You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
I actually thought it was pretty silly of you as well, although I would have put it a bit more harshly. Why do any martial arts (including MANY Asian martial arts) practice with out-dated weapons?
I dunno, variation perhaps? They usually don't teach weapons until many years into training. At least the asian martial arts community (in my experience) are not under the impression that their weapons can be used on the street. Which you guys seem to be doing, again putting RMA in a mordern context, somewhat hypocritical.
Does anyone else find it rather amusing that ARMA members are now flooding onto the forum?
__________________
Ah, Steven Seagull, I bet nobody's thought of that before.
I dunno, variation perhaps? They usually don't teach weapons until many years into training. At least the asian martial arts community (in my experience) are not under the impression that their weapons can be used on the street. Which you guys seem to be doing, again putting RMA in a mordern context, somewhat hypocritical.
Indeed
Quote:
Originally Posted by N.B
Does anyone else find it rather amusing that ARMA members are now flooding onto the forum?
I dont find it amusing, per sarcasism. And I dont mind them here.
__________________ What do I know? Since I didn't post my styles or experience, I have no experience, no knowledge, no say.
That post before mine, was that for post counting? How about the one after?
Hey, my post count has the same palaverment tone as anyone elses'
Thank you for not being upset with the presence of more ARMA members. As scholars we do enjoy the opportunity to debate the validity and usefulness of the Historical European Martial Arts.
On that issue it is you that I wish to address. You said that it is silly to try and learn anything from a book. I have to take issue with this, I mean, how much school have you gone too? Books are one of the most Pedigogically correct instruments in the world. Claiming that one cannot learn (which you did not) or that it is silly (which you did) and unbeneficial (a logical conclusion but you did not say that) seems to go against the entire educational system of almost the entire world!
There was the "Traditio" comment, which is true. The lineage of the European Martial Arts was lost. Therefore all we have are the books. There are illustrations and explanations, those together with a martial mindedness do help to revive the art. Seeing that the effects of the usage as explained in the texts are the same as described, it is fairly safe to say that the Western Martial Arts community is closer to the historical/antique practitioning than ever before. So learning from the book seems to work alright, probably not the best, agreed. But it is all that we have.
I also noted what you said about "Ringen." That you would want to drop the sword first. That was responded to, and you simply disagreed. With what do you disagree? The usage of the lever being ancient? I know that is not true, I apologize. What I am getting at is that retaining the sword in "Ringen" does give you an advantage. You retain a way to do serious damage other than breaking bones or sqeueezing soft and squishy areas. Now, I can see that you might still disagree, but I have wrestled with my sword in my hand, and having spent much of my life and energy on wrestling, the effectiveness of the sword in hand(s) is quite real. If you still disagree, I would suggest trying it, you will feel a natural usage come to you.
Another thing that I want to address with you (again in a good mannered debate) is the concept of using the sword for slicing. The context was the statment that a steel bar could be used in similar fashion to the training of a longsword. You said "But the differnce[sic] is using the proper angle to use the sword as it was intened, with a sharp edge....So slicing tactics are useless." The distinction that I want to make here is that the way a European sword cuts is different than that of the "Asian." The longsword is much more of a cleaving weapon (think meat-cleaver vs fillet knife). If you take away the edge you still retain a bludgeoning capability. It would not remove that much of the technique learned with a sharp sword. Of course it would change some, I mean you can't expect them to be identical, but similar - yes.
Finally the crack about being hypocritical in the application of the martial art that one knows. Finding a steel bar is plausible. It could happen. I am not going to put money on it, but it could. In my opinion a slight difference is noted here. We (in ARMA) do not only learn fighting with swords. We are learning fighting. Meaning that when I engage in "Ringen" I am fighting. When I learn more about the "Segno" I am learning from what planes an attack will come from. I am learning how to move my body in relation to those attacks, with or without a weapon. Kinistetic awareness, that is the essence of fighting, knowing your body - what it can do for you and against your enemies. That can be learned with a weapon or without. So the application of Renaissance Martial Arts is not far fetched or at all hypocritical. Through this training I learn how to use my body and more "modernly," I learn wrestling, which is quite applicable.
I submit this respectfully.
-Jeremiah (General Free Scholar in ARMA)
Last edited by Jeremiah B.; 11-30-2007 at 02:07 PM.
Actually, the study of the long-sword is derived from wrestling. This becomes apparent when you practice it with serious intent. The Masters tell us this simple fact over and over. The skillsets needed to engage in and win a long-sword fight are directly related to wrestling skills.
You know as a Police Officer, and trainer I am always amazed when other martial artists do not recognize the value of this kind of training. My saftey relies on my ability to quickly and correctly assess my opponents intentions and actions. Historical RMA allows me to practice these very important skills like no other art. The value at judging someones intentions from the distances we routinely do is not available in any other art. The Masters understood these principals and have done a fine job speaking to use from the past. The problem has been with us that some of these folks have attempted to take one Masters commentary or a few mis-quotes and apply them to all long-sword combat no matter what the circumstances, and that's just plain jibberish- they never can back it up in the ring..and they never can apply it in debate., Thanks-AP
Hello all, My name is Corey Roberts and I too am a student of the ARMA. I would first like to clarify that we in ARMA learn both armed and unarmed combatives based on research from period manuals and hands on practice and application. I will readily admit that none of us today is likely to suddenly be attacked by opponents bearing longswords, rapiers, or sword and buckler. However, learning to fight with historical weapons teaches us valuable universal fighting concepts. Additionally there are many joint locks and throws which can be performed regardless of whether a weapon is held or not. Here is a good example of Ringen am Schwert or wrestling at the sword:
additionally this video of Kampfringen shows the types of unarmed techniques we study. Those who have experience in asian systems may notice many analogous techniques:
The assertion that Renaissance Europeans lacked sophisticated and systematized fighting methods or "Martial Arts" if you will, is verifiably false based an enormous amount of evidence, making such a position untenable and laughable. Dozens of fighting manuals from throughout Europe, over several centuries clearly show a highly sophisticated martial tradition. A modern practitioner of asian arts such as Jiujitsu, Judo, or Aikido perusing the manuals would recognize a wide range of techniques similar or identical to those found in their own system.
As well, if traditional forms of Japanese swordsmanship such as Kenjutsu are considered martial arts, then the armed techniques of Renaissance Europe are equally so. However we in ARMA face an additional challenge, whereas the Asian arts have been retained, traditionalized, and now in our modern age commercialized, (with all the inherent benefits and detriments of such) the European tradition disappeared into ambiguity as a result of the rapid technological changes that occurred in the warfare of Western civilization, leaving modern practitioners the difficult task of reconstructing these arts based on historical evidence.
Now to address the specific accusation that this Prize Playing demonstrated no "Praktik" A brief analysis of the first bout featured in the video alone, which I believe lasts little over two seconds, shows a wide range of historically verifiable techniques including (as best as I can tell):
Wards/Guards/Huten:
Linken Ochs
Vom Dach
Alber
Cuts/Hauen:
Zornhau
Scheittelhau
Footwork:
Forward and backward simple steps
At the beginning of the bout we see the fighter on the left standing in Linken Ochs, the fighter on the right playing his prize (Aaron) is standing in Vom Dach. The fighter on the left than attacks on a simple forward step of the lead leg and attacks with a Zornhau followed immediately by what appears to be either a second Zornhau or a Scheittelhau (not quite sure from the angle) also made from a simple step of the lead leg. Both of these are nicely voided by the fighter on the right with a simple backward step (watch his feet) of the lead leg. At the same time he attacks with his own Scheittelhau from Vom Dach striking the fighter on the left on the arms and ending his cut in Alber.
If this isn't "Praktik" I don't know what is. In reality, fighting does not happen at a slow or measured pace, techniques and movements flow quickly from one into the other. When we break this single two second bout down there are a lot of very specific techniques occuring, but they all happen very rapidly and in quick succession; not in a slow progression from technique A *stop* Counter B *stop*.
For a good general background on Europe's martial tradition I highly recommend the book:
The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe
by Dr. Sydney Anglo
...putting RMA in a mordern context, somewhat hypocritical.
Matt Larsen, the Director of the Modern Army Combatives Program, does not think so. The man who "wrote the book" for the US Army told us that his has a large picture of Master Hans Talhoffer (1400s) hanging over the door in his HQ. The following is a picture of Matt Larson at the 2003 ARMA International Event.
I would firstly like to welcome our friends from ARMA. Welcome gentlemen, I hope you will participate in the other threads on the forum also. I hope, like Jeremiah said, you are here in the interests of scholarly study and challenging discussion rather than simply "crusading".
This being said, may I now return to my main critique, which was first and foremostly upon the video presented here as Renaissance Martial Arts. The issue needs to be addressed that fighting in that time, as described in the fechtbucher and Libri, were wholly practical which we should consider as the ancient counterpart of our Krav Maga or SPEAR systems - in other words, systems designed to cope with the dangers of the contemporary world. This would be the reason for the support of a modern military combatives man (Larsen) to display an image of Talhoffer – not through any support of the use of the Long Sword's value to modern military combatives.
Now, on to the critique-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Pynenberg
Sorry I guess "magister" had made the comment that real longswordplay is done by cutting from guard to guard only. "Magister" tell me is that what you mean by your comments, in essance then the fighter moves only by stepping from one guard to the next, correct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron Pynenberg
Still I am waiting for "Magister" to clearly explain his position on the "true from of long-sword useage" and I am not really trying to pin you, I would like to enage you in an educated discussion about the use of this weapon. It does seem that you have some historically based knowledge and there exists the potential to have a decent discussion about it. -Thanks AP
From the video, there was no evidence of the 3 phasic progressions of RMA; The Onset (Zuefechtens), the Handwork (Handarbeit) followed by the withdrawl (Abzug). I saw very little binding (Binden), and hence few full devices (Stucke). The video barely grazed the surface of the full fight, and the phases which comprise it. We should have expected Binden, and intelligent use of Stucke to create infallible Abzug. Without the use of Stuck in each phase of combat described by the fechbucher, I cannot see Historically "authentic" Fighting, and therefore Practick (by it’s very definition).
Of course, as Corey Roberts politely pointed out, there can be seen Linken Ochs, Vom Dach, & Alber. I did see these aswell. As well as two cuts; Zornhau & Scheittelhau. When considered along side, the legern described (in my opinion) are not sufficient to support these cuts. Considering the fact that the “scorn cut” (Zorn Hau) is listed, it seems strange that no Zorn Hut was also demonstrated. If lifting a sword and fighting with cuts was what fighting with a long sword was about, there would have been no need for fechtschuler to exist. The Practick as well as the “intelligent strategies” was what these institutions taught, and justified their existence. As experts at fighting, it was important to teach intelligent strategy rather than simply cutting each other. This was the crux of my critique. I am not arguing that there were not cuts – cutting is not practick. I am talking about the use of Stuck through all phases, not just the Onset.
The sources tell us that guards and cuts are for the Onset of the fight, whereby we close the distance for the engagement. The handwork, we are told, forms the core of the fight. Using Feulen (Feeling) and knowledge of the strength & weakness of the sword, we may manipulate the bind to create a device whereby we attack the opening, by winding, running off to attack,
This could be considered equivalent to the methods of wing chun, whereby the binding of the arms allows us to pressure, or withdraw and attack around the guard. This kind of approach, and using the sword to “jam” the opponent’s attack mean greater control, whereby if the swords are in contact with eachother, there is less chance that the blade may come to strike us. This allows us to apply various other
Furthermore, let us remember that Leichtenauer’s system was highly rational. Just as Thibault began his beautiful works with the discussion of the proportions and actions of the human body, so too did the commentators of Leichtenauer’s system begin with the divisions of the human body. These divisions, formed the foundation of the reasoning for the guards, each one created to defend each of the blossen. This means that as one fighter makes a guard, here is a limit to the places this guard can attack in it’s motion.
What was clear from the video was that each fighter merely held a guard due to personal fancy rather than the strategic consideration of the opponent’s guard, and for this reason, there was no prediction of the attack to be made. Due to this fact, there was little application of timing in relation to the opponent. The attacks were laid on with little response and with little mind to the opponent’s own position. In several occasions, a thrust was made even though the opponent’s sword was in reach in attack. Via these points, I conlude that the true use of the sword was not evident, with mastery of the opponent, and consequently, no intelligent combat, based upon the manuals was shown. Either I am blind, or there was no control of the opponent, placing him strategically in positions in which he is unable to create a counter attack – evidence of mastery of the long sword.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kampfringen
This little history lesson may apply to kenjutsu, but not Renaissance European Martial Arts...These old Martial Arts do not have a real use for the modern practitioner(preserving ones life), but that does not mean we(modern practitioners) change the way they trained or practiced when we practice the arts today. The Renaissance European fencing methods did not slowly degenerate into a sporting method that we use today like Kenjutsu did to Kendo. They dissapeared from use for at least 100 years. This history lesson still does not explain why the "socially unacceptable" Kenjutsu is still being practiced by modern practioners as a Martial Art seperate from the sport of Kendo.
I thought Historical fencers were interested in history? Indeed it does – the key factor here is tradition – which also explains why the long sword was used for long after full plate armour was used on the battle field. The last text of the Leictenauerian tradition (a plariarism of Meyer’s “Beschreibung”) by Theodore Verolinus was published long after the utility of such a weapon on the battlefield. But there is much difference between re-creation and hereditary tradition.
__________________ "Tradition comes from when a master realises a truth, then teaches it to others; his source was the world around him. The tradition begins when students follow the doctrine but fail to see the truth it teaches. Martial Arts, like religion, are now the gospel.
So I assert; Seek not to follow in the footsteps of great men, but seek that which they themselves had sought." Magister, on the Eskirmological Law of Institutionalisation
..The Modern term of Historical fencing is used to describe medieval and Renaissance fighting methods. They did not have to be created. They just had to be rediscovered. We now call them Historical fencing.
In fact, Historical Fencing has been entirely “recreated”. I accept that it existed – this point was never in contention (as I said, I have studied fighting as a phenomenon for many, many years) and unlike others, my research in the evolution of fighting from an anthropological standpoint demonstrates that it was necessary. My point of contention came with your next statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kampfringen
The modern practitioners of both of these arts practice them as they did then (some of the modern practitioners)even though they are not going to be used in actual fighting. Historical fencing and Kenjutsu are not Martial Sports.
Kenjutsu is not a martial sport. Remember, that the line of tradition from those historical experts of fighting have not passed an hereditary line of secrets down to the present day. The point of your argument was that you practice them the same way as the historical masters of fighting once had – this comparison is by no means correct.
Training for Fighting at that time was done because it was necessary. Fighting in the ways in which ARMA dictate are done within the confines of modern insurance coverage and what is acceptable to modern society. So where I said that martial arts have to change to suit the society in which they are practiced, it seems that Historical Fencing too (in re-creating the “truest” historical fighting) has itself become constrained by the society in which it is practiced.
Because of this reason, the training has been modified from the “true” practice of Kenjustu to the modern sport of Kendo – hence the relation, and hence the “history lesson”. So against your perception of Historical fencing as what fighting was like in history, it has become sanitised as a modern pursuit. Long Sword fencing, as a modern re-creation, cannot therefore be justified as a martial art, as it can only be properly practiced within the modern constraints of a sporting environment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kampfringen
The informed observer who is also involved in the pursuit would be the most discerning. You seem to be uninformed and uninvovlved. The sources you post are very edited and leave out the rest of the text that goes against your point. I have shown this already in my earlier post #26 in responses to your use of Doebringer. …
Like I have already said, You edit the sources to leave out the parts that do not fit your ideas. Read post #26, half way down, you quoted Doebringer and left out the next sentence, I posted it there. The source does not support your point.
On the point of the Doebringer quote, I did post the entire quote, the difference is, I posted it based upon my own translation. This is what I made of it; it appears a different translator has gleamed something different. Such differences cannot be avoided, but you should consider that your translation is not the only reading of the original wording.
Indeed, I was wondering how long it would take you to fall upon this point. However, in reference to this, I shall remind you that I practice the art of fighting in the opposite order. I believe it was said that Historical Fencing was practiced because it teaches them more about the truths of fighting.
On the other hand, I practice the art of fighting, and as part of my teaching, I teach my students universal laws of fighting which apply in any fight (from Eskirmology). To prove this, at a later stage I teach the use of the Long Sword in my classes, to demonstrate that these laws apply to any weapon or any age. These laws exist in Leictenauer’s work and for this reason; I declare his ideas to be like Newton’s works were to physics.
After studying the sociological progression and evolutionary development of fighting from the earliest times of man up to and including our own time, it seems that progression towards more efficient fighting is inevitable. This is why Egerton Castle viewed the heavy weapon use of the Long Sword as obsolete and unwieldy. Because in perceiving the change from the Long Sword to the lighter swords of his own time, which could do the job of fighting much more efficiently, this is what the Long Sword represented in comparison. It’s purpose was for fighting, and when something more efficient for it’s elementary purpose evolves, there is no need for the weapon to be used other than upholding tradition. The use of the Stop-hit in fencing, the use of guards and parries, the division of the fencer into 4 openings betray all the universals shown by Leichtenauer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kampfringen
You said that low guards are only transitional."
Please read my post again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kampfringen
Posting edited and misread text is not evidence. Turning the counter points to more unrelated counter points and not addressing misuse of the texts that you have posted does not make your opinion more discerning. It would do you well to practice the art along with your study of the art.
Evidently you must have found my points discerning and poignant or you would not have recruited other ARMA members to the forum. I am not about to believe they all found the forum of their own accord, simultaneously.
I do practice the Long Sword, but simply because I chose to separate myself from ARMA does not make my training any less valid than yours. My reading of the texts is based upon my own study within the greater context of fighting as an eternal phenomenon. It seems that you have met in me someone you consider not to exist – someone who uses a Long Sword but is not part of Historical Fencing – and as a result consider my argument superfluous. I find this discouraging from an organisation who is seeking the truth rather than merely forcing it's own truth upon everyone.
On an unrelated subject, I would also support Anglo's book for anyone interested in Historical Fencing manuals, but expect little in the way of actual technique and strategy - rather it is an historical comparison and commentary upon the fighting manuals.
__________________ "Tradition comes from when a master realises a truth, then teaches it to others; his source was the world around him. The tradition begins when students follow the doctrine but fail to see the truth it teaches. Martial Arts, like religion, are now the gospel.
So I assert; Seek not to follow in the footsteps of great men, but seek that which they themselves had sought." Magister, on the Eskirmological Law of Institutionalisation
Styles: Cloak and Sabre,longsword style wuthout a name.
Posts: 779
Home Country:
Dear Magister,
I've actually modified the simple step to dministrate getting into a position of wich to avoid a counter,if you interested.I'll show you later.
when you zig zag with the simple step,I've noticed my teacher at least,advanced wich his back foot,and moved to the side with his front foot.Mine
is sort of aq reverse,I advange diagonaly with the front,then step once with the back foot coming forward.
I'll show you the reason later.
__________________
"If your opponents sword says hello,greet him with two thunder claps."
"If you want your captive to give you honest answers,do not torture them.If you find out the location of their leader,then attacking the threat from its source."
I still have issue over kamps definiton of martial art as said in my earlier post...
Quote:
Originally Posted by N.B
Anyway, whether or not the video showed a true representation of renaissance martial arts, the problem I have (and I'm sure the rest of us have had this in mind as well) is with Kampfringens definition of what constitutes a martial art. In earlier posts on other threads he claimed that boxing, judo and similar martial arts were not, in fact, martial arts. Yet this ARMA stuff is a martial art somehow.
I personally don't see how you can define this ARMA stuff as a martial arts without also classing judo, boxing, kendo etc as martial arts as well.
@ Randall: I was refering to the use of weapons in the street, I'm sure ARMA wrestling is very applicable in the street, using a steel bar like a sword isn't.
__________________
Ah, Steven Seagull, I bet nobody's thought of that before.
Posted by Magister: #15
"the 5 Meisterhau (Master Hew's/Cuts) are directed towards the head and upper openings. As you will know, single hit kills were as much a masters skill in Europe as they were in Feudal Japan, and so the master cuts were designed for a single hit to finish the fight."
post#68
"The video barely grazed the surface of the full fight, and the phases which comprise it. We should have expected Binden, and intelligent use of Stucke to create infallible Abzug."
So are you now saying that every fight has to have all 3 phases of the fight to be per the fechtbucher? Or Can there be a fight that does not consist of all three and be per fechtbucher? If we always go to binden then how can the Meisterhau be single hit kills? If the Meisterhau can be single cut hits, where is the handerbeit and abzug? The bind is not always necessary or achieved as you said yourself with the meisterhau example. Now that we are in post #68 do you expect a bind in every historically correct longsword fight?
"Kenjutsu is not a martial sport. Remember, that the line of tradition from those historical experts of fighting have not passed an hereditary line of secrets down to the present day. The point of your argument was that you practice them the same way as the historical masters of fighting once had – this comparison is by no means correct. Training for Fighting at that time was done because it was necessary. Fighting in the ways in which ARMA dictate are done within the confines of modern insurance coverage and what is acceptable to modern society. So where I said that martial arts have to change to suit the society in which they are practiced, it seems that Historical Fencing too (in re-creating the “truest” historical fighting) has itself become constrained by the society in which it is practiced. Because of this reason, the training has been modified from the “true” practice of Kenjustu to the modern sport of Kendo – hence the relation, and hence the “history lesson”. So against your perception of Historical fencing as what fighting was like in history, it has become sanitised as a modern pursuit. Long Sword fencing, as a modern re-creation, cannot therefore be justified as a martial art, as it can only be properly practiced within the modern constraints of a sporting environment."
So you are saying that Kenjutsu Practitioners practice the same as they did in the past and longsword fighters do not because of a hereditary line? You say that Kenjustsu practitioners do not do Martial sports, and then say that they do not do true Kenjutsu, they do Kendo. Kenjustsu practitioners do not do Kendo as you seem to imply. According to you,if their practice has been modified, do they do Martial Arts? There is a big difference between practicing sword fightng with in a sporting environment and a Martial environment. The same can be said about unarmed techniques. how and what you train for makes all the difference in the world.
"Evidently you must have found my points discerning and poignant or you would not have recruited other ARMA members to the forum."
I found them very contradicting. I asked other ARMA members who have more experience and study of the fechtbucher to come and help me point out more of the inaccuracies and editing of the texts that you posted since I do not have Meyer.
N.B.; The definition of Martial Art. Martial=of Mars;Marcialis;(14 century) of ,realting to , or suited to war or a warrior, relating to an army or to military life, experienced in or inclined to war. Art=arc (13 century) skill aquired by experience, study, or observation; a branch of learning. Martial Arts=warrior skills aquired by experience, study, or observation; a branch of military learning.
To everyone; Still waiting on your videos of what Martial Arts are.
Personally, I think if we define a "sport" as a physical activity one does for recreation or personal enjoyment, than just about every martial art can be termed a sport (at least in modern times, where most every one does martial arts for recreation, discounting of course military training etc.), and if we define martial art as "warrior skills acquired by experience, study or observation; a branch of military learning" then not every sport (obviously) is a martial art. But martial arts inclusions as a "sport" does not automatically make it a non-martial art.
If we are going to exclude Historical European fencing from the realm of "Martial Arts" then we can certainly exclude Iajutsu, Kenjutsu, Kali, Escrima, and all other systems that practice the use of obsolescent weapons in their practice, which I don't think anyone here would agree with.
I would like to qualify exactly what a prize-playing is, so people will understand that it is not a competition. Nobody in the prize-play competed with any of the other members there. In order to become one of the ARMA's senior instructors, known as Senior Free Scholars one of the requirements is to complete a Prize Playing. The individual playing the prize, fights a series of continuous bouts without rest, as each of the other members bouts with them in turn. They are expected to win a majority of the bouts, In this particular case there were a total of around 90 bouts in about an hour with only 17 losses for the prizer. A bout is won when an individual succeeds in striking his opponent anywhere on the body with proper edge placement, alignment etc.
Next I would like to address something which I find mainly is prevalent in Magister's postings. Magister, you seem readily able to bandy about quotations from Meyer and other manuals, and perhaps I am mistaken, but many of your posts belie an underlying truth that you do not in fact regularly practice in longsword or other forms of historical fencing of the period in question. Here are some examples:
"Due to the sheer length of time it takes to wield a Langschwert correctly,"
"...heavy weapons use of the longsword as obsolete and unwieldy"
---What length of time? This sentence makes it sound like you've never even picked one up, Longswords weigh between 2 1/2 and 3 1/2 lbs. Little different than a Katana. They are a fast, elegant, and highly responsive weapons.
"The guards were not used in transition but were relied upon far too heavily"
---"Vier leger ALLAIN davon halt und fluch die gemain Ochs pflug, Alber , Vom Tag, sy dit nit unmer"
"Four guards only hold and disdain the common, Ox Plough, fool and from above should not be unkown to you"
Here Lichtenauer tells us specifically to fence from these guards, but you seem to think we are only supposed to assume a guard just before we make a cut? or what? I'm not quite sure many of your posts in this regard seem confused.
"From the video their was no evidence of the 3 phasic progressions of RMA; the onset Zufechtens, THE HANDWORK (Handarbeit) followed by the withdrawal"
--Here you seem to have confused "Handarbeit" with "Krieg" which is in fact the closing in range which I believe you intended.
"When considered along side, the Legern described (in my opinion) are not sufficient to support these cuts. Considering the fact that the "Scorn cut" (Zorn Hau) is listed, it seems strange that no Zorn hut was also demonstrated"
--Here you seem confused and seem to think that we always have to be standing in Zornhut in order to cut Zornhau (Wrath, rage cut) All five Meisterhauen can in fact be made from Vom Dach. From Ochs all one has to do is pivot the weapon around and you are then in Vom Dach/Tag,
"For a more mainstream example if you have ever seen the movie Kung-Fu Hustle"
--Now you seem to think a hollywood movie is a good example of how people should fight.
There are many other examples of what appears to me to be an apparent lack of actual physical practice in the source teachings in your posts. Which leads me to ask you several simple and direct questions which I hope you will answer as straightforward as possible:
1. How often do you actually train in Longsword HF, etc.
2. How often do you actually work through the techniques in the manuals with a training partner (It's one thing to sit around and read them it is another entirely to actually attempt them with a partner)
3. How often do you spar?
4. How often do you engage in practice cutting, or Pell work?
5. Have you ever actually handled a historical weapon?
Thanks.
Last edited by Corey Roberts; 12-02-2007 at 03:55 PM.
So are you now saying that every fight has to have all 3 phases of the fight to be per the fechtbucher? Or Can there be a fight that does not consist of all three and be per fechtbucher? If we always go to binden then how can the Meisterhau be single hit kills? If the Meisterhau can be single cut hits, where is the handerbeit and abzug? The bind is not always necessary or achieved as you said yourself with the meisterhau example. Now that we are in post #68 do you expect a bind in every historically correct longsword fight? .
It seems you are putting words in my mouth again Kampfringen. A Master of the sword will be able to hit with a single hit in the form of a Meisterhau. If both are masters of the sword, then there will be much more jamming in the form of Binden. So if we have proper practick, then we should expect to see many different applications of Stucke. What was shown was more than one fight was it not? Furthermore, the bind can be made without any cuts, so a cut made from a binden will infact be a single hit kill. Perhaps instead of asking questions in response, we could get down to some real break-down of the texts?
ARMA prize playing, Ren. European M.A.'s
