Russ Mitchell wrote:Yes, and the displacement was well-performed. I completely disagree with your interpretation of the technique (how you can tell whether he's strong from ten feet away, for instance), but the absetzen itself was well done, and there should certainly be room for displacements, glides, binds, etcetera, to be done in rattan, to the extent that the tool allows it, and I see no reason why folks like Jonathan couldn't add extra arrows to their quivers by looking them over, if they wanted to.
That's not what von Danzig meant by "strong" in that instance. He's not talking about strong in the bind, he's talking a literally *strong* opponent. Since the technique starts when you are not in contact, that's all that *could* mean. Von Danzig talks about this elsewhere, too: For example, he says:
"Note: When you are dueling, and your opponent seems to be too strong for you, then hold your sword in a guard and step skillfully to him." (von Danzig fol. 68v/Tobler p. 63)
Since he tells you to take up a guard and step toward your opponent, this can only mean you make the determination that your opponent is strong when you are not in a bind, hence the kind of bind is meaningless here. Ringeck makes the same kind of statement in his "other plays of the halfsword" when he says:
"You are to use the
Nachreisen against a strong man who fights with outstretched arms and otherwise knows nothing of the art." (Ringeck fol. 130v).
Again, the technique is performed from the
Zufechten, before contact, not in the
Krieg, so asking whether he's hard or soft in the bind is meaningless since there is no bind. You should have asked if this wasn't clear to you.
Also, if you were criticizing the vertical rather than horizontal displacement in your previous post, then be aware that this, too is justified. We are given a response to use if someone defends himself by lifting his sword straight up in the air horizontally, so we know that isn't a good or safe practice:
http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/0002/bsb00020451/images/index.html?seite=41http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/0002/bsb00020451/images/index.html?seite=42Besides, there's *nothing* that even hints that you must do the displacement horizontally--this is just how some folks have been doing it, and others think they must be right--but it isn't in the text.
(I will NOT, however, gank this thread further by pointlessly going round and round what's already been said, and will not respond to attempts to restart that whole pile of horseflop.)
You *did* restart it when you claimed it was just a matter of definition--I merely responded to remind people that I had disproven the "different definition" argument.
