What happens when we frame European swordsmanship techniques on an Asian martial theoretical framework? Well, you get a hybrid system. Not that there’s anything necessarily wrong with a hybrid system – the proponents of the northern Italian “scuola mista” style of fencing in the 1800’s, such as Giuseppe Radaelli, made no apology or attempt to hide the fact that they were blending French fencing elements into their method. And they created fearsome, effective fencers.

But the thing is, these masters knew they were creating a hybrid, did so intentionally, and advertised it as such. Many students of “European” swordsmanship today do not enjoy the same benefit as the students of the scuola mista. Their teachers are often giving them a method that is centrally framed on Asian martial concepts, and are themselves unaware that they are doing so. The names and techniques are founded in European manuscripts and fencing books, however, so it is kind of like putting the body of a Mercedes on the frame and engine of a Toyota and calling it a Mercedes. It’s really both and neither at the same time. Rather than taking time to learn western martial theory from traditional fencing masters alive and teaching today, they are taking training from the dojo and trying to apply it to medieval Germany and Italy.

What am I talking about? Primarily, the concepts of the “centerline” and “controlling the center,” which are related yet distinct concepts from Wing Chun (from China) and Kendo/Kenjutsu (from Japan) that are pervasive foundations and pieces of advice for HEMA/WMA teachers today. Countless youtube videos, seminars, online forum discussions, and how-to-books discuss “controlling the center” or the “centerline” as a core element, and sometimes discuss them as THE most important factor for Western swordsmanship. And, they are correct in that controlling the center can make you a fearsome, effective swordsman – it has made thousands of master swordsmen in Japan and respected martial artists like Bruce Lee. But the problem is that ZERO traditional European fencing masters, from the middle ages on, ever discussed “controlling the center” with their students.

With apologies to practitioners of kendo/kenjustu and wing chun for any errors (I have some knowledge of these systems but have never trained in them), here is how I best understand these theoretical constructs. When controlling the center, I am dominating the space between myself and my opponent, such that they are not able to effectively attack me. Junzo Sasamori also describes this as maintaining my sword point such that I am controlling the adversary’s physical center, and that the two adversaries struggle to control each other’s center. This is a combination of initiative and blade / body position. In wing chun, the centerline is the imaginary line dividing my body into right and left halves, and which acts as primary axis around and through which I perform my actions, both offensive and defensive.

These concepts are foreign to western swordsmanship, literally. In the classical era, reaching back into the baroque and even renaissance eras, the emphasis is very different. For traditional Italian and French schools, fencers are told to control the blade, tempo, and distance in order to safely attack one’s opponent as well as defend. There is never a mention in the sources or in lineages today of dominating or controlling the center. The pedagogical and theoretical emphasis on controlling blade, timing, and distance can be seen in treatises back to the time of Marozzo, down through to the classical treatises of individuals such as Renaud and Masiello. Likewise, the target and theoretical basis for hand positions and movements are based on the four lines of offense and defense, roughly synonymous with quadrants around the blade and/or quadrants on the body depending on the time period and system. That is, the body is divided into high, low, outside, and inside lines that form the basis for attack and defense, not a center or centerline principle. These theoretical bases of blade/time/distance and four lines of attack/defense are still taught by traditional fencing masters today. In Spanish rapier fencing, La Verdadera Destreza, the emphasis becomes more about controlling angles and geometry around an imaginary circle to safely attack and defend – a different approach from the French and Italian, but still one that is not focused on controlling the center or operating focused through the centerline.

When we trace western fencing roots back to the middle ages, the works left to us by the masters of that time less explicitly lay out their theoretical foundations, which are much more there for us to interpret, and I think this has provided an excuse or at least an opportunity for modern enthusiasts to lay Asian theory within their interpretations. This is easier to do the further back in time we go. Yet even here it is clear that medieval masters in Europe – those from Italy and Germany being the ones whose teaching we know the most about – did not use these concepts to frame their systems. Relatively thorough texts such as those of Filippo Vadi and Joachim Meyer as well as more sketchy and vague texts make it explicitly clear that the body was divided into distinct targets that guided the blows and thrusts and their defensive actions, definitely there is no indication of a “centerline.” And in terms of “controlling the center,” a la kendo, what we instead see is an emphasis on making attacks safely through proper use of angulation and control of the blade (very often via binding and winding, with use of accessory weapons like bucklers where appropriate to help neutralize the opponent’s weapon), and in defense we see combinations of closing lines of attack (e.g. the schutzen of MS I.33) and intercepting incoming attacks with blows of one’s own to create and advantageous situations of leverage and body position. But again there is no implicit or explicit advice to control the center.

As a consequence, I will strongly advocate that the guidelines to “control the center” and use of “centerline” be things that interpreters of European martial traditions drop. These concepts, while very useful and appropriate in Asian martial arts and certainly applicable to armed and unarmed combat in general, just don’t have a home if one is trying to faithfully interpret historical fencing treatises from Europe, and certainly are not relevant when one is lucky enough to be able to follow a living tradition of European swordsmanship, as I have been. It is to be understood that reconstructionists would incorporate these ideas, since so many of them come originally from Asian martial arts backgrounds rather than a traditional European fencing background (how many schools’ websites talk about how important their instructors’ years studying Asian martial arts are as part of their qualifications to teach longsword or rapier or whatever?). But there is no need to build from this theory, when there are increasing numbers of traditional fencing instructors around who can give you a theoretical foundation steeped in the European martial heritage (don’t believe these folks’ knowledge is applicable to early fencing systems? The evidence says no, see here). You’ll not hear traditional masters using these terms or concepts. Let’s build on that tradition as we reach further and further back in time, not do it a disservice. Otherwise, go find a good sensei to teach you kenjutsu and focus on that — which is also a fine idea.

UPDATE: I received a comment that George Silver’s “right line” demonstrates evidence that western swordsmanship includes the concept of controlling the center. This is not the case: Silver’s right line reflects maintaining the point aimed at the adversary as a defensive posture, which yes IS very common in western fencing and of course eastern as well. We see it from I.33 (where it is sometimes used) the way through 19th century dueling sword (where it is ALWAYS used). To attack safely I must neutralize that point somehow and there are diverse ways to do this — and Silver says you have to do this, yes. In fact it is the primary problem of launching an attack in classical fencing as well as rapier and smallsword because the point is virtually always held thus, in large part because it is a very effective deterrent (though of course it facilitates thrust attacks, too). And yes, Asian swordsmanship systems include menacing the target with the point, and having to deal with this problem is one component of what they discuss as controlling the center. But this is not expressed as “controlling the center” by Western fencing masters, even though some techniques for neutralizing that point would be mechanically similar to some Asian techniques (there are only so many ways to use a sword, after all). In the west we can deal with this by “closing the line” (and yes, this is a modern expression with medieval roots: “schutzen” from I.33 literally means “barring” or “shutting”), beats, expulsions, use of tempo, false attacks, or geometrical positioning (especially in the Spanish school). And THAT is how it is discussed.

So I am NOT saying there are not mechanical and technical similarities between east and west, just that the east and west frame theory differently. They talk about mechanics and technique differently and that sets up differences in application of common, universal principles. That’s why Bruce Lee advised people to take western fencing to be complete martial artists. Overall, the corpus of Western fencing tradition and literature does not tell you to “control the center,” that way of framing these associated concepts is specifically Asian. So if you want to do Western martial arts, it is best to find Western ways of approaching these concepts rather than defaulting to ways that Asian masters use, as people often do.

The contents of this post reflect my own views and opinions, and do not necessarily represent those of my masters at Martinez Academy of Arms. Any errors are fully my own, as I am still in training and have been encouraged to research to further my studies.