a quite different thing.
11)There is no evidence that Jeronimo was Rocco Bonetti's son. 12)Austin Bagger was not an English master.
13)Toby Silver was George Silver's brother, not his son.
14)There is no evidence to suggest that the English fencer Cheese murdered the Italian Jeronimo in cold blood. The only evidence we have of the encounter describes the events quite differently. These are a few errors that could be addressed briefly. There are far more. I'm sorry to have to be so harsh. While it upsets me to have to give such a bad review to a fencing book, it would upset me more if people bought it and believed what they read in it. Yours Sincerely
Stephen Hand
Editor, SPADA,
The Journal of Historical Fencing
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
14 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Beware the pedants - they are often wrong, February 16, 2007
This review is from: By the Sword: A History of Gladiators, Musketeers, Samurai, Swashbucklers, and Olympic Champions (Modern Library Paperbacks) (Paperback)
I am the author's wife and I'm posting his review below...
Beware the pedants - they are often wrong
It is some time since I looked at the reviews of my book, and I am very grateful for the appreciative ones. However, there seems to be a feeling that the book is littered with errors. Not so. In so long a text,over 500 pages, a few were bound to creep in, but so far I have had to correct less than a dozen, all of them minor - and that includes errors pointed out to me in letters I have received from medieval historians and other specialists.A revised edition in the summer of 2008 will bring the whole story of fencing up to date, and have every error I have been informed about corrected.
One continuing charge is that I overrate Errol Flynn as a fencer and underrate Tyrone Power. Well, here I stick to my guns (or foils). My own coach, the supreme Hollywood swordmaster Bob Anderson (as detailed in the book), trained Flynn, and though Flynn was no great technician he was such a gifted sportsman (tennis champion, Olympic boxing try-out, you name it) that his fencing was remarkably convincing. Power, on the other hand, was overweight when making his so-called great Zorro film; in the key scene, he is often unbalanced, ill-coordinated and flat-footed. I say this not as someone out to 'get' Power, but simply as an international fencer of many years who knows sloppy fencing when he sees it. As for Basil Rathbone, he was much better, but still no more than an adequate club fencer - as many contemporaries attest. If someone tells you differently just don't believe them.
- Richard Cohen
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
