In your personal experiences, which manual or manuals do you prefer to study from in order to learn more about historical combat? And why? This includes all types fencing, pole arm, longsword, etc. The second question is do you actually have a good translation of said favored manual or are you just looking at the pretty pictures?
------------------
"As long as there are fanatics there will always be heretics
Combat Manuals
-
Winterfell
- Archive Member
- Posts: 12345
- Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: Reston
-
Murdock
- Something Different
- Posts: 17705
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Milwaukee, Wi U S of freakin A
- Contact:
While Asain manuals are valuable resources, i think European manuals are better suited to the study of European combat.
Talhoffer's manual, currently titled "Medieval Combat" is avalible at nearly any bookstore.
The I33 Codex is also quite neat, but many of us are waiting for a translation.
Fiore de Libre, _take _ Conn's_ Class_
Agrippa, Alfieri, Capoferro, Carranza, Giganti, ectect are all on the AEMMA site
Jue da La Hatch (sp?) is supposedly good for polr arms, though i've never read it.
Some people will suggest the Clements books, i find that a bit redundant since he seems to have gotten his info from the period sources.
For philosphy of Chivalric combat, i have read Ramon Lull and Geoffery De Charney, started Fossiart but i had to take the book back to the library (long story).
Vitus could tell ya more along those lines.
Also Check out the Brian Price's "Book of the Tournament"
Chronique's "Chivalry Bookshelf" is a good place to start.
Talhoffer's manual, currently titled "Medieval Combat" is avalible at nearly any bookstore.
The I33 Codex is also quite neat, but many of us are waiting for a translation.
Fiore de Libre, _take _ Conn's_ Class_
Agrippa, Alfieri, Capoferro, Carranza, Giganti, ectect are all on the AEMMA site
Jue da La Hatch (sp?) is supposedly good for polr arms, though i've never read it.
Some people will suggest the Clements books, i find that a bit redundant since he seems to have gotten his info from the period sources.
For philosphy of Chivalric combat, i have read Ramon Lull and Geoffery De Charney, started Fossiart but i had to take the book back to the library (long story).
Vitus could tell ya more along those lines.
Also Check out the Brian Price's "Book of the Tournament"
Chronique's "Chivalry Bookshelf" is a good place to start.
All of the ones mentioned are good. I also would reccomend Silver, Hutton, and a few of the later masters that deal with medieval weapons. There are more trasnlations available of some of the later masters, and the somewhat "nicer" or "sporterized" forms they show translate well into many of the modern competitive formats.
Btw, my interest in in long/greatsword, so my comments are coming from that point of view.
Btw, my interest in in long/greatsword, so my comments are coming from that point of view.
I like Clements book on broadsword as a base to start from. At least this isn't translated book. Every translation sucks due to the manuals being written in dead languages. Reading them is like talking to a Russian cab driver.
I also like Talhoffer's manual and the Opera Nova (this is not yet translated as far as I know).
If you can't tell I play a late era persona. I do rapier and well as broadsword.
Flonzy
I also like Talhoffer's manual and the Opera Nova (this is not yet translated as far as I know).
If you can't tell I play a late era persona. I do rapier and well as broadsword.
Flonzy
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
Almost none of the manuals have much relevance to SCA fighting. The simple fact is that none of them really concern themselves with armored tournament combat, and that's all we do.
I.33 is about completely unarmored sword and buckler, for example. Fiore writes about mostly unarmored combat (most of which can't even be done in armor, especially with proper gauntlets), and the armored stuff he does show is either on horseback (and remember, we don't have them) or is about halfsword techniques and grappling.
(Halfswording is the fine art of sticking the point of your longsword into the delicate and unarmored portions of your friend's anatomy... hardly what one would do in a tournament! And while grappling *did* happen in tournaments, we're not allowed to do it, so it has no relevance for SCA fighting either.)
The armored combat in most of the manuals seems directly related to *judicial combat*; i.e., a fight in which you're really trying to kill someone (for which halfswording is ideally suited). In fact, some of the manuals that *do* show armored combat show the combatants fighting without gauntlets (Gladatoria, for example), a clear case of it being more important to be able to do more techniques that kill (as opposed to just powerful blows that stun) so that you can win, even at the expense of taking a wound yourself.
Of all of them, I think that Le Jeu de la Hache has the most relevance to SCA fighting: While pretty clearly intended as a judicial combat manual (to judge by the anonymous author's opening remarks), many of the techniques within can be safely and effectively used in tournaments... *if* you and your opponent are both fighting with pollaxes (years ago we tried to figure this manual out using just glaives, and it simply doesn't work very well, trust me). You *can* use some of these techniques against other polearmsmen, but the weight of the axe head puts you at a distinct disadvantage against someone armed with a six-foot "queue tip"; still, I know some folks (e.g., Sir Ian) who apparently have had some success matching Le Jeu with unequal weapons.
Having said that, if you're trying to study non-tournament *medieval combat*, then *some* of these manuals might have some value. Be aware, however: many of them are pretty much of the "Learn the Deadly Art of the Dim Mak Death Touch In Three Easy Lessons" variety; not surprising, really: most modern martial arts books don't have a lot of validity, either.
My favorites to date include Ringeck and Le Jeu, and, to a lesser extent, Talhoffer (many of his techniques are great, but some are blatantly silly). I.33 looks completely bogus, but I'm trying not to write it off until we see the translation; if you want to study buckler play look at Talhoffer. To your point about pictures and text, Ringeck and Talhoffer work kind of well together; there are major differences, of course, but you can often relate them to one another, and this can help with the fact that Ringeck isn't illustrated and the text in Talhoffer is somewhat vague some of the time; see my Talhoffer thread on here a while ago.
Avoid Clement's book *at all costs*; there's less accurate information in that book than there is inaccurate information by quite a wide margin (and most of it is just anti-SCA diatribes anyway). LOL! He actually writes that the cross on a sword isn't there to protect you from another sword, it's there to protect your hand from the edge of your opponent's shield!! LOL! Don't buy a martial arts book from a guy who doesn't fight...
I heartily recommend taking one of Bob Charron's worshops. I'm starting to like Fiore less and less (on a personal level), but Bob is one of the only people doing this work that can actually fight, and that makes a *huge* difference; if you already know how to fight, you'll see that instantly when you talk with him as compared with others trying to interpret these books who *obviously* have never done anything but swish around their garages in t-shirts with wasters.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
[This message has been edited by SyrRhys (edited 02-28-2002).]
I.33 is about completely unarmored sword and buckler, for example. Fiore writes about mostly unarmored combat (most of which can't even be done in armor, especially with proper gauntlets), and the armored stuff he does show is either on horseback (and remember, we don't have them) or is about halfsword techniques and grappling.
(Halfswording is the fine art of sticking the point of your longsword into the delicate and unarmored portions of your friend's anatomy... hardly what one would do in a tournament! And while grappling *did* happen in tournaments, we're not allowed to do it, so it has no relevance for SCA fighting either.)
The armored combat in most of the manuals seems directly related to *judicial combat*; i.e., a fight in which you're really trying to kill someone (for which halfswording is ideally suited). In fact, some of the manuals that *do* show armored combat show the combatants fighting without gauntlets (Gladatoria, for example), a clear case of it being more important to be able to do more techniques that kill (as opposed to just powerful blows that stun) so that you can win, even at the expense of taking a wound yourself.
Of all of them, I think that Le Jeu de la Hache has the most relevance to SCA fighting: While pretty clearly intended as a judicial combat manual (to judge by the anonymous author's opening remarks), many of the techniques within can be safely and effectively used in tournaments... *if* you and your opponent are both fighting with pollaxes (years ago we tried to figure this manual out using just glaives, and it simply doesn't work very well, trust me). You *can* use some of these techniques against other polearmsmen, but the weight of the axe head puts you at a distinct disadvantage against someone armed with a six-foot "queue tip"; still, I know some folks (e.g., Sir Ian) who apparently have had some success matching Le Jeu with unequal weapons.
Having said that, if you're trying to study non-tournament *medieval combat*, then *some* of these manuals might have some value. Be aware, however: many of them are pretty much of the "Learn the Deadly Art of the Dim Mak Death Touch In Three Easy Lessons" variety; not surprising, really: most modern martial arts books don't have a lot of validity, either.
My favorites to date include Ringeck and Le Jeu, and, to a lesser extent, Talhoffer (many of his techniques are great, but some are blatantly silly). I.33 looks completely bogus, but I'm trying not to write it off until we see the translation; if you want to study buckler play look at Talhoffer. To your point about pictures and text, Ringeck and Talhoffer work kind of well together; there are major differences, of course, but you can often relate them to one another, and this can help with the fact that Ringeck isn't illustrated and the text in Talhoffer is somewhat vague some of the time; see my Talhoffer thread on here a while ago.
Avoid Clement's book *at all costs*; there's less accurate information in that book than there is inaccurate information by quite a wide margin (and most of it is just anti-SCA diatribes anyway). LOL! He actually writes that the cross on a sword isn't there to protect you from another sword, it's there to protect your hand from the edge of your opponent's shield!! LOL! Don't buy a martial arts book from a guy who doesn't fight...
I heartily recommend taking one of Bob Charron's worshops. I'm starting to like Fiore less and less (on a personal level), but Bob is one of the only people doing this work that can actually fight, and that makes a *huge* difference; if you already know how to fight, you'll see that instantly when you talk with him as compared with others trying to interpret these books who *obviously* have never done anything but swish around their garages in t-shirts with wasters.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
[This message has been edited by SyrRhys (edited 02-28-2002).]
-
Winterfell
- Archive Member
- Posts: 12345
- Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: Reston
Rys,
SCA combat is not historical combat. We all know that.
Some manuals I have seen have men in full armor, others in skintight clothes and others still in full nakedness. I am not going to infer that from just the pretty pictures those soldiers went out on the field wearing just their underwear. You are pretty broad with that paintbrush, to say that the only thing these manuals were for were tournaments. Just out of curiosity do you also subscribe to the "knights cannot somersault in full armor" theory?
Clements (and I am sure as heck not defending him here) made a book that shows the very basic and simplification of non-rapier combat and he does point out specific manuals as references. His book is broad and it is flawed but it does help a beginner with a starting point.
I was not asking this question for a Scadian reference I was asking this on a historical research basis. Lets just leave the SCA out of this one.
Thanks.
------------------
"As long as there are fanatics there will always be heretics
SCA combat is not historical combat. We all know that.
Some manuals I have seen have men in full armor, others in skintight clothes and others still in full nakedness. I am not going to infer that from just the pretty pictures those soldiers went out on the field wearing just their underwear. You are pretty broad with that paintbrush, to say that the only thing these manuals were for were tournaments. Just out of curiosity do you also subscribe to the "knights cannot somersault in full armor" theory?
Clements (and I am sure as heck not defending him here) made a book that shows the very basic and simplification of non-rapier combat and he does point out specific manuals as references. His book is broad and it is flawed but it does help a beginner with a starting point.
I was not asking this question for a Scadian reference I was asking this on a historical research basis. Lets just leave the SCA out of this one.
Thanks.
------------------
"As long as there are fanatics there will always be heretics
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Winterfell:
<B>Rys,
SCA combat is not historical combat. We all know that.
Some manuals I have seen have men in full armor, others in skintight clothes and others still in full nakedness. I am not going to infer that from just the pretty pictures those soldiers went out on the field wearing just their underwear. You are pretty broad with that paintbrush, to say that the only thing these manuals were for were tournaments. Just out of curiosity do you also subscribe to the "knights cannot somersault in full armor" theory?
Clements (and I am sure as heck not defending him here) made a book that shows the very basic and simplification of non-rapier combat and he does point out specific manuals as references. His book is broad and it is flawed but it does help a beginner with a starting point.
I was not asking this question for a Scadian reference I was asking this on a historical research basis. Lets just leave the SCA out of this one.
Thanks.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL! I guess I should just stop trying to help. Go back and re-read my post. I said exactly the opposite of what you said I did. I said they *weren't* for tournaments.
And if you'll look at the second half of my post, you'll see that after clearing away the reasons the fechtbucher don't have much relevance for SCA combat, I then went on to describe them in their proper context, exactly what was asked for!!!
Damn, why do you folks go out of your way to misunderstand what I write????????
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>Rys,
SCA combat is not historical combat. We all know that.
Some manuals I have seen have men in full armor, others in skintight clothes and others still in full nakedness. I am not going to infer that from just the pretty pictures those soldiers went out on the field wearing just their underwear. You are pretty broad with that paintbrush, to say that the only thing these manuals were for were tournaments. Just out of curiosity do you also subscribe to the "knights cannot somersault in full armor" theory?
Clements (and I am sure as heck not defending him here) made a book that shows the very basic and simplification of non-rapier combat and he does point out specific manuals as references. His book is broad and it is flawed but it does help a beginner with a starting point.
I was not asking this question for a Scadian reference I was asking this on a historical research basis. Lets just leave the SCA out of this one.
Thanks.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL! I guess I should just stop trying to help. Go back and re-read my post. I said exactly the opposite of what you said I did. I said they *weren't* for tournaments.
And if you'll look at the second half of my post, you'll see that after clearing away the reasons the fechtbucher don't have much relevance for SCA combat, I then went on to describe them in their proper context, exactly what was asked for!!!
Damn, why do you folks go out of your way to misunderstand what I write????????
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
Bob Charron
- Archive Member
- Posts: 430
- Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Madison, Wisconsin, USA
- Contact:
Now, admittedly I am biased 
Translating and working through a manual (or working with someone who has) can really bring to light why these fellows were employed at the highest levels by the noble courts who sought the best martial educators.
Of course, I'm a Fiore man, because that's where my translation and hands-on work has been focused. This work also speaks to me as a well-communicated, self-referential, complete martial art that maintains the same concepts and techniques from wrestling through armored horseback combat.
I also think that it will take another five to ten years of working with this material before we get good at it at all. Remember the Masters of Defence considered it right that it took seven years of practice to become a *scholar* in the art.
Right now what I can tell you is the material in Fiore works. It's simple to learn, easy to teach, and doesn't get caught up in complicated techniques. Done at speed by an accomplished practitioner it would end a fight very quickly.
Thanks, Hugh, for the kind words. I'm very realistic about wrestling 250 pounders and getting in thrusting games with small, quick people
On to armored combat. Half-swording is armored combat. It is the one thing that the manuals (no matter which country of origin) are all very consistent on.
As to the "lack" of armored combat applicable in tournaments in Fiore I would have to disagree with Hugh. 1) All the wrestling techniques (save the striking) are to be used in armor as well as unarmored. 2) All the dagger techniques are for use in armor as well as unarmored, and he says specifically which one's you'd *rather* be wearing armor to do. 3) There are several unarmored longsword techniques where the text suggests armor is better in that particular play or how to modify the technique to work against or in armor. 4) There are sections for armored sword, armored pollaxe, armored spear and armored horseback combat. 5) He says in his prologue that the techniques are used in the lists, in riot, in battle and in duel. His students fought combats to "three blows of the lance on horseback, then, on foot, three blows of the sword, three blows of the axe and three blows of the dagger." And this was done before the Duke and Duchess of Milan, at their castle, in front of a multitude of nobles for their entertainment. Most of the manual is intended to be used in armor - the exception being the majority of the unarmored longsword and one-handed sword sections. Although they, too mention some armored techniques.
My position remains that to do Medieval combat well you should identify a worthy master (one who was paid lots of money by a famous and affluent court with a martial reputation in the period), learn his paradigm, and then pare it back for the rule set you wish to fight/spar/practice under so that you avoid at all costs injuring your opponent.
Well, I've rambled on now
------------------
Bob Charron
St. Martins Academy of Medieval Arms
Translating and working through a manual (or working with someone who has) can really bring to light why these fellows were employed at the highest levels by the noble courts who sought the best martial educators.
Of course, I'm a Fiore man, because that's where my translation and hands-on work has been focused. This work also speaks to me as a well-communicated, self-referential, complete martial art that maintains the same concepts and techniques from wrestling through armored horseback combat.
I also think that it will take another five to ten years of working with this material before we get good at it at all. Remember the Masters of Defence considered it right that it took seven years of practice to become a *scholar* in the art.
Right now what I can tell you is the material in Fiore works. It's simple to learn, easy to teach, and doesn't get caught up in complicated techniques. Done at speed by an accomplished practitioner it would end a fight very quickly.
Thanks, Hugh, for the kind words. I'm very realistic about wrestling 250 pounders and getting in thrusting games with small, quick people
On to armored combat. Half-swording is armored combat. It is the one thing that the manuals (no matter which country of origin) are all very consistent on.
As to the "lack" of armored combat applicable in tournaments in Fiore I would have to disagree with Hugh. 1) All the wrestling techniques (save the striking) are to be used in armor as well as unarmored. 2) All the dagger techniques are for use in armor as well as unarmored, and he says specifically which one's you'd *rather* be wearing armor to do. 3) There are several unarmored longsword techniques where the text suggests armor is better in that particular play or how to modify the technique to work against or in armor. 4) There are sections for armored sword, armored pollaxe, armored spear and armored horseback combat. 5) He says in his prologue that the techniques are used in the lists, in riot, in battle and in duel. His students fought combats to "three blows of the lance on horseback, then, on foot, three blows of the sword, three blows of the axe and three blows of the dagger." And this was done before the Duke and Duchess of Milan, at their castle, in front of a multitude of nobles for their entertainment. Most of the manual is intended to be used in armor - the exception being the majority of the unarmored longsword and one-handed sword sections. Although they, too mention some armored techniques.
My position remains that to do Medieval combat well you should identify a worthy master (one who was paid lots of money by a famous and affluent court with a martial reputation in the period), learn his paradigm, and then pare it back for the rule set you wish to fight/spar/practice under so that you avoid at all costs injuring your opponent.
Well, I've rambled on now
------------------
Bob Charron
St. Martins Academy of Medieval Arms
-
Winterfell
- Archive Member
- Posts: 12345
- Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: Reston
"Damn, why do you folks go out of your way to misunderstand what I write????????"
I think because your posts usually have something along the lines of, SCA combat is tournament only and that anything else is not relevant or worthless (not a direct quote there).
Grant you on your tournements statement. But you did not answer my question. Do you think that knights could not do somersaults in armour?
My questions have nothing what so ever to do with the SCA, and while there are probably a lot of people from the SCA on this board, this is not an SCA board to my knowledge. So maybe, unless it specifically states SCA related, could you please scale back on the SCA comments?
------------------
"As long as there are fanatics there will always be heretics
I think because your posts usually have something along the lines of, SCA combat is tournament only and that anything else is not relevant or worthless (not a direct quote there).
Grant you on your tournements statement. But you did not answer my question. Do you think that knights could not do somersaults in armour?
My questions have nothing what so ever to do with the SCA, and while there are probably a lot of people from the SCA on this board, this is not an SCA board to my knowledge. So maybe, unless it specifically states SCA related, could you please scale back on the SCA comments?
------------------
"As long as there are fanatics there will always be heretics
-
Vitus von Atzinger
- Archive Member
- Posts: 14039
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Louisville, Ky. USA
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Winterfell:
<B>"Damn, why do you folks go out of your way to misunderstand what I write????????"
I think because your posts usually have something along the lines of, SCA combat is tournament only and that anything else is not relevant or worthless (not a direct quote there).
Grant you on your tournements statement. But you did not answer my question. Do you think that knights could not do somersaults in armour?
My questions have nothing what so ever to do with the SCA, and while there are probably a lot of people from the SCA on this board, this is not an SCA board to my knowledge. So maybe, unless it specifically states SCA related, could you please scale back on the SCA comments?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why in the hell was my comment about their applicability to SCA fighting irrelevant? Many on here are SCAdians; do you think you enjoy such an exalted position that a response must be aimed *only* at you? I spent the rest of the post answering exactly what you asked! If you want to get upset because you're putting words in my mouth, hey, knock yourself out. LOL! You're the one who didn't bother to read what I wrote! Oh, and next time, if you don't want any SCA references, why not be kind enough to note that?
As for saying nothing but SCA fighting is of any value, that just shows you don't know anything about me. Get a clue, son.
Oh, and in regards to your "somersaults" question: You betray your lack of knowledge about armor by characterizing it as one thing. The answer to your question is that some knights in some kinds of harnesses could certainly do somersaults in their armor (supposing they could do them out of armor, of course). But some harnesses would not have allowed this, so the right thing to have done would have been to specify a specific harness.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
[This message has been edited by SyrRhys (edited 02-28-2002).]
<B>"Damn, why do you folks go out of your way to misunderstand what I write????????"
I think because your posts usually have something along the lines of, SCA combat is tournament only and that anything else is not relevant or worthless (not a direct quote there).
Grant you on your tournements statement. But you did not answer my question. Do you think that knights could not do somersaults in armour?
My questions have nothing what so ever to do with the SCA, and while there are probably a lot of people from the SCA on this board, this is not an SCA board to my knowledge. So maybe, unless it specifically states SCA related, could you please scale back on the SCA comments?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why in the hell was my comment about their applicability to SCA fighting irrelevant? Many on here are SCAdians; do you think you enjoy such an exalted position that a response must be aimed *only* at you? I spent the rest of the post answering exactly what you asked! If you want to get upset because you're putting words in my mouth, hey, knock yourself out. LOL! You're the one who didn't bother to read what I wrote! Oh, and next time, if you don't want any SCA references, why not be kind enough to note that?
As for saying nothing but SCA fighting is of any value, that just shows you don't know anything about me. Get a clue, son.
Oh, and in regards to your "somersaults" question: You betray your lack of knowledge about armor by characterizing it as one thing. The answer to your question is that some knights in some kinds of harnesses could certainly do somersaults in their armor (supposing they could do them out of armor, of course). But some harnesses would not have allowed this, so the right thing to have done would have been to specify a specific harness.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
[This message has been edited by SyrRhys (edited 02-28-2002).]
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Vitus:
Hahahahah! Shut up, Rhys! LOL!!</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Vitus, would you care to explain that remark? I want to make sure I understand you *exactly*.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
Hahahahah! Shut up, Rhys! LOL!!</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Vitus, would you care to explain that remark? I want to make sure I understand you *exactly*.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
Murdock
- Something Different
- Posts: 17705
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Milwaukee, Wi U S of freakin A
- Contact:
Rhys has a good point,
Much of whats in the books is unuseable in SCA combat. Either because of the one shot kill system, or because it's illegal in SCA combat.
SCA guantlets are often huge and bulky, that also hapers alot of techniques.
Fun to read, and good to know, pick what you can use.
I'll refrain from any further comment on Clements, as others will make the point i avoided stating.
Much of whats in the books is unuseable in SCA combat. Either because of the one shot kill system, or because it's illegal in SCA combat.
SCA guantlets are often huge and bulky, that also hapers alot of techniques.
Fun to read, and good to know, pick what you can use.
I'll refrain from any further comment on Clements, as others will make the point i avoided stating.
-
Russ Mitchell
- Archive Member
- Posts: 11800
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: HQ, Garden Gnome Liberation Front
- Contact:
I don't know whether Winterfell intended this thread to be SCA-specific. I **do** know that having that label on sca threads helps: it's kept me from shooting my mouth off where it's not relevant.
I am in two living traditions, both historical, neither medieval, and therefore don't really have time right now to work out of manuals. But of the manuals, I like the Codex Wallerstein's messerfechten, and I really like Fiore... it's a clear ancestor art to old savate (though more like a great-uncle). For pokey-fencing with lighter stuff, nothing, and I mean nothing, beats Hope's New Method. Last time I picked up a foil or epee I went 28 hits to 4, with a weapon I hadn't handled in seven years...
I.33 is mystifying but fun, VERY different. And although I wouldn't practice them, I don't think, spanish rapier schools, and the 19th-century military gymnastics treatises have a lot to learn from.
But I'm kind of a geek that way.
I am in two living traditions, both historical, neither medieval, and therefore don't really have time right now to work out of manuals. But of the manuals, I like the Codex Wallerstein's messerfechten, and I really like Fiore... it's a clear ancestor art to old savate (though more like a great-uncle). For pokey-fencing with lighter stuff, nothing, and I mean nothing, beats Hope's New Method. Last time I picked up a foil or epee I went 28 hits to 4, with a weapon I hadn't handled in seven years...
I.33 is mystifying but fun, VERY different. And although I wouldn't practice them, I don't think, spanish rapier schools, and the 19th-century military gymnastics treatises have a lot to learn from.
But I'm kind of a geek that way.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Winterfell:
[BDo you think that knights could not do somersaults in armour?
[/B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Quite possibly, but I would generally consider that to be an excessive blow.
[BDo you think that knights could not do somersaults in armour?
[/B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Quite possibly, but I would generally consider that to be an excessive blow.
-
Winterfell
- Archive Member
- Posts: 12345
- Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: Reston
Rhys,
You asked why people misunderstand your posts, that was my answer. In the future I will just make sure that if I ask a question that has nothing to do with the SCA I will say so. That should avoid any misunderstandings. How about that?
------------------
"As long as there are fanatics there will always be heretics
You asked why people misunderstand your posts, that was my answer. In the future I will just make sure that if I ask a question that has nothing to do with the SCA I will say so. That should avoid any misunderstandings. How about that?
------------------
"As long as there are fanatics there will always be heretics
At a sword demo at a college showing not only the armour, (very near full plate in my case), all material derived from the old manuels ( and bob, thanks.) we did among other things; Half swrding in a kata form , it was new , the demo in a few weeks will have it at speed, and most likely with me cutting targets bare handed with the half sword. It also had us in full plate doing barrell roles, and summer salts. We also showed steel fighting in a touniment fashion with no stabbing or wrestling, and we showed the regular style of fighting that includes stabbing throwing and the like. As for the half sword cutting, i have done it a few times now, the first after john clemments from haca said it was possable, I love prooving people wrong and was dissapointed, oh well. Now Bob i would trust how ever, I have taken his information and tried real hard to proove him wrong.....and can't.
Murdock
I disagree with you on the technique being useless do to the gauntlets. I have a pair on clamshells I fight with I they are fine. I use greatswords myself and have not had many problems with my gauntlets, no more than fighting rapier in a leather glove. Just got to get use to it.
Now with the SCA debate here, I have stated before I'm not in the SCA and don't fully understand their rules, but my group just about everything but tripping goes, so all sword techniques in the various manuals are fine.
I ask you this Rhys and Murdock do you find the basic stances and cuts incorrect in the Clements book? Granted the comment, if he wrote it, on the guards being for shields alone is a bad comment. We all know, or I hope we all do, that the guard is there to block blows from the sword. Do you dismiss him completely because he mocks the SCA style of combat for its lack of historical technique? Not that all of the SCA is that way. Rhys seems well studied.
I'll say again I like Talhoffer's manual and the Opera Nova (this is not yet translated as far as I know). My group fights as historical as possible and I do a late period persona and only fight shield (small buckler) in rapier.
Flonzy
I disagree with you on the technique being useless do to the gauntlets. I have a pair on clamshells I fight with I they are fine. I use greatswords myself and have not had many problems with my gauntlets, no more than fighting rapier in a leather glove. Just got to get use to it.
Now with the SCA debate here, I have stated before I'm not in the SCA and don't fully understand their rules, but my group just about everything but tripping goes, so all sword techniques in the various manuals are fine.
I ask you this Rhys and Murdock do you find the basic stances and cuts incorrect in the Clements book? Granted the comment, if he wrote it, on the guards being for shields alone is a bad comment. We all know, or I hope we all do, that the guard is there to block blows from the sword. Do you dismiss him completely because he mocks the SCA style of combat for its lack of historical technique? Not that all of the SCA is that way. Rhys seems well studied.
I'll say again I like Talhoffer's manual and the Opera Nova (this is not yet translated as far as I know). My group fights as historical as possible and I do a late period persona and only fight shield (small buckler) in rapier.
Flonzy
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Winterfell:
<B>Rhys,
You asked why people misunderstand your posts, that was my answer. In the future I will just make sure that if I ask a question that has nothing to do with the SCA I will say so. That should avoid any misunderstandings. How about that?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Splendid. Clarity of communication is always a good thing (of course, it helps if people read what you actually write, but I'll try to do that for you!).
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>Rhys,
You asked why people misunderstand your posts, that was my answer. In the future I will just make sure that if I ask a question that has nothing to do with the SCA I will say so. That should avoid any misunderstandings. How about that?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Splendid. Clarity of communication is always a good thing (of course, it helps if people read what you actually write, but I'll try to do that for you!).
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by flonzy:
I disagree with you on the technique being useless do to the gauntlets. I have a pair on clamshells I fight with I they are fine. I use greatswords myself and have not had many problems with my gauntlets, no more than fighting rapier in a leather glove. Just got to get use to it. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Gauntlets do make it almost impossible to do many of the unarmored techniques in the fechbucher correctly (not all, but many). This is especially apparent when you look at books like Gladatoria (and others) which show the armored combat being done with full harnesses *except* gauntlets.
Part of the reason you may be able to do some of these things with your gauntlets is that they may not be accurate reproductions of medieval gauntlets, or the lower cannons of your vambraces may not be made correctly. Most armorers try to 'improve' medieval armor, especially things like gauntlets, to allow you to do things in them that couldn't have been done in period. I was at Robert MacPhersons shop going over some of these things and he pointed out just how little wrist motion you *should* have in a medieval gauntlet worn over a proper lower cannon. Of course, many halfsword techniques work just fine! That's one of the reasons halfswording was so popular in armored combat (I have yet to understand why they liked it in unarmored combat, but at least two of the versions of Talhoffer show it being done without armor).
Thank you for the compliment; I'm sure trying, but I have a long way to go. Not everything in Clement's book is wrong, not at all. I think the *least* accurate part of his book (his medieval book; I haven't ever looked at his rapier book) is the sword and shield section. He doesn't fight at *all*, and doesn't have a fechtbucher to fall back on, so everything in it is just his own fevered imagination. Some of the other stuff is taken from the fecthbucher, but is based only on jumping around with a waster in his gym clothes, so it doesn't have much value in terms of interpretation. That's why people like Bob Charron are so important: they come from an understanding of combat and can use that knowledge and skill to interpret what they see and read. Frankly, there's so much in his book that's just plain silly and patently wrong that I haven't picked it up in a while, so I can't remember exactly which things he got right. There are a lot more valuable resources out there; stay as far from Clement as you can.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>I'll say again I like Talhoffer's manual and the Opera Nova
Flonzy</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Be careful of Talhoffer: I think a lot of his techniques have a lot of value, but some are, at least, confusing. For example, his version of the krumphau is done with the false edge of the sword, and yet other fechtmeisters seem to indicate that this should be done with the long edge (Christian Tobler and I are debating this now). Christian also doubts that the plate after the krumphau actually depicts the follow-up technique for the krump as the Rector translation claims it does (I think it does, but it's certainly open to interpretation, and I have to admit Christian's read more of the German masters than I have).
One of the important things with Talhoffer, I think, is to look at his book in the light of *other* fechtmeisters. For example, if you go back to a thread that I started on here a few days ago you'll see my analysis of one of the plates in Talhoffer interpreted by matching it with material in Ringeck (my personal favorite).
Finally, be sure to interpret *all* of the fechtbucher with a *huge* grain of salt. Just as three minor examples why, consider the Lichtenaur plate in the color plates in the back of Anglo's book: one of the figures has his hands drawn backward. And in the Novati version of Fiore, the figure in one of the guards has his left hand drawn in the wrong position when compared to the other manuscripts (the "two-cornered guard"). Also, until recently, the published translation of Ringeck from which most people were working had a place where the words "right" and "left" were switched, and when you try to do the technique that way it simply couldn't be done; fortunately, this error has been corrected now, but how many other, more subtle transcrption errors have ocurred (for example, I suspect there's another in the description of one of the techniques under the krumphau where the text says to wind one way, but doing so opens you to attack, while going the other way doesn't)?
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
I disagree with you on the technique being useless do to the gauntlets. I have a pair on clamshells I fight with I they are fine. I use greatswords myself and have not had many problems with my gauntlets, no more than fighting rapier in a leather glove. Just got to get use to it. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Gauntlets do make it almost impossible to do many of the unarmored techniques in the fechbucher correctly (not all, but many). This is especially apparent when you look at books like Gladatoria (and others) which show the armored combat being done with full harnesses *except* gauntlets.
Part of the reason you may be able to do some of these things with your gauntlets is that they may not be accurate reproductions of medieval gauntlets, or the lower cannons of your vambraces may not be made correctly. Most armorers try to 'improve' medieval armor, especially things like gauntlets, to allow you to do things in them that couldn't have been done in period. I was at Robert MacPhersons shop going over some of these things and he pointed out just how little wrist motion you *should* have in a medieval gauntlet worn over a proper lower cannon. Of course, many halfsword techniques work just fine! That's one of the reasons halfswording was so popular in armored combat (I have yet to understand why they liked it in unarmored combat, but at least two of the versions of Talhoffer show it being done without armor).
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I ask you this Rhys and Murdock do you find the basic stances and cuts incorrect in the Clements book? Granted the comment, if he wrote it, on the guards being for shields alone is a bad comment. We all know, or I hope we all do, that the guard is there to block blows from the sword. Do you dismiss him completely because he mocks the SCA style of combat for its lack of historical technique? Not that all of the SCA is that way. Rhys seems well studied. </font>
Thank you for the compliment; I'm sure trying, but I have a long way to go. Not everything in Clement's book is wrong, not at all. I think the *least* accurate part of his book (his medieval book; I haven't ever looked at his rapier book) is the sword and shield section. He doesn't fight at *all*, and doesn't have a fechtbucher to fall back on, so everything in it is just his own fevered imagination. Some of the other stuff is taken from the fecthbucher, but is based only on jumping around with a waster in his gym clothes, so it doesn't have much value in terms of interpretation. That's why people like Bob Charron are so important: they come from an understanding of combat and can use that knowledge and skill to interpret what they see and read. Frankly, there's so much in his book that's just plain silly and patently wrong that I haven't picked it up in a while, so I can't remember exactly which things he got right. There are a lot more valuable resources out there; stay as far from Clement as you can.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>I'll say again I like Talhoffer's manual and the Opera Nova
Flonzy</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Be careful of Talhoffer: I think a lot of his techniques have a lot of value, but some are, at least, confusing. For example, his version of the krumphau is done with the false edge of the sword, and yet other fechtmeisters seem to indicate that this should be done with the long edge (Christian Tobler and I are debating this now). Christian also doubts that the plate after the krumphau actually depicts the follow-up technique for the krump as the Rector translation claims it does (I think it does, but it's certainly open to interpretation, and I have to admit Christian's read more of the German masters than I have).
One of the important things with Talhoffer, I think, is to look at his book in the light of *other* fechtmeisters. For example, if you go back to a thread that I started on here a few days ago you'll see my analysis of one of the plates in Talhoffer interpreted by matching it with material in Ringeck (my personal favorite).
Finally, be sure to interpret *all* of the fechtbucher with a *huge* grain of salt. Just as three minor examples why, consider the Lichtenaur plate in the color plates in the back of Anglo's book: one of the figures has his hands drawn backward. And in the Novati version of Fiore, the figure in one of the guards has his left hand drawn in the wrong position when compared to the other manuscripts (the "two-cornered guard"). Also, until recently, the published translation of Ringeck from which most people were working had a place where the words "right" and "left" were switched, and when you try to do the technique that way it simply couldn't be done; fortunately, this error has been corrected now, but how many other, more subtle transcrption errors have ocurred (for example, I suspect there's another in the description of one of the techniques under the krumphau where the text says to wind one way, but doing so opens you to attack, while going the other way doesn't)?
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
Vitus von Atzinger
- Archive Member
- Posts: 14039
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Louisville, Ky. USA
Rhys-
I mean that some people on these boards already know the answer that they want to hear, and I am tired of seeing you waste your efforts on people who are going to gripe at you because you don't give them the "correct" answer/opinion that they were fishing for. That is why I was laughing as I said "shut up", because it is sometimes very tragic the way people seem to *need* to misunderstand you.
Your pal-
-V
[This message has been edited by Vitus (edited 03-01-2002).]
I mean that some people on these boards already know the answer that they want to hear, and I am tired of seeing you waste your efforts on people who are going to gripe at you because you don't give them the "correct" answer/opinion that they were fishing for. That is why I was laughing as I said "shut up", because it is sometimes very tragic the way people seem to *need* to misunderstand you.
Your pal-
-V
[This message has been edited by Vitus (edited 03-01-2002).]
-
Winterfell
- Archive Member
- Posts: 12345
- Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: Reston
Rhys,
Stay away from the Clements rapier book. Bad book, bad. I started reading it and got about a quarter of the way through and was thinking, WTF? I do like his medieval book a bit better only because it shows basics, and it is good for a beginner, but as you and others have said, the student should be made aware of the BS that he has in it. Other than that I would not take it for much, especially after hearing more and more about this guy.
I also saw a video of him sparring with schalgers ( I won't call it rapier fighting because it did not look like anything I have ever learned or saw) During one of the passes, Clements reaches out and kicks the guy right in the nuts. Nice guy.
It is here under Coup d'Groin.
http://www.thehaca.com/Videos/CoupdGroin.avi
------------------
"As long as there are fanatics there will always be heretics
Stay away from the Clements rapier book. Bad book, bad. I started reading it and got about a quarter of the way through and was thinking, WTF? I do like his medieval book a bit better only because it shows basics, and it is good for a beginner, but as you and others have said, the student should be made aware of the BS that he has in it. Other than that I would not take it for much, especially after hearing more and more about this guy.
I also saw a video of him sparring with schalgers ( I won't call it rapier fighting because it did not look like anything I have ever learned or saw) During one of the passes, Clements reaches out and kicks the guy right in the nuts. Nice guy.
It is here under Coup d'Groin.
http://www.thehaca.com/Videos/CoupdGroin.avi
------------------
"As long as there are fanatics there will always be heretics
-
Russ Mitchell
- Archive Member
- Posts: 11800
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: HQ, Garden Gnome Liberation Front
- Contact:
SyRhys: be very careful about Anglo as well... he does an excellent job writing about his subject, but if he is a fighter, it doesn't show.... the critique of the artist in the back of his book is dead wrong, and the hands are, in fact, NOT backwards, but exactly where they need to be to execute that technique -- and by misunderstanding that picture so badly, he shows that he really doesn't get the physical side of the field (which is just fine, as the purpose of the book is to show the intellectual methods of transmission of the material, not explicate the material itself).
If you don't get the hand thing, email me, and I'll run through it with you. I may have an alternate way of understanding the whole short and long edge thing, but it seems totally unproblematic to me.
If you don't get the hand thing, email me, and I'll run through it with you. I may have an alternate way of understanding the whole short and long edge thing, but it seems totally unproblematic to me.
You had up till " the hands arent backwards." I own the getty and the novati version of the liberi and have spent time with the morgan. the getty and the morgan are identical in all respects except length. the morgan seems to only have the long sword section. the novati is very different in many respects. different moves shown in each section, different counters to each move and the art on the whole is the poorest of the three versions. The hands are the other way in posta de bicorne in the getty and the morgan. the novati is a much latter codex that seems to have been written in haste, due to its poor drawings and near total lack of verbage. This would be futher born out by the use of ligadura in the verbage as well. It is an old italian form of short hand also common in the music of the day.
-
Murdock
- Something Different
- Posts: 17705
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Milwaukee, Wi U S of freakin A
- Contact:
"I disagree with you on the technique being useless do to the gauntlets. I have a pair on clamshells I fight with I they are fine. I use greatswords myself and have not had many problems with my gauntlets, no more than fighting rapier in a leather glove. Just got to get use to it. "
Mine work fine too, but many guantlets i have seen are oversized, usually to accomidate blue foam. While they work for gripping weapons, they are rather cumbersome while trying to do wrist locks or grabs like in fiore or some of the other manuals.
Clements rubs me the wrong way in general, the repeated tales of him refusing to spar with non HACA folks. The very "SCA sucks" attitude he displays. Alot of the info is good in his books, but it seems to be the part he lifted straight from the manuals.
Mine work fine too, but many guantlets i have seen are oversized, usually to accomidate blue foam. While they work for gripping weapons, they are rather cumbersome while trying to do wrist locks or grabs like in fiore or some of the other manuals.
Clements rubs me the wrong way in general, the repeated tales of him refusing to spar with non HACA folks. The very "SCA sucks" attitude he displays. Alot of the info is good in his books, but it seems to be the part he lifted straight from the manuals.
-
Russ Mitchell
- Archive Member
- Posts: 11800
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: HQ, Garden Gnome Liberation Front
- Contact:
Randy, I may have been mistaken, but I'd assumed he was referring to plate XXVIII in Anglo, from Scott's Liechtenauer MS. " The figure on the left assumes the overhead Vom Dach stance, while his opponent is supposed to be attacking with the Ochs stance but is hampered by having his left hand atached to his right arm and vice versa. Fol. 19v."
This is clear misunderstanding of the illustration, though the short and long edge isn't an issue here, I was mixing it up.
If that comment had something to do with Fiore, then pardon me, I misread the post.
Edit: wow, yes, that's what I get for reading at work instead of at home. My bad...
[This message has been edited by Russ Mitchell (edited 03-01-2002).]
This is clear misunderstanding of the illustration, though the short and long edge isn't an issue here, I was mixing it up.
If that comment had something to do with Fiore, then pardon me, I misread the post.
Edit: wow, yes, that's what I get for reading at work instead of at home. My bad...
[This message has been edited by Russ Mitchell (edited 03-01-2002).]
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by randy:
You had up till " the hands arent backwards." I own the getty and the novati version of the liberi and have spent time with the morgan. the getty and the morgan are identical in all respects except length. the morgan seems to only have the long sword section. the novati is very different in many respects. different moves shown in each section, different counters to each move and the art on the whole is the poorest of the three versions. The hands are the other way in posta de bicorne in the getty and the morgan. the novati is a much latter codex that seems to have been written in haste, due to its poor drawings and near total lack of verbage. This would be futher born out by the use of ligadura in the verbage as well. It is an old italian form of short hand also common in the music of the day.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi Randy,
I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me about the guard you mention above, at first you seem to be, then later you seem to be agreeing. In either case, all I can say is that I kept trying to make this guard work until I went to Bob Charron's workshop and saw the Getty edition which showed the guard done the correct way, and had Bob assure me that the Novati version that everyone has is, indeed, drawn incorrectly.
And the Scott Lichtenaur plate in Anglo is wrong, too; just try it!
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
You had up till " the hands arent backwards." I own the getty and the novati version of the liberi and have spent time with the morgan. the getty and the morgan are identical in all respects except length. the morgan seems to only have the long sword section. the novati is very different in many respects. different moves shown in each section, different counters to each move and the art on the whole is the poorest of the three versions. The hands are the other way in posta de bicorne in the getty and the morgan. the novati is a much latter codex that seems to have been written in haste, due to its poor drawings and near total lack of verbage. This would be futher born out by the use of ligadura in the verbage as well. It is an old italian form of short hand also common in the music of the day.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi Randy,
I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me about the guard you mention above, at first you seem to be, then later you seem to be agreeing. In either case, all I can say is that I kept trying to make this guard work until I went to Bob Charron's workshop and saw the Getty edition which showed the guard done the correct way, and had Bob assure me that the Novati version that everyone has is, indeed, drawn incorrectly.
And the Scott Lichtenaur plate in Anglo is wrong, too; just try it!
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Vitus:
<B>Rhys-
I mean that some people on these boards already know the answer that they want to hear, and I am tired of seeing you waste your efforts on people who are going to gripe at you because you don't give them the "correct" answer/opinion that they were fishing for. That is why I was laughing as I said "shut up", because it is sometimes very tragic the way people seem to *need* to misunderstand you.
Your pal-
-V
[This message has been edited by Vitus (edited 03-01-2002).]</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Careful, my friend; taking my side on these things is sure to get you villified right along with me!
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>Rhys-
I mean that some people on these boards already know the answer that they want to hear, and I am tired of seeing you waste your efforts on people who are going to gripe at you because you don't give them the "correct" answer/opinion that they were fishing for. That is why I was laughing as I said "shut up", because it is sometimes very tragic the way people seem to *need* to misunderstand you.
Your pal-
-V
[This message has been edited by Vitus (edited 03-01-2002).]</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Careful, my friend; taking my side on these things is sure to get you villified right along with me!
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Russ Mitchell:
<B>SyRhys: be very careful about Anglo as well... he does an excellent job writing about his subject, but if he is a fighter, it doesn't show.... the critique of the artist in the back of his book is dead wrong, and the hands are, in fact, NOT backwards, but exactly where they need to be to execute that technique -- and by misunderstanding that picture so badly, he shows that he really doesn't get the physical side of the field (which is just fine, as the purpose of the book is to show the intellectual methods of transmission of the material, not explicate the material itself).
If you don't get the hand thing, email me, and I'll run through it with you. I may have an alternate way of understanding the whole short and long edge thing, but it seems totally unproblematic to me.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Damn it, you're right! I just went back and looked at the Lichtenaur plate again, and it's just ochs! Every other time I looked at it the decoration on the doublet made me think that was his belly facing us, not his back, but the more I look at it, it's his back, and this is just a normal stance.
I learn something new every day. Thank you very much for pushing me to look at this again.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>SyRhys: be very careful about Anglo as well... he does an excellent job writing about his subject, but if he is a fighter, it doesn't show.... the critique of the artist in the back of his book is dead wrong, and the hands are, in fact, NOT backwards, but exactly where they need to be to execute that technique -- and by misunderstanding that picture so badly, he shows that he really doesn't get the physical side of the field (which is just fine, as the purpose of the book is to show the intellectual methods of transmission of the material, not explicate the material itself).
If you don't get the hand thing, email me, and I'll run through it with you. I may have an alternate way of understanding the whole short and long edge thing, but it seems totally unproblematic to me.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Damn it, you're right! I just went back and looked at the Lichtenaur plate again, and it's just ochs! Every other time I looked at it the decoration on the doublet made me think that was his belly facing us, not his back, but the more I look at it, it's his back, and this is just a normal stance.
I learn something new every day. Thank you very much for pushing me to look at this again.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
Magmaforge
- Archive Member
- Posts: 3281
- Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2000 2:01 am
- Location: sweet home Chicago, Rome of the 21st c.
hi Winterfell
I've been practicing WMA of various sorts for about 2 years now, and I am one of the bemoaned "waster types" =p
I started with Talhoffer and Silver's Paradoxes. From there, I added Fiore and Jeu de la Hache, Petter and DiGrassi, Swetnam, Cyzzner, Saviolo. Most of these can be had for free off of www.aemma.org or www.thehaca.com. Not to say that I have mastered any of these manuals, but these are the ones I like, due to their relative ease of use/practical application.
I would say that sometimes, even with an excellent translation, it isn't enough. Insight, experimentation, and different perspective yields so much out of these manuals. Bob Charron goes over the same techniques in Fiore's system and finds out something new each time, ocassionally totally reworking his interpretation of the technique. Without someone else's translation to give you a set "way to do it", one might look at a manual, and do something with it that has never been done before. When this happens, write it down. Take a picture with a good view of it's mechanical execution with a partner. Often, a bad interpretation will make itself known very quickly in practice.
Mag =)
I've been practicing WMA of various sorts for about 2 years now, and I am one of the bemoaned "waster types" =p
I started with Talhoffer and Silver's Paradoxes. From there, I added Fiore and Jeu de la Hache, Petter and DiGrassi, Swetnam, Cyzzner, Saviolo. Most of these can be had for free off of www.aemma.org or www.thehaca.com. Not to say that I have mastered any of these manuals, but these are the ones I like, due to their relative ease of use/practical application.
I would say that sometimes, even with an excellent translation, it isn't enough. Insight, experimentation, and different perspective yields so much out of these manuals. Bob Charron goes over the same techniques in Fiore's system and finds out something new each time, ocassionally totally reworking his interpretation of the technique. Without someone else's translation to give you a set "way to do it", one might look at a manual, and do something with it that has never been done before. When this happens, write it down. Take a picture with a good view of it's mechanical execution with a partner. Often, a bad interpretation will make itself known very quickly in practice.
Mag =)
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by randy:
sorry about the confusion. i read a responce that didnt referance the argument and assumed it refered to the fiore because it was the topic just prior. excuse now i am trying to find the plate in question and cant. is it in " martial arts of ren europe" or a different book?</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, in the back of Anglo's book there are a series of color plates from several different fechtbucher; one of them is Scott's Lichtenaur. In the longsword section Anglo comments that the hands are wrong in the plate that shows the man on the left in vom Tag and the man on the right in Ochs... but see my correction to my original post before doing so! (I *have* to learn to wear better tasting shoes...)
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
sorry about the confusion. i read a responce that didnt referance the argument and assumed it refered to the fiore because it was the topic just prior. excuse now i am trying to find the plate in question and cant. is it in " martial arts of ren europe" or a different book?</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, in the back of Anglo's book there are a series of color plates from several different fechtbucher; one of them is Scott's Lichtenaur. In the longsword section Anglo comments that the hands are wrong in the plate that shows the man on the left in vom Tag and the man on the right in Ochs... but see my correction to my original post before doing so! (I *have* to learn to wear better tasting shoes...)
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"