Meyerozzo: The influences of the Bolognese method in German Rappier

There are many reasons why I devote much of my time and my energies on what Joachim Meyer has exhibited in his treatises. But the main reason I decided to get closer to the Freifechter of Basel was the desire to learn his method of two-handed sword, and possibly the influence of the Bolognese school, which was my best reference point some years ago.
But what was my desire really born from? The answer can be found in a very popular figure in historical fencing, at least here in Italy. Of course, I am referring to Jacopo Gelli.

Over the years, with the recovery of the European martial arts, Jacopo Gelli was definitely a
landmark bibliographer on a vast number of historical facts, important battles and, most importantly, on those masters from which we inherit the respective texts now; although the quality and authenticity of his interpretations or historical thesis is not always up to par. A vision of fencing evolution typically Italo-centric, where Gelli wants to be understood as the art of the sword is mainly born in the Italian peninsula and like the other European people were only able to learn by insuperable Italian method. He as a good Tuscan, but trained at the Military Academy of Modena, yet a prey to the feelings of the Risorgimento, did not also fail to strongly criticize what happened with the selection of a sole fencing method after the Unification of Italy, which in 1882 saw a bitter confrontation, and maybe not legitimized by the bureaucracy, between the method of northern Italy, tied to Giuseppe Radaelli, and the method of southern Italy, tied to Masaniello Parise with his french influences. Such scathing criticism is exposed in his book entitled “Scherma Italiana, con accenni agli Schermidori di jieri e d’oggi“ that, once reached its fifth edition in 1932, cost him a complete censorship during the Mussolini’s government. But all this does not matter: the article wants to talk about something else.

Meyer a scholar of Marozzo?

Right in the aforementioned book, Jacopo Gelli affirms, referring to the text of Achille Marozzo
printed in 1536 in Modena, as follows:

“This treatise was interpreted and translated into German language by Joachim Meyer, in turn, the founder of the art of Germanic fencing, and favoured Marozzo’s scholar, who he was honored of the title of Master General of the art of arms of the Alemanic nation” .

Although it is quite clear that “Grundtliche Beschreibung der Freyen Ritterliche und Adeliche
Kunst des Fechtens” is not at all a translation of Marozzo’s “Opera Nova”, and as Meyer is not
the founder of the Kunst des Fechtens, whose merit is at least theoretically of Johannes Liechtenauer, Gelli does not expose the sources of this hypothetical meeting and attendance
between the two masters; also what he does not seem to be aware of is the age difference between Achille Marozzo, born in 1484 and died in 1553, and Joachim Meyer, born in 1537 and died in 1571. A difference of at least 53 years! Possible there could have been a meeting between these two great masters, but it is highly unlikely. Maybe Jacopo Gelli refers to a younger (and perhaps nephew) Achille Marozzo, mentioned by the Bolognese Lelio de’ Tedeschi in his “Raccolta delle fedi d’alcuni prencipi et signori italiani” published in Bologna in 1605? This work mentions also Sebastiano Marozzo, son of Achille Marozzo.

But the thought that Joachim Meyer came into contact with the way to fence in use in northern Italy is without a doubt reasonable. And this can be understood by two pieces of evidence:

The first evidence is based on what it is stated in 1560’s “MS A.4º.2” with a dedication to Otto von Solms: it is the first document that exposes a set of guards with evident Bolognese influences.
The second eviodence is based on what it is stated in the unfinished “Fechtbuch zu Ross und zu
Fuss” manuscript, where Meyer clearly states his method of rappier is a collectanea of various
traditions:

“Fencing with Rapier brought together from the Italians, Spanish, Neapolitans, French and Germans and whereupon whose proper foundation it stands.”

Of course, with “Italians” Meyer refers to the northern part of the peninsula: in this geographical area the Bolognese method was the most prominent, with a lot of authors of Emilia and Romagna area pledged to send their prints in other cities (see Venice) too. Undoubtedly, this is the influence of Joachim Meyer and with which he came into contact.
But how Jacopo Gelli affirms Meyer has traveled to Bologna to study with Achille Marozzo, vice
versa Meyer clearly explains how the foreign influences had crossed the boundaries of the Holy Roman Empire. This, in addition to being exposed just above in the “Fechtbuch zu Ross und zu Fuss”, is confirmed also in the “Grundtliche Beschreibung der Freyen Ritterliche und Adeliche Kunst des Fechtens”:

“As regards rapier combat, which at the present time is a very necessary and useful practice, there is no doubt that it is a newly discovered practice with the Germans and brought to us from other people. For although the thrust was permitted by our forefathers in earnest cases against the common enemy, yet not only did they not permit it in sporting practice, but they would also in no way allow it for their sworn-in soldiers or others who had come into conflict with each other, except against the common enemy, a custom that should still be observed today by honorable soldiers and by civilian Germans. Therefore rapier combat would be superfluous, were it not that thrusting, as well as many other customs that were unknown to the Germans of olden times, take root with us through interaction with foreign peoples. And since such foreign customs increase with us from day to day in many places, it has now also become more necessary not only that such customs of alien and foreign nations should be familiar and known to us, but that we should practice and adapt ourselves to these customs no less than they, as much as should be useful for necessary defence, so that when needed, we can encounter them to protect ourselves that much more better and be able to triumph.”

The Rapier in Italy

During the second half of the sixteenth century, the Italian way of fencing undoubtedly undergoes a metamorphosis due to the visionary theories of Camillo Agrippa from Milan: an eclectic engineer, architect and mathematician, a friend of Michelangelo Buonarroti, with his treatise printed in Rome in 1553 entitled “Trattato di Scientia d’Arme, con un dialogo di filosofia“ he was the undisputed author of the cut with the past that saw a fencing still tied to medieval systems so much dear to the Bolognese School that gave birth and honors to men-at-arms as Antonio Manciolino and Achille Marozzo and at the same time the undisputed method of the first half of the ‘500.

In addition, Agrippa was the “founding father” of what can be defined as a second generation of Italian authors belonging to this century, where various Masters-at-arms did not fail to take liberally from his theories paving new unexplored horizons and formulating new ideas and new blows in the following decades that allowed to characterize, and differentiate at the same time, the seventeenth century from the previous century.

The visionary approach led by Camillo Agrippa mainly consists in the reduction to only four guards because of greater predilection of the attacks led by the point of the blade and because of the postures with outstretched arm, along with a greater awareness of the biomechanics of the human body, forcing cuts to fall into disuse. These two factors will give life to that way of fencing mainly typical of the seventeenth century characterized by thrusts accompanied with the increase of the right foot and the dodge of body to circumvent the same straight line traveled by the thrusts.

Needless to say this breaking point is obvious and at the same time was not always appreciated as documented by Michel de Montaigne in his book “Journal du Voyage en Italie”, where he met the Master of the Bolognese Federico Ghisliero, that is Silvio Piccolomini, in Florence in 1581 in which he expressed his contempt for the use of “pushing the sword forward and stopping front of the the enemy” referring vaguely to an undefined “Bolognese of Venice” Master-at-arms. So much so that even the Bolognese tradition had to abandon such archaic method related to the previous century, as can be seen with the treatise of Giovanni dall’Agocchie.

A possible Bolognese influence?

Demonstrated the time difference between Meyer and Marozzo, we can still go in search of a Bolognese method possibly more contemporary with Meyer. The available treatises show that a rationalization of the same tradition is already practiced even before than Agrippa by the treatise of the Bolognese Angelo Viggiani: he wrote his work in 1550 but then printed posthumously in 1575. For example, he reduced the number of guards from 16 to only 6 + 1, the latter is a position at the moment of the withdrawing of the weapon.

The Viggiani’s set of guards show strong similarities with the guards exhibited by Meyer:

Both are based on the right foot forward only;
They still provide the use of the cut;
The nomenclature is not yet reduced to the numbering devised by Camillo Agrippa.

To demonstrate the similarities, alongside I will show the figures set out in the Viggiani’s treatise with text taken from Meyer’s rappier:

“Stand with your right foot forward, hold your hilt by your right side, extended forward, up, and out to the side such that your point or tip stands against the opponent’s face. This is also called the Ochs, because in this guard you threaten a thrust from above with your weapon, for the Ochs is essentially just the position for a thrust from above.”

“Now when you hold your weapon with the hilt as I have taught, with your arm extended up to the side, but you do not extend the blade forward toward the opponent, but away from the opponent behind you, then this is called the Oberhut for the stroke, as the other is the Oberhut for the thrust.”

“The Underhut likewise extends below in three directions, namely straight before you, and to both sides. Now the straight version is simply the end of a straight Oberhauw, as those to the sides are the end of the diagonal Zornhauw; for at the end of the Oberhauw you come with your weapon such that you extend your blade stretched out to the furthest with the point toward the ground against the opponent, and your hilt is also sunk toward the ground well in front of your bent knee, with extended arm and body leaning after it. It is seldom used as a guard or defence.”

“As you now have learnt the Underhut on the right, likewise understand the Underhut on the left, except that you always set your right foot forward. Thus you stand as I have said concerning the Wechsel in the treatise on the dusack, and you have done it correctly.”

“For this, position yourself thus: stand with your right foot forward as always, hold your weapon with your arm extended down and forward before your right knee, so that the point extends forward up against the opponent’s face. It is called the Eisenport, because in this posture you are not only well protected from your opponent’s thrusts and cuts as behind an iron door, but also you can confidently crowd upon him from here with all kinds of devices, if you use the weapon and techniques correctly in this posture, each according to the situation. You can also hold your weapon this way, and pull it toward the right and left side, or send it to the side as well as straight before you. Thus you have the Eisenport straight before you and to both sides.”

The German identity in Meyer’s Rappier

These evident similarities show how Meyer’s rappier has strong influences with an Italian method still far from the seventeenth century fencing and mainly linked with the Bolognese tradition. Undoubtedly, the thing that stands out most in the method of the Master of Basel is the presence of a guard called Eisenport, that is Iron Gate, the italian Porta di Ferro and its affinity with the Coda Longa & Stretta outside of the right knee.

Although the Eisenport appear for the first time mentioned in the HS. 3227a, in the final section focused on Andres Juden, Hans Döbringer, Jobs von der Nissen, and Nicklass Preußen and as it is described can be considered to be one (or both) of the Fiore dei Liberi‘s Iron Gates, it’s Meyer himself to affirm as this guard, never actually exhibited by the majority of teachers related to the Liechtenauer tradition (“use the Vier Leger and nothing else“), is very popular among Italian fencers:

“You will find the true Eisenport presented more fully later in the treatise on rapier combat. For since thrusting with the longsword is abolished among us Germans, this guard has also entirely fallen into disuse and been lost; however these days the Italians and other nations use it. Nowadays the term is taken as equivalent to the Schrankhut, and is used for it by the inexperienced, since they lack knowledge about the Eisenport.”

In the section of langschwert, Meyer says the Eisenport has fallen into decline due to the prohibition of the use of thrusts, so much so that he replaces in Eisenport stucken with the Schrankhut guard for the reasons explained in the description above. However, this prohibition does not apply with the rappier.

But as there are strong links with the Bolognese method, it is equally true that the non-random careful selection of the guards of the rappier system clearly shows that Meyer has taken the Liechtenauer tradition and simply adapted to the foreigner style without wanting to betray the spirit of the original German Kunst des Fechtens. In fact he refuses to grip the rappier with the index on the cross guard, being able to change from a normal grip to a thumb-grip.

Meyerozzo?

As already expressed at the beginning of this article, because I was a lover of two-handed sword of Achille Marozzo, the main reason I started to study Joachim Meyer was the pleasure to discover the Bolognese influences in his langschwert method and in case to adopt a personal hybrid style that would allow me to fight at the same time keeping in mind both Masters. Or else, to find the answers to certain questions that I asked to myself on Marozzo’s two-handed sword, such as the guards named but not explained or not shown in his treatise.
Unfortunately the dream was shattered, and paradoxically it is precisely the Meyer’s langschwert to not be editable as extremely tradition-bound to Liechtenauer. Conversely, the thing can happen with the rappier using the right changes.
Since the only regret that I have in the method of Meyer, as exposed in “Gründtliche
Beschreibung der Freyen Ritterlichen und Adelichen Kunst des Fechtens”, is the absence of rappier accompanied by buckler, which is the basic system that underpins the principles of the Bolognese method, I decided to write a sort of guideline for conversion.

The following aims to be an adaptation, and at the same time a comparison on the two systems in a way that anyone can practice Meyer’s rappier accompanied with the buckler without distorting neither Meyer nor Marozzo; or without having set aside Meyer to study and to practice Marozzo system. This conversion, extremely exemplar without the aim to study in deep the whole sidesword/rappier method, is based on Marozzo’s first assault of “Spada & Brocchiero stretto” only.

6. Meyerizing Marozzo

Cuts/Hawen

Fendente/Oberhauw

This is a vertical downward cut of right/long edge.
– The Scheidelhauw is an Oberhauw to the head.

Sgualembro/Oberhauw Schlim

This is a diagonal downward cut of right/long edge that runs through the line of Zornllini. Meyer cites for the first time in the section on rappier the words Oberhauw schlim/Fendente diagonal. Likely to have a bearing on the method Bolognese or the logical result of a diagonal cut from the top that is not loaded from the shoulder is known as the Zornhauw because of the obligation of the right foot forward.
– The Zornhauw is a sudden Oberhauw Schlim launched without hindrance in the Vor.
– The Wehrstreich is a Zornhauw which has a defensive function in the Nach with the intent to
divert the blows of the opponent. This kind of cut is very used during Abzug in Bolognese method.
– The Hüffthauw is a Zornhauw launched at the hips.

Tondo/Mittelhauw

This is a horizontal cut of right/long edge.
– The Fusshauw is a Mittelhauw launched at the height of the calf.

Ridoppio/Underhauw

A diagonal upward cut of right/long edge. Meyer states that Underhauw cuts follow the same
trajectory, from bottom to top, of Oberhauw and Zornhauw cuts.

Montante/Streichen

A vertical upward cut of false/short edge. Unfortunately Meyer cites but does not explain the Scheydlen, so I can not say it is the equivalent of the montante proposed by Marozzo. For simplicity, I will use Streichen that is a short edge cut upwards.
This kind of cut is used to divert the enemy blow too, and it is called Ausnehmen. The Ausnehmen is the most favored parry in Bolognese system. Manciolino affirms:

“Those will be able to divert the delivered blows with the false edge of the sword, at the same time they will be valorous fighters, because there is no best and strongest defense than this, allowing to defend and to hit almost in one time.”