.png)
Humans like to categorize things, especially modern humans. One thing people categorize is the way different people fence, usually by nation or region. This can be useful, but there is much more nuance and yet universal concepts. People are different, but the human body can move only a limited number of ways after all.
Regions
In some cases, classifying martial arts by nation is flawed because those nations did not exist yet. For example, people classify German and Italian longsword, but at the time the treatises were written, Germany and Italy were not nations and were fragments of the Holy Roman Empire. As regions get smaller, it is more acceptable, such as with the Bolognese school of fencing. In other cases, it is till problematic such as in China, the "Wudang" school has nothing to do with the Wudang mountains.
Principles
Principles should be the main factor determining the difference between combat styles. People who share a language tend to think similarly, but this is obviously not true for everybody. For example, French and Italian foil fencing is mechanically very similar. The body is carried similarly and the footwork is almost identical. The difference is that the French parry-riposte and the Italians counter-attack. In regards to longsword styles, the "Germans" preferred to bind and wind while the "Italians" preferred to bait.
Techniques and stances
People associate singular techniques, guards, and stances to different regions. This labelling is somewhat acceptable because fights are short and trends can happen. For example, Hungarians were known for the use of a high stance and a downward-diagonal cut from the left. The high stance is not exclusive to them, it is seen in Bolognese sources and in George Silver, and Englishman. The cut is a basic one found in almost every cut-based fencing style. In China, the difference between Northern and Southern styles are that one supposedly kicks more, while the other punches more, but the inverse can be seen.
Weapons
Some styles are regionally labelled because of the choice of weapon. For example, British are known for the backsword, the French for smallsword, Japan for katana, and the sabre is affiliated with Central and Eastern Europe and the Middle East. This is flawed simply because various places have various swords, often introduced by other regions, and often overshadowed by the "national" weapon.
Lineages
Several methods of fencing should only be referred to by the lineage, even if there is difference between the founder and the final generation. Salvator Fabris, an Italian, was better known in the German speaking regions and from there, a lineage was formed as he taught there, notably in Denmark. Reinier Van Noort has an excellent lecture on the subject. Within La Verdadera Destreza (LVD) in Spain, there are two lines, that of Don Jeronimo Sanchez de Carranza and Don Luis Pacheco de Narvaez, who was a student of Carranza. Chinese and Japanese martial art are fairly good at these divisions.
MMA
Some styles need to be attributed to a single individual (sometimes can be a lineage) because that person mixes various styles. Girard Thibault d'Anvers, for example, mixes the Spanish system of LVD with the Dutch style, which is usually connected to Fabris as stated earlier. Other masters outright stated they learned from other styles and pick and choose to form their own such as Fiore dei Liberi, Joachim Meyer, and Vincentio Saviolo.
Marketing and othering
Some classifications of martial arts are simple marketing ploys, while others are propaganda. Most people tended to be against the "Italian" method of fencing, especially George Silver and LVD masters. In China, the original difference between internal and external martial arts was that the internal styles were Chinese, while external styles came from India through Shaolin.
Comments