> Avoidance of movement directly toward the opponent
> Use of an initial distance that is as close as possible, while remaining out of reach
> Extension of the sword arm in a straight line from the shoulder to obtain maximum reach
Modern boxing shares a lot of principles with destreza, including the ones I quoted above. Some of the similarities are almost uncanny, particularly when you compare it with the Soviet school of boxing.
I'm sure most martial arts do! Jujitsu / judo etc emphasise distancing.
To that end, you keep your feet closer together than you naively might think. Helps you to move fast to maintain the right distance while keeping balance. About shoulder width is suggested. Too wide and you're vulnerable to leg sweeps and takedowns.
I attended some lessons on Thibault's Destreza [0] and it was fascinating. Thibault seems to be one of the more approachable Destreza systems.
Most of texts on Destreza are near unreadable. This had lead to a theory that some Destreza texts are cover texts for occult practices or alchemical recipes. Such claims were remarked on both during the time the texts were published and in the present day.
I did a tiny bit of HEMA - historical european martial arts. Basically, fencing with longswords, and other European stuff.
Those writings were also... very difficult to read. One reason was that the teachers wanted you to learn from them, not from copies of their texts. The texts alone weren't meant to teach you; they're meant to be somewhat inscrutable.
Yeah, strong agree. Some of the early German sources are intentionally obscured as secret knowledge:
Liechtenauer whose Zettel is often seen as the beginning of the German tradition despite Liechtenauer saying he learned it from others.
"Because the art belongs to princes and lords, knights and squires, and they should know and learn this art, he has written of this art in hidden and secret words, so that not everyone will grasp and understand it, as you will find described below. And he has done this on account of frivolous fight masters who mistake the art as trivial, so that such masters will not make his art common or open with people who do not hold the art in respect as is its due." [0]
The German is: "verborgen vnd verdackten wortten" which Google translates as "hidden and covered words".
Consult La Verdadera Destreza if you want a high ratio of theory to pragmatism with your swordplay; consult Jeet Kune Do's channeling of Nadi et.al. for the opposite ratio.
Salvator Fabris also takes the pragmatic position, writing in his preface:
"We have written in our mother tongue, Italian, dispensing with flowers of rhetoric and elegance of style, not thinking shame to acknowledge our little learning, or, following the example of a very famous captain of our age, to declare that in our youth we could not wield both the sword and the pen. [...] We have shunned the use of geometrical terms, although swordsmanship has its foundations more in geometry than in any other science. Simply and as naturally as possible we have tried to bring the art within the capacity of all. "
> [The sword fighting technique's] precepts are based on reason, geometry, and tied to intellectual, philosophical, and moral ideals, incorporating various aspects of a well-rounded Renaissance humanist education, with a special focus on the writings of classical authors such as Aristotle, Euclid, and Plato.
Is there a specific term for the way people like to romanticize martial arts? I don't mean this to be dismissive of "Destreza" - I've only just learned of it - but I find it to be a common theme that people associate all sorts of strange fantasies around how best to hurt other humans. From the way people compare martial arts styles and the practitioners thereof, to the way guns are talked about, it seems a distinct phenomenon.
Do you mean romanticising contemporary martial arts, or historical ones?
I think historical martial arts reflect the values of the time, and often those values don't line up with ours. Similarly, gun enthusiasts reflect the values of their culture and subculture, which are often different from HN kinda-Californian-but-not-really culture. If you live in a culture that emphasises glory, raises its children to glorify famous warriors, gains significant material advantage from military power, and throws military parades for significant victories...why wouldn't you want to know how best to hurt other humans? Why wouldn't you see the most lauded figures in your society as romantic?
I don't think it is just martial arts. Any sort of knowledge or product being sold attempts to associate itself to the high status ideas at that moment in time. You are trying to sell a book on swordmanship to the sort of people with money and time to buy and read books. You want to explain to them why this book is better than other books they could buy.
* "Tang! The space-age drink"
* Better Living Through Chemistry cookbooks
* "Quantum Diet Supplements"
* Infinix will also feature an aircraft-grade aluminium finish
* Pants that "mimics the surface of a lotus leaf using nanotechnology"
* "The Czinger 21C is probably one of the most technologically advanced cars. Not only for what it is but, rather, from how it was made – with the help of A.I."
* Firewalls that use ML to detect threats where ML is usually a simple pattern match
* The defensive driving techniques in this course are based on recent advances in science of the human brain...
The martial aspect enters into it because violence is often view as a low-status activity. This is because violence requires working with your hands, which the middle classes in most societies sees as beneath their social standing. For example see how middle class families in the US value a college education vs education in a trade school. This isn't just a US phenomena. The middle and upper classes value a humanist (liberal arts) education over trades or crafts. A fencing master selling a book on fencing is going to want to convince these people that the book isn't about hurting people but about self-improvement and having a well rounded humanist education based on universal humanist principles. See also how Summer camps, Karate schools and various ofter sports market themselves as teaching "self-discipline" and "confidence".
Except that fencing was originally practiced by the educated elite, and still has close cultural association with that class of society (even though its practice has become more democratized). Learning to fence was traditionally very much part of an upper-class education.
Also, fencing is about much more than hurting people: the very word comes from the word "defense" which doesn't necessarily require hurting somebody else.
In the times and places we are discussing not everyone who was elite was educated and not everyone who was educated was elite. Nor was fencing education universal among the educated elites. Much like today, you can go to an elite school and not learn to fence and you do need to have an elite education to learn to fence. That doesn't mean fencing isn't an activity which is associated with high status, it is, I agree with you, but much like in today's world Polo is an activity associated with high status, but not everyone from elite circles does Polo.
> Learning to fence was traditionally very much part of an upper-class education.
I think this is more true about the 18-19th century than the 16th. As what constitutes an upper-class education was still developing at this point and often scholars just paid professors to teach them a subject they thought would be valuable.
Thibault, a Destreza master (1574–1629), was a wool merchant i.e., middle-class not elite. He learned Destreza while traveling. It was only after he had achieved fame and glory from his Destreza that he went to university and studied Mathematics. It is unknown how much formal education he had before this.
Fencing texts after the invention of printing press start looking more and more like instructional on how to teach yourself to fence. This is because there is a Middle Class which is buying fencing books to learn to fence. Some of this is because fencing and certain other martial arts are associated with class status. Some of this is that the Middle Class as an upward mobile class is obsessed with education and demonstrations of skills associated with the mind.
Fencing schools at this time period were not always run by elites and while generally most people with money and free time attended, money and free time an elite does not make:
"As part of the public amusements for the establishment of the House of correction in 1596, (who would get a part of the entrance fees), the town council included ‘comedians, fencers and other plays or novelties, which could by seen for money’. According to Pontanus, the school was located next tot the guild room of ‘d’Eglantine’, on the top floor of the SaintMarguerite Church, which at that time served as a small meat hall. When Hooft wrote his Warenar in 1616, he named the fencing school as one of the preferred places of the ‘gilded youth’, after taverns, the dance room, the kaatsbaan (sort of ballgame - n.o.t.) and the librij’ (the city’s library in the new church)." [0]
Next to the guild house is about as middle class a location as you can get. The rich kids hang out there, but probably the kids of wealth merchants not lordlings. Aristocratic warriors like knights (although at this point we are starting to approach the end of the Knightly class as a class of warriors), generally did not attend fencing classes as they would be tutored and/or taught by family.
> Also, fencing is about much more than hurting people: the very word comes from the word "defense" which doesn't necessarily require hurting somebody else.
Defending yourself in a sword fight i.e., two people locked in a lethal struggle using edged weapons, is a situation in which most fencing techniques would involve hurting the person who is attacking you. Just because an action is defensive does not mean it is not violent. Most fencing in their period isn't wholly focused on self-defense, it is focused on the activity of fencing; which includes training to win renown in the Salle or the duel.
I teach bladed weapons in a system that takes many years. I can probably teach you in a few hours the core components. Nothing really romantic about it.
Martial Arts is the art of war, based upon the name and planet, and through proper application of violence peace can be found, provided alternatives are exhausted.
> Use of an initial distance that is as close as possible, while remaining out of reach
> Extension of the sword arm in a straight line from the shoulder to obtain maximum reach
Modern boxing shares a lot of principles with destreza, including the ones I quoted above. Some of the similarities are almost uncanny, particularly when you compare it with the Soviet school of boxing.