Not for me but rather I want to introduce you to yourself as I see you.
I feel pretty positive there are 100 goblins in your mind telling you that you aren’t good enough, that your work is bad, that you don’t fence well enough, that you are an imposter in a tradition to which you do not belong.
Consider me the final goblin and I’m here to tell you who you really are.
You struggle, you strive, you suffer… and why? There are traditions of combat, combat with swords. They were at once beautiful but terrible and many of them were lost.
Against all odds and in defiance of the world around you, you chose to become part of these traditions. Your actions and your work restores them, preserves them, resurrects them from their paper graves to give them new light realized in the art of human beings again.
Every day, someone in this world, without knowing it, produces the best of their tradition for the day in that moment: a moment the dead masters would cherish because their voice speaks through you as part of a living story.
When you fence you become an artist and an alchemist of violence; that which was meant for destruction and killing you transmute into beauty, fellowship, knowledge, skill.
The early goblins will tell you that you don’t belong here… Listen to me, your final goblin, you are a part of your tradition and its history.
The work you do today allows it to live, to breathe, to grow. You belong here, you are part of the history of the tradition, and when you are long dead those who follow you may well look back at your work and nod, “Were it not for this person, we would be less.”
The tradition is not the sole property of the perfect, it is for those who show up.
At the Sacramento Sword School we offer True School Destreza examinations for rank and thus far we have tested Scholars at Arms and Instructors at Arms. The prerequisite to the practical test is a written examination scored by the maestri of the school. In the interest of transparency and in an effort to provide others interested in the tradition insight into what we do I am sharing the Jul 11, 2019 written exams here.
The Scholars exams are noticeably easier than the Instructors exams and are also graded more leniently.
How we Grade
Each questions is worth 10 points for a total of 100 points. The maestri will discuss scoring of questions to ensure normalization but each grading maestro assigns a final score per question based on their own judgment. The formal grade for the exam is an average of the maestri’s assigned scores. This exam does not count as part of the score for the practical examination.
The Exams
SCHOLAR’S EXAM 1
Questions
How many counts are there in the salute practiced by the Sacramento Sword School?
Name one historical author in the Spanish True School tradition.
How many simple attacks are practiced in the Spanish True School?
Of how many movements is a half reverse (or a half cut) composed?
Name one of the three universal defenses.
Which direction does the transverse step take?
What is the difference between a dispositive and an executive movement?
Name the fastest attack according to the Spanish True School and justify your answer.
Explain the purpose of a Movement of Increase and briefly describe the execution of this action.
If the adversary offers you a dispositive movement, name the universal defense you might use in that tempo and justify your answer.
SCHOLAR’S EXAM 2
Questions
Where must the eyes be directed during the salute?
Name one historical author in the Spanish True School tradition.
How many universal defenses are there in the Spanish True School?
Of how many movements is a thrust composed?
Name the slowest simple attack (or simple attacks) in the Spanish True School and justify your answer.
What is the orientation of the hand while in the right angle posture?
What are the three tempos used in the Spanish True School?
Describe the difference between a glide and a thrust by detachment.
What is the imaginary line on the ground between two fencers called in the Spanish True School?
Define the atajo and describe how it should change when moving closer to the adversary.
SCHOLAR’S EXAM 3
Questions
Before the salute begins, while in first position, describe the position of the student’s feet.
Name one historical author in the Spanish True School tradition.
How many General techniques (or Generals) are practiced in the Spanish True School?
Of how many movements is a full cut (or a full reverse) composed?
Name three different types of thrusts.
Name the fencing action which is executed when you grapple with the adversary’s hilt or sword arm.
Define an attack in the propio and provide an example.
Name the type of step which travels along a circular path with either foot.
Detail the purpose of a Movement of Increase and briefly describe the execution of this action.
If the adversary offers you a dispositive movement, name the universal defense you might use in that tempo and justify your answer.
INSTRUCTOR’S EXAM 1
Questions
How many attacks exist in the Spanish True School? Name them in order and list the minimum number of movements required for each attack.
Name three historical authors in the Spanish True School tradition.
Name the requirements for placing an atajo.
Name the timing Considerations used in the Spanish True School which may describe the timing context of an attack and provide an example of each Consideration.
Define Dispositive and Executive.
Name each of the General Techniques.
Which of the General Techniques are half circular?
Name all the movements used to compose techniques used in the Spanish True School.
In order to safely execute a General technique without personal injury, name the critical item the student must observe in practice and explain why this is true.
Define a Medio generally, and in your own words name and describe the three Medios which are used as a guide for setting distance in the Spanish True School.
INSTRUCTOR’S EXAM 2
Questions
How many General Techniques exist in the Spanish True School? Name, describe them, and explain the difference between a formal General and an adapted General.
Name three historical authors in the Spanish True School tradition.
List the universal defenses in order, justify your order, discuss the distance at which each defense is most appropriate, and name two false defenses.
When a thrust is delivered with a transverse step, where should the front foot be pointed?
When an atajo is placed explain how changing the interior angle changes the practical effects of the atajo and provide two realistic and useful examples.
Name the tempos used in the Spanish True School.
Name the fencing actions used to modify the strength of the engagement between two opposing swords.
Knowing the requirements to place an atajo, list three ways in which a student might break or escape the atajo by confounding these requirements.
Name all of the codified steps (i.e… footwork) used in the Spanish tradition.
Describe the stance of Right Angle posture highlighting features of the stance which are required for good form.
One of the elements I see as key to the success of the atajo is that we should be leading the atajo with the tip such that the point crosses over the opposing steel first.
“Arriving, then, to the perfect formation of the atajo, it should necessarily consist of three movements, violent, offline lateral [remiss] and natural: with the first the sword that should subject is placed on a superior plane to the other: with the second it is placed transversal over it: and with the other it subjects it…”
~Pacheco
That concept of pointing into the opponent’s weapon is consistent with what the Italians were doing in the late 1500s and early 1600s but it’s different from what we see today in most modern sport fencing schools which are heavily influenced by the French smallsword tradition that developed much later. The French will parry leading the movement with the blade’s strong while the point lags to maintain the point in presence (on target) by bending at the wrist in the lateral plane. That sacrifices defensive power in favor of the faster riposte. Specifically, it does not entirely close the path to target and it exposes the fencer parrying point-in-presence to a forced glide which can be done in a single movement.
French Foil from Ricardo E. Manrique’s Fencing Foil Class Work Illustrated from left to right (p. 22, 21, 19 respectively)
Note that in this image of the engagement the line to the fencers head is still partially open.
What do I mean by a forced glide?
First we need to consider a strong angle versus a weak angle.
When the tip of the parrying weapon is pointed into the threat to lead the parry it creates an inclined plane at the point of engagement. This inclined plane guides resistant and opposing force into the strong of your weapon like a slide or ramp. We might call this a ‘strong angle’ between the swords because it makes you stronger as the adversary pushes into the defense (but it also removes the point from presence meaning your riposte takes longer).
A weak angle between the swords is also an inclined plane but in this case it guides resistant and opposing force into the weak of your weapon like a slide or ramp. The weak angle keeps your point in presence but allows the adversary to change the degrees of strength easily by pressing into your weapon along the sliding surface in a direct path to the target.
A weak angle versus a strong angle
Demonstration\Exercise
By that reasoning, a forced glide is a thrust which pushes through the weak angle or engagement. It’s easy to try with a friend to get a sense of what I am talking about. If we know the requirements to form an atajo, can you form an atajo leading with the strong and keeping the point in presence? I don’t think so but we can make a study of this with friends and blades in hand.
Your friend will present the right angle but when you place the atajo your partner will push with a mixed movement lateral and forward into your weapon attempting to bring the point onto target. If you place atajo with the strong angle your partner’s blade will slide along the blade to drop into your strong but if you place the weak angle your partner’s blade slide toward your weak and the adversary becomes stronger in the bind such that your defense will collapse opposed by a single mixed movement.
If that is the demonstration it is the first evidence that the atajo is formed with the point out of presence in a very Carrancine sort of way. We can create a test, we can demonstrate it, and the results are reproducible.
What do the books say?
Is there more evidence? Yes, the authors give us good descriptions.
When he describes the atajo in detail Pacheco gives us the requirements, shows us the defensive atajo, the offensive atajo, and then the ideal atajo. The union of these gives us an infinity of possible atajos but that infinite set is bounded by the requirements. If you consider the defensive and offensive atajos as still valid extremes the ideal formation of the atajo seems to become a Medio; a virtuos middle between extremes which is mindfully chosen for best effect.
Defensive
The defensive atajo turns the point into the adversary’s weapon to cross at right angles. It is the most defensive power you can generate and is great for defeating powerful cuts from a heavier sword. The interior angle is 90 degrees.
“…and he will place atajo on the sword cutting it in right angles (as it appears in the demonstration that we put) without it being necessary to communicate too much force for the subjection, because the distance will compensate for this inadvisability: and the imagined line from the toe of his right foot, will also cut in right angles that of the diameter that had been common,…”
~Pacheco
Offensive
The offensive atajo reduces the interior angle as much as possible. That’s a judgment call so how much angle is that? If you look at the requirements, the key requirement here is that the line must be closed and parallel blades do not cross and that cannot close the line. It must be an angle greater than 0 degrees in the interior angle. We know that Pacheco also tells us the thrust that follows will be a mixed movement forward and aligning [reduction] to bring the point back into presence.
“He will have the arm completely extended, without making an angle in the sangradera, and that which he had between him and his body the least acute that he will be able to, so that the violent movement be smaller, when he executes the strike: The hand does not share any extreme of fingernails up or down, it is on edge so that straightly it can receive the strength of the arm, and communicate it, in this way to his sword, like to that sword that he should have subjected: The interior angle that will correspond to him of the swords, be as acute as is possible (given that he should not enter to occupy it with the body) because he has his movement in route, and he can immediately strike with the accidental, or at least it will be almost evident the part of that of reduction that is mixed with it…”
~Pacheco
Most Effective
In the most effective atajo the interior angle is large enough to allow you to step into it and form a conclusion:\
“The interior angle of the swords, is not of more capacity than the width of his body by the depth, so that neither for the inferiority it will be impossible for him to enter in it, nor for the excess of largeness does he quit occupying it, and the movement of conclusion is greater, and for this reason the accidental slower, and the angle that corresponds to the opponent less obtuse: The subjection is made with very intense or reserved strength; so that if the adversary’s sword were missing, making a natural or extraño movement, the extension of the strength does not make the skilled swordsman’s sword lower from that plane where he had placed the atajo, but that he can make a movement of reduction, without another being intermediate for him, or at least the violent being almost imperceptible: And lastly, that the subjected sword, like the subjecting one, does not participate much in the acute angle, with regard to that however much more it is, it will lack the resistant strength in which the agent works, and the arm coming to unite with his body, bringing nearer to the end of the lower rectitude, he will be able to resist less, and the semicircle, that the opponent makes to strike, would be less, and above all it would take from his left hand the reach of the guard that with the compass it would have given him,…”
~Pacheco
With this we have good textual evidence that the point moves first and is directed into the adversary’s weapon to cross it from above which creates the strong angle. In all these examples the point leads the movement into the crossing of the weapons creating an interior angle greater than 0 but equal to or less than 90 degrees, the hand is held fingernails inside (on edge), we obtain equal or better degrees of strength, and we subject with natural power.
Three potential atajos and all must meet the requirements
Is there evidence that a parry which doesn’t meet these requirements of atajo discussed?
Yes; in 18 contradictions and 100 conclusions we see some of this described.
We are told that there is some common action with bad blade positioning on the outside line which gives the adversary capacity to wound you.
Contradiction 7. “Taking one’s sword by the outside, a common technique and commonly used, has its foundation in a fallacy, that is to separate the sword from the good positioning, giving the adversary plenty of occassion and capacity to wound with the same stab that against him one might form, with bad or good art of defense, remaining without defense and defended.”
~Pacheco
Could this action be a parry with the point maintained on target? Maybe and we see this described in 18 Contradictions as well…
Contradiction 18. “The desvios [deflections], either with single sword or accompanied (case that there is text that approves them) not being united with an attack, or in order to choose a means of common proportion, are of notorious danger due to the power that one gives to the adversary with the methods that produce it, by means of the mixed movement, in order to form an attack with liberty of being able to execute it before they end and at the same time, without being concerned with defense, or doing it and remaining defended.”
~Pacheco
And this:
Conclusion 52. “Following the verdadera destreza and its two known and proper effects, the swordsman can defend himself and not injure, injure and defend himself and, breaking his precepts will be able to whichever procure to injure without defending himself, that are proper effects of the common destreza.”
~Pacheco
We also know that the angles between the swords matters.
Conclusion 63. “For the swordsman’s greater perfection and privation of it that the opponent can have in his techniques, it is convenient for him to open and to close the angles that in his sword are made, superior or inferior or equal; and in this way those that are considered between the two bodies, with which he will deprive the effect of the particular potential and virtue of the medio proporcionado.”
~Pacheco
Is Pacheco talking about strong angle and weak angle here as I described above? I think he is and I think the collection of evidence supports that position.
On the other hand do we have evidence of an atajo formed with the point maintained in presence? I’ve looked at Rada’s atajos and the blade shadows cast on the the circle below show the point directed into the opponent’s weapon. When you combine that with the crossing created by lowering the hilt and lifting the tip you create the strong angle. (In atajos 1-4. Atajos 5-8 create the strong angle directing the point into the atajo and then by lowering the tip and lifting the hilt. These knowingly forsake the advantage of natural power.)
Rada’s Atajo 4
I know Rada’s atajos discard some of the Carranza and Pacheco’s requirements but I haven’t seen textual evidence that the strong angle (either from above or below) is no longer correct for Rada.
I readily admit that it may have changed and that would be interesting to find out but I think it would be a mistake to cast Rada’s changes backwards into the older parts of the tradition where the requirements for an atajo seem to be well codified.
The classical dialogue that Jeronimo Sanchez de Carranza created takes place in the summer of 1569 in the house of the duke of Medina-Sidonia. The characters are making jokes, telling stories, and talking about good fencing, bad fencing, and how to teach fencing. What Carranza describes is intimately familiar to anyone who fences and by that I mean a collection of friends gather together to share fellowship and talk about swordplay with food and drinks over a friendly weekend.
450 Years of Tradition
Some of the treasured moments of my life take place in a backyard or at a kitchen table with good friends doing exactly this.
When you consider a person like Carranza you need to understand that he was not a fencing master but rather someone in search of the truth of martial arts and he strongly believed that within this truth was a process that human beings could use to grow, seek knowledge, and make the world a better place through learning and training. Any one of us, regardless of our experience or title, has the potential to be Carrancine when we strive towards the martial truth, when we seek to become better, when we work to improve the world around us.
This year is the 450th anniversary of the summer of 1569 in which La Verdadera Destreza was born. In conjunction with the Chicago Swordplay Guild the Sacramento Sword School has been planning a grand celebration hosted at the Western Martial Arts Workshop in September of 2019. I don’t want to spoil the surprises that the CSG team has in store but I will say that if you are a diestro and you love the martial traditions of Iberia, you are welcome and you will find plenty of opportunities to learn, train, and fence.
I have been in the situation where I felt I needed to challenge the conventional wisdom about a sword tradition and there are good ways and bad ways to tackle that problem.
Beware when fighting monsters that you don’t become one yourself.
First:
In my opinion, it is most effective to concentrate on the **work** instead of the **person** in the counterargument. If you have a position there’s a decent chance we want to hear it, hell, we need to hear it if the position has merit.
However, not all positions are good and we have seen plenty of half-baked nonsense in our time. Polish up your argument into its best form, have a friend read it for tone and clarity, and set it out there without assigning intention or motivations to the other researcher or the original author (unless the source definitively tells you, “By this I mean X, Y, Z…”)
Good work can be made better by critical process. I’ve been wrong and errors in my work have been fixed by others. (“There is no such thing as a transversal step backwards.” Oops. Fixed it.) It is not wonderful to be wrong, but I would rather see my stuff fixed than propagate errors.
As an aside, translation is an art. The lovely Dr. Curtis did a presentation on a single passage from Don Quixote and how the translation style changed the outcome of each piece. That’s expected. Multiple translations in different styles is a feature. I think we all want access to the different insights, tone, and flavor that each translator brings to the text. If you want to disagree with a translation it is probably about choices made. You could say, “By making this choice, the emphasis on these keys aspects is missing. Or, “This choice loses this context which I think is essential.” That’s constructive and potentially useful to the neutral observer.
Second:
Take care of yourself first. When you form a critical position, how you do that will make a lasting impression on the people reading your argument. When you use ad hominem attacks, assign nefarious intention, or imply fraud you have gone beyond academic discourse into personal grudges. At that point you’re going to see friends and allies rally to defend the character of the original researcher. Once that starts it can be very difficult, even if you are absolutely correct, to have a productive discussion.
There are ways to challenge existing work without compromising your personal reputation. Sometimes it’s absolutely necessary to do this to foster growth in the community and to correct misconceptions. Maybe that necessary conflict is being driven by you and your work. I’ll be the first to admit that doing this well isn’t easy but if you can thread that needle you’re going to be an asset the community will continue to draw upon going forward.
Consider having a friend read your argument to pull out things with loaded words like “refused”, “obviously”, “clearly”, “ignores”, “deluded”, “recklessly”, and so on. What I want as a reader is the core of your argument presented in its best form. I can make decisions about the personal motivations on my own.
For example,
I think there is real value in considering this alternative which I think better reflects X,Y,Z…
By considering how the images were chosen we can gain insight into X,Y,Z…
I think this is an error based on this <citation>. Based on that consider this alternative which allows us to…
Each of those methods helps the reader understand there is potential value in at least considering your position. By buttressing the argument with citations and avoiding loaded language you open up some space in the dialogue and you preserve and protect yourself by avoiding self-inflicted wounds.
Third:
Don’t be an authority and instead be a resource. I’ve seen multiple examples of individuals trying to be an authority (Maestro-cop to the universe) and their work collapses underneath them as their attempt to assert authority is outpaced by the increased knowledge of the growing community. Having had the benefit of watching these implosions I made a commitment to myself not to walk down the same road.
By refusing to own the tradition but rather trying to build and restore it, I permit myself the necessary space to be wrong and correct the work as I gather new evidence.
Finally:
If you have done enough research to disagree with an established interpretation, you have value whether you are right or wrong. By encouraging you to argue well, I hope to preserve your place in the community for my own selfish reasons. Critical feedback and challenging of existing work is essential to what we do. I hope you’ve got something useful and can present your work effectively.
