Jump to content

Talk:Fiore dei Liberi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fiore and Liechtenauer

[edit]

I am sorry, but I know of no evidence that Fiore was Liechtenauer's student. A superficial similarity of their fencing style is not a conclusive argument, they may, after all, have studied by a related set of masters without having come in direct contact. As far as terminology and organization of their techniques is concerned, there are few similarities. If you want to refer to the opinion that Fiore was Lichtenauer's student, you'd need to cite somebody who suggested that. dab (ᛏ) 08:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The similarities are more than just "superficial". In addition, in order to make Fiore work properly, you have to use cuts and other techniques not found in his manual (ones that only come from German manuals). This is even more apparent when you read through Vadi (who is basically a rehash of Fiore); his coloring of the long and short edges makes the necesity of such cuts obvious. There is also linguistic and other evidence that I could get into. However, I'm not prepared to defend this point adequately at this time, so I'll let your edit stand. (As for citing someone, writing a book on the topic is one of my long-term goals.) Jaerom Darkwind (Talk) 05:28, 18 November 2005 (MST)
I don't think we're in disagreement there. My point is just that similarity in technique is not sufficient proof. Identical problems will lead to identical solutions. Convincing evidence would be related to terminology. The terminology is strikingly different. There is the 'porta ferra', which is apparently a pre-Liechtenauer term and is precisely not part of Liechtenauer's system of guards. The remaining terminology of Liechtenauer's is not reflected in Italian. Liechtenauer has Romanic terms, duplieren and mutieren which are apparently influenced by his Italian sources, and yet I don't imagine Liechtenauer as Fiore's student because of that. dab (ᛏ) 13:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Similarity in technique will never be sufficient proof. We have to keep in mind the difference between correlations and assoications. The only proof will be a historical document clearly stating that that Fiore was a student of Liechtenauer.Ranp 22:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I propose removing the references to German authors from the following passage: "Fiore's teachings heavily influenced all of the Italian masters who came after him, most notably Filippo Vadi, as well as certain of the later-period German masters, including Joachim Meyer and Ludwig von Eyb. There is some evidence to suggest that Johanes ditto Suveno was the German grand master Johannes Liechtenauer,[12][13][14] which would both explain this influence and bring Fiore's tradition into the larger body of the German school of swordsmanship."

What evidence is provided for the claim that Fiore 'heavily influenced' Joachim Meyer (whose first book in 1560 was written at least 150 years after Fiore)? Also, apart from being Germans named John in the 14th century, what is the evidence that Johannes Liechtenauer was Johanes Suveno? It is an interesting speculation that has been raised in many articles and forum posts for years, but without clearer primary source evidence such speculation is really not appropriate in an encyclopedic entry such as this. I'll wait and see if another contributor can provide some evidence for either of these claims in the next few days before editing the entry accordingly. HEMA Gaukler (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I foreshadowed on the discussion page here, I've edited this entry to tone down the assertions that Fiore 'heavily' influenced later German masters or that he was a student of Liechtenauer. I've kept the speculation in, but labelled it as such. Should compelling evidence that Fiore studied under Johannes Liechtenauer come to light, the article can, of course, be amended accordingly. HEMA Gaukler (talk) 10:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence for a Liechtenauer connection is presented in the references. Even though it's far from universally accepted, the theory is common among researchers and worth a mention. My research has lead me down other paths, and I personally believe that any connection between Fiore and Liechtenauer is the result of a common origin much earlier in history, but this article and this encyclopedia isn't about my opinions (or yours). Feel free to dig up some sources that disprove a Liechtenauer connection (ideally print sources, since Wikipedia doesn't like using electronic references). And I've been trying to resist saying this, but stating that the only evidence is that "they were both named John in the 14th century" is a straw man that you should be ashamed of.
That said, I agree with you that some of the content is worded too strongly and scaled it back accordingly. I have no idea what similarities people see between Meyer and Fiore (other than using the Segno), and have removed that reference pending a credible source to cite. But changing the name from Johannes to Giovanni is misleading and downright false. Scans of the Pisani-Dossi MS are available freely online, so feel free to download them and look at the text. It clearly says "Johane", not "Giovanni". Fiore's most notable master was a German, or at least possessed a German name. Michael Chidester (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning here is not sound. In the process of academic debate; it is not up to the person asking for the evidence to have to disprove the theory (that is the logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance or demanding evidence of a negative, which is silly). In logical discourse the onus is actually on the persons putting forth a theory to provide the evidence for it. Otherwise, I could state in a Wiki entry that the Giant Flying Spagetti Monster (GFSM) is real and flies across the sky every midday, but he is invisible to everyone but me - so prove the GFSM doesnt exist, Michael. You cannot, of course, and in logical debate the burden of proof is on me to prove the GFSM exists and does the things I claim.
Likewise, in an encyclopedic entry the onus is not on me to provide sources that John Liechtenauer was not Fiores teacher (the logical fallacy of demanding I prove a negative) - the burden of proof lies entirely with anyone who claims a high probability that Liechtenauer was, infact, Fiores teacher. You were absolutely right when you said this article is not the place for our opinions - but nor is it the place for our speculations, unless there is fairly compelling evidence for them beyond the circumstantial. I have read the various theories on the possible connection, based on things like region names, ceremonies, bishoprics and various other facts - but these are highly tenuous and it remains that the main argument for Johane Suvenus = Johannes Liechtenauer is the fact Fiore had a German master named John (I wont quibble over Johane/Giovanni - that was copied and pasted from another source, but we agree they are variations of the same, right?) around the time of Liechtenauer. As I said earlier, its an interesting speculation, might be true, but it requires more proof before it is enshrined in a encyclopedic article. HEMA Gaukler (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Argument from ignorance? I have already cited three works supporting my position (that some researchers believe Fiore is associated with Liechtenauer and the German tradition). There are others that I might have pointed out as well, such as Sydney Anglo's book and the bio of Fiore dei Liberi hosted by the Chicago Swordplay Guild. You have no evidence in favor of yours, and seem to be arguing from the position that the cited sources don't convince you personally (which is, of course, irrelevant to their validity). Furthermore, Johane vs. Giovanni is not immaterial to this discussion, for Johannes is certainly a German master, while Giovanni would be an Italian. Given that Fiore's German influence is very much at the heart of this, noting that his master had a German name is extremely significant and leads to different possibilities for what Suueno actually abbreviates. Michael Chidester (talk) 16:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A book - reference?

[edit]

I have a copy of "Teaching & Interpreting Historical Swordsmanship", edited by Brian R. Price, my teacher of the art. I haven't dove into it yet, but do you think it would help any of the articles relating to this topic? Colonel Marksman 18:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

"Knights of the Wild Rose - Fiore de Liberi's Flos Duellatorum" is a dead link. I'll remove it in a week or so unless anyone can find it's new home and fix it. The Knights of the Wild Rose also appear to be dead, as they can not be found anywhere online anymore.

Also,what is up with Schola Gladitoria and Schola St. George trying to outdo each other's external links... bold... "The Mighty" ....I'm afraid if this silliness doesn't end that all links to training wil be tossed. Please folks.... just list them without any flourish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Master at Arms (talk • contribs) 23:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Knights of the Wild Rose is unfortunately defunct, along with their hosting of the Pissani-Dossi literal translation. Some other places are considering hosting it, which can be added later. For now though, the Wild Rose folks are not there to be linked to, so I have removed the links. 38.98.155.132 21:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sette Spade?

[edit]

Would anyone be terribly upset if we lost the Sette Spada section altogether? It really doesn't seem to fit into the article anymore. Alternately, how should it be altered to be fit for the article again? Michael Chidester 100419OCT2008 (UTC)

Here's the text of the section. I might put it back if I can make it useful. Michael Chidester (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sette Spade

[edit]

The best known image from the Flos Duellatorum is the sette spade (seven swords) diagram at the beginning of the longsword section (fol. 17A), reminiscent of the first image of the Codex Wallerstein. It is a figure of a man, divided by seven swords centered on the body, representing the poste or guard positions. This is surrounded by four animals, representing the main virtues of a fencer:

  • on top, the lynx, holding a compass represents prudentia:
    Meio de mi'louo ceruino non uede creatura / E aquello meto sempre a sesto e mesura.
    "No other creature is able to look so clearly as me, the lynx / and by this I ever I ever reckon by compass and measure"
  • to the left, the tiger holding an arrow represents celeritas
    Yo tigro tanto son presto a corer e uoltare / Che la sagita del cello non me po auancare.
    "I am the tiger, I am very quick to run and turn / That the arrow in the sky cannot approach me."
  • to the right, the lion holding a heart represents audatia
    Piu de mi lione non porta cor ardito / Pero de bataia faço a zaschaduno inuito
    "None bears a more ardent heart than me, a lion / And I challenge anyone to battle."
  • on the bottom, the elephant, carrying a tower, represents fortitudo:
    Ellefant son e uno castello ho per cargho / E non me inçenochio ni perdo uargho.
    "I am the elephant and I have a castle for a burden / And never do I kneel down nor do I lose my true place."
[edit]

The list of external links needs looking at and extreme pruning. The list of translations is okay, I suppose (long-term, it might be better to sunder the article into Fiore dei Liberi and Fior di Battaglia, but that's a different discussion). It looks sloppy to me, but maybe that's just because there's no uniform description style. I'll look at that and fix it if I can.

The list of articles is redundant, as they're all listed in the references section, where they belong.

The list of schools, while well-intentioned I'm sure, is completely out of place--it smacks of pure self-promotion. There's an argument to be made that these are educational resources or relevant to the article. Curious, I looked up two other influential masters--Johannes Liechtenauer and Bruce Lee--and found that neither one includes even a partial list of the (many) contemporary schools based on their teachings. I've interacted with many of the listed groups and have nothing against any of them, but if they're big enough to be worth a mention on Wikipedia they should get their own articles. Linking them here is inappropriate.

I'm going to can both of the latter sections next week unless someone offers a good defense of them. Michael Chidester (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Michael Chidester (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fiore dei Liberi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Fiore dei Liberi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image used

[edit]

I feel like the current image is only used because HEMA sites have a weird obsession with face-shots of historic manuscripts. Whenever Wikipedia tends to have an image for a historic figure, it's a full body shot. Here's a pretty high-res crop of an image generally assumed to be of Fiore himself, and here's another crop of the image to be more of a three-quarters ratio.--Amelia-the-comic-geek (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to assume that that's Fiore. It could easily be Niccol d'Este or some random dude. ~ Michael Chidester (Contact) 16:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(I agree the current picture is probably bullshit, tho.) ~ Michael Chidester (Contact) 18:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fiore_dei_Liberi&oldid=1207230849"