Since there are no other threads here, I'll start this off.
I was just wondering what the opinions were of the other historical masters other than Capo Ferro.
Personally, I dislike the later period masters for one main reason, linear foot work. Now, I could be wrong in this but it seems that Capo Ferro was all about linear footwork and nothing of the round. I like to circle a bit when in a bout, trying to get a good posission to attack. But that's just me.
What's everyone elses thoughts?
Good start!
You're right in that the Italian masters of the 17th century all prioritise linear footwork (though include stepping off the line with techniques such as the scanso della vita, etc.). As Capo Ferro puts it (Some Terms of Fencing, 10)
"Because your adversary could easily succeed in gaining the sword against you from the inside by circling, in such case you will immediately disengage your sword through to the outside, carrying your left leg followed by your right diagonally, toward the right side of your adversary, putting the point of your sword in a straight line which is pointed at the enemy's right shoulder, and he coming from outside in order to gain it anew, in that coming you will disengage under his blade, and will strike him with a thrust in quarta, advancing your right leg with an extraordinary pace."
So, people were circling in Italy too, it was just not considered profitable. The shortest distance between your point and your opponent's face is a straight line, after all.
For a circling style, look to the Spanish rapier masters (Narvaez, for instance), who built an entire system on the idea of walking around in circles; you might also enjoy Vincentio Saviolo's His Practice (1595), which describes a style that includes a lot of circling and avoidances off the line. There is a club in England devoted to Saviolo: have a look at
http://the1595.com/
All of these styles work; the main advantage of the mainstream Italian material is that we have lots of sources, all with slightly different takes, and so can build up a comprehensive picture of the Art more easily, and place it in a developmental line between the earlier Bolognese material, and the later stuff, all the way up to classical fencing.
So, in short, we like lots of other historical masters. Most of them in fact.
Yours
GW
I think "circular" was the wrong choice. More like "angular. Coming in at angles rather than walking in circles. I know Di Grassi advocates that, though I unsure if Capo Ferro does. Couldn't tell from your book.