Hi,
I was studying I.33 a lot this weekend. Frankly, I can't wait until Dr. Forgeng's translation comes out, because it's a nightmare to make any sense of it without it. Anyway, I have a question about one of the techniques that shows up a couple of times. I'm looking for a translation of the text associated with this technique.
On p. 8 (I'm using the AEMMA's .pdf file) we see the student grabbing the monk's arm under the student's left arm, and the student's sword over the monk's sword arm.
Anyone with hard data about what this is supposed to represent is invited to reply. Thank you.
------------------
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 02-18-2002).]
I.33 Question
-
Murdock
- Something Different
- Posts: 17705
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Milwaukee, Wi U S of freakin A
- Contact:
I think i am looking at it.
If it's the same picture, it looks like the guy on the right has the guy on the left in some kind of single arm trap or elbow lock.
He's throwing someting that looks alot like a "scorpion shot" from the SCA.
Of course the pic is fuzzy and for all i know the caption is "guy on right gets implaed through the chest as he tries wierd shot. don't do that"
I wish there was a clearer version of these pics, in mine the robes? tunics? of the fighters kinda blur together whe they get close.
Maybe the book will have better pics as well as commentary.
If it's the same picture, it looks like the guy on the right has the guy on the left in some kind of single arm trap or elbow lock.
He's throwing someting that looks alot like a "scorpion shot" from the SCA.
Of course the pic is fuzzy and for all i know the caption is "guy on right gets implaed through the chest as he tries wierd shot. don't do that"
I wish there was a clearer version of these pics, in mine the robes? tunics? of the fighters kinda blur together whe they get close.
Maybe the book will have better pics as well as commentary.
-
Bob H
- Archive Member
- Posts: 21273
- Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Tri-Cities, TN
- Contact:
Not hard evidence, but it resembles a technique I've seen elsewhere.
Note that the student's left hand has pinned the monks sword arm to the student's body, with the student's sword in leverage against the back of the monk's arm above the elbow. If the student rotates clockwise while advancing in a diagonal to his own left and pulling downward on the hilt, the monks arm will be locked at the same time the sword tip applies great pressure to the monk's groin (simple leverage, with the back of the monk's arm as the fulcrum). The monk will either be disarmed, cast down, or worse, while the rotation enables the student to evade any punching attacks from the monk's buckler.
The footwork for the student looks backward for what I just described, but if the monk is attacking vigorously (and by his footwork it appears that he is), then the student would only have to move his right foot in a clockwise circle to achieve the leverage he needs to effect the technique.
The overall effect is to divert the monk's attack obliquely behind and to the right of the student, while using the attack's momentum in conjunction with the elbow lock to cause the monk great disappointment and consternation.
[This message has been edited by Bob Hurley (edited 02-18-2002).]
Note that the student's left hand has pinned the monks sword arm to the student's body, with the student's sword in leverage against the back of the monk's arm above the elbow. If the student rotates clockwise while advancing in a diagonal to his own left and pulling downward on the hilt, the monks arm will be locked at the same time the sword tip applies great pressure to the monk's groin (simple leverage, with the back of the monk's arm as the fulcrum). The monk will either be disarmed, cast down, or worse, while the rotation enables the student to evade any punching attacks from the monk's buckler.
The footwork for the student looks backward for what I just described, but if the monk is attacking vigorously (and by his footwork it appears that he is), then the student would only have to move his right foot in a clockwise circle to achieve the leverage he needs to effect the technique.
The overall effect is to divert the monk's attack obliquely behind and to the right of the student, while using the attack's momentum in conjunction with the elbow lock to cause the monk great disappointment and consternation.
[This message has been edited by Bob Hurley (edited 02-18-2002).]
-
Murdock
- Something Different
- Posts: 17705
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Milwaukee, Wi U S of freakin A
- Contact:
Thats a little clearer than mine, great!
so Bob,
your saying it's basically trap the arm to the shoulder with the left, by a Fiore boars tooth lift then step back. If he puts the fulcrm of the throw on the elbow he could possibly break it as well.
If the right foot is back i think you may be right.
If the student steps back the buckler strike will be effectively countered as well by moving just out of range, arm break or not.
But what about the sword strike?
I'm thinking why do all that when he can defeat the monk right there with the sword?
He could just rotate his hand down and bring the sword in between them he can cut the monks throat. Much faster than the throw.
I really want the commentary translated.
so Bob,
your saying it's basically trap the arm to the shoulder with the left, by a Fiore boars tooth lift then step back. If he puts the fulcrm of the throw on the elbow he could possibly break it as well.
If the right foot is back i think you may be right.
If the student steps back the buckler strike will be effectively countered as well by moving just out of range, arm break or not.
But what about the sword strike?
I'm thinking why do all that when he can defeat the monk right there with the sword?
He could just rotate his hand down and bring the sword in between them he can cut the monks throat. Much faster than the throw.
I really want the commentary translated.
-
Bob H
- Archive Member
- Posts: 21273
- Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Tri-Cities, TN
- Contact:
Hi Murdoch,
I edited my post slightly while you were posting in hope of it being more clear, particularly concerning the footwork. If we agree that the monk is attacking with committment, then the student's footwork would be very aikido-like.
The monk seems to already have rolled his arm to the inside, so the boar's tooth isn't needed - he's already done that deed to himself. Actually, if the student could successfully pin the monk's sword hand in place as it appears and execute the footwork, the armlock/throw will happen without other help.
As far as simply cutting the monk's throat, I recall Bob Charron's comments on the repercussions of a "wrongful death", even if attacked. He may be showing how to win without killing the monk.
A translation will be great - but if it's like others, it will still have to be interpreted somewhat.
I edited my post slightly while you were posting in hope of it being more clear, particularly concerning the footwork. If we agree that the monk is attacking with committment, then the student's footwork would be very aikido-like.
The monk seems to already have rolled his arm to the inside, so the boar's tooth isn't needed - he's already done that deed to himself. Actually, if the student could successfully pin the monk's sword hand in place as it appears and execute the footwork, the armlock/throw will happen without other help.
As far as simply cutting the monk's throat, I recall Bob Charron's comments on the repercussions of a "wrongful death", even if attacked. He may be showing how to win without killing the monk.
A translation will be great - but if it's like others, it will still have to be interpreted somewhat.
-
SyrRhys
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1980
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: San Bernardino, CA
- Contact:
I think those are some good ideas, but what I *really* think this shows is a so-called "scorpion wrap"; i.e., an over-the-top shot striking with the short edge of the sword, almost like Ringeck's squinter, but with the blade passing more to the vertical. So the idea is you're cutting his upper arm with the short edge of your sword. It's a *very* fast and incredibly powerful cut.
I suspect there'd be no reason to use the locking technique someone described; a cut to the head would be more effective (unless it's *intended* as a non-lethal technique, although if that was the case we'd expect to see more non-lethal techniques in the book). That's just a gut feeling, of course; until we can read the text we just can't know.
Frankly, the more I look at this book the more I'm tempted to agree with Anglo's suggestion that this book is simply bogus (I think he used the word "ineffective")... but I can't get past the fact that some of the same techniques show up in the Manessa Codex, and that kind of synchronicity bothers me.
Today I've been trying to figure if the awkward sword hand and buckler hand together pictures are supposed to represent two steps, i.e., put the buckler out, then move the sword out. LOL! When is Dr. Forgeng's translation going to be ready? (I spoke with him in November, I think it was, and he was fairly vague).
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
I suspect there'd be no reason to use the locking technique someone described; a cut to the head would be more effective (unless it's *intended* as a non-lethal technique, although if that was the case we'd expect to see more non-lethal techniques in the book). That's just a gut feeling, of course; until we can read the text we just can't know.
Frankly, the more I look at this book the more I'm tempted to agree with Anglo's suggestion that this book is simply bogus (I think he used the word "ineffective")... but I can't get past the fact that some of the same techniques show up in the Manessa Codex, and that kind of synchronicity bothers me.
Today I've been trying to figure if the awkward sword hand and buckler hand together pictures are supposed to represent two steps, i.e., put the buckler out, then move the sword out. LOL! When is Dr. Forgeng's translation going to be ready? (I spoke with him in November, I think it was, and he was fairly vague).
------------------
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 Hob:
It's probably best to just ignore the position of the feet in the pictures in I. 33. They're in almost exactly the same position in every single picture.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not always, though; the 5th guard is the only one (I think) with the feet switched; I wonder what that means?
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
It's probably best to just ignore the position of the feet in the pictures in I. 33. They're in almost exactly the same position in every single picture.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not always, though; the 5th guard is the only one (I think) with the feet switched; I wonder what that means?
------------------
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:
"if that was the case we'd expect to see more non-lethal techniques in the book"
That was my reasoning as well, I33 is full of blood and guts compared to some other FB's.
I assume he's trying to kill the opponent, but it may be otherwise. Until the trans lation we don't know, heck it may be a draw cut on the back of the arm.
That was my reasoning as well, I33 is full of blood and guts compared to some other FB's.
I assume he's trying to kill the opponent, but it may be otherwise. Until the trans lation we don't know, heck it may be a draw cut on the back of the arm.
-
Baron Logan
- Archive Member
- Posts: 380
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Kalamazoo, MI USA
- Contact:
Rhys,
From the initial position of the guard, wouldn’t a simple almost vertical thrust be a more likely attack? It would keep the sword on a vertical plane throughout the attack (and make a possible deflection if needed?) and would probably be a faster attack than any cut from that point. Maybe the finishing position that we see here is representing the thrust or simply a setup to a draw cut to the triceps as the pair separates?
Logan
From the initial position of the guard, wouldn’t a simple almost vertical thrust be a more likely attack? It would keep the sword on a vertical plane throughout the attack (and make a possible deflection if needed?) and would probably be a faster attack than any cut from that point. Maybe the finishing position that we see here is representing the thrust or simply a setup to a draw cut to the triceps as the pair separates?
Logan
-
Russ Mitchell
- Archive Member
- Posts: 11800
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: HQ, Garden Gnome Liberation Front
- Contact:
Hob: NO.
In my not-particularly humble opinion, I.33 is often misinterpreted precisely because people look at the artwork, scratch their heads, and then refuse to take it at face value. I.33 is a really neat system, and makes extensive use of the hips with springy ankles, if you let yourself move and stand the way they show it.
Edit.
Working solely from the imagery here, I believe Logan is correct: all you're doing is wrapping up his thrust with your buckler while dropping your point into his bladder. Otherwise, if the angle is not good for a thrust, you have a perfect setup for a cut across teh arm, the face, or a locking throw with a neck cut. Very simple, very elegant.
[This message has been edited by Russ Mitchell (edited 02-19-2002).]
In my not-particularly humble opinion, I.33 is often misinterpreted precisely because people look at the artwork, scratch their heads, and then refuse to take it at face value. I.33 is a really neat system, and makes extensive use of the hips with springy ankles, if you let yourself move and stand the way they show it.
Edit.
Working solely from the imagery here, I believe Logan is correct: all you're doing is wrapping up his thrust with your buckler while dropping your point into his bladder. Otherwise, if the angle is not good for a thrust, you have a perfect setup for a cut across teh arm, the face, or a locking throw with a neck cut. Very simple, very elegant.
[This message has been edited by Russ Mitchell (edited 02-19-2002).]
-
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 Kyle:
<B>If it was a scorpion, wouldn't his weight need to be back instead of forward?
- Kyle</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Heck no, that's one of the myths of the fechtbucher. You can throw any blow from either a forward or back position. I've knocked people down with a light, one-handed piece of rattan standing on one foot, yet that's something they say you can't do, either. Besides, I don't trust these drawings to be that clear on such a subtle point.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>If it was a scorpion, wouldn't his weight need to be back instead of forward?
- Kyle</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Heck no, that's one of the myths of the fechtbucher. You can throw any blow from either a forward or back position. I've knocked people down with a light, one-handed piece of rattan standing on one foot, yet that's something they say you can't do, either. Besides, I don't trust these drawings to be that clear on such a subtle point.
------------------
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 Logan of Seaforth:
<B>Rhys,
From the initial position of the guard, wouldn’t a simple almost vertical thrust be a more likely attack? It would keep the sword on a vertical plane throughout the attack (and make a possible deflection if needed?) and would probably be a faster attack than any cut from that point. Maybe the finishing position that we see here is representing the thrust or simply a setup to a draw cut to the triceps as the pair separates?
Logan</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You coudl be right; as I said, until we get a translation we can't know. I tend to still suspect the scorpion, however; in actual use it's much faster than the attacks you mention. For example, with the thrust you'd first have to lift your sword to the vertical, then thrust down. A thrust is faster than a cut, but only from the position in which it starts; if you have to move it into position you then have a slower attack. No, if he wantd to thrust I would expect a straight thrust to the face or body.
As for the draw cut, what advantage does it have over the scorpion? The scorpion is much more lethal, and either as fast or faster.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>Rhys,
From the initial position of the guard, wouldn’t a simple almost vertical thrust be a more likely attack? It would keep the sword on a vertical plane throughout the attack (and make a possible deflection if needed?) and would probably be a faster attack than any cut from that point. Maybe the finishing position that we see here is representing the thrust or simply a setup to a draw cut to the triceps as the pair separates?
Logan</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You coudl be right; as I said, until we get a translation we can't know. I tend to still suspect the scorpion, however; in actual use it's much faster than the attacks you mention. For example, with the thrust you'd first have to lift your sword to the vertical, then thrust down. A thrust is faster than a cut, but only from the position in which it starts; if you have to move it into position you then have a slower attack. No, if he wantd to thrust I would expect a straight thrust to the face or body.
As for the draw cut, what advantage does it have over the scorpion? The scorpion is much more lethal, and either as fast or faster.
------------------
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:
I.33 is a really neat system, and makes extensive use of the hips with springy ankles, if you let yourself move and stand the way they show it.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Cool, and a neat insight. But upon what solid evidence do you bas that "not so humble opinion" since you don't seem to have any of the translation?
Interesting. I've worked with swords for a *long* time, and I don't see that thrust as either simple or elegant. You have to move your sword into an awkward position then thrust down into a target you can't see. (Not to mention the fact that it's slow compared with other things this could mean.)
I took this to practice last night and batted it around with some of the more skilled people there, and we all agreed the scorpion wrap is the only thing that makes sense. I think I'm going to go with that until and unless we get a contrary meaning fromt he text, which I'm perfectly prepared to believe we will; like I said, I'm really starting to agree with Anglo's doubts about this work.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
I.33 is a really neat system, and makes extensive use of the hips with springy ankles, if you let yourself move and stand the way they show it.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Cool, and a neat insight. But upon what solid evidence do you bas that "not so humble opinion" since you don't seem to have any of the translation?
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Working solely from the imagery here, I believe Logan is correct: all you're doing is wrapping up his thrust with your buckler while dropping your point into his bladder. Otherwise, if the angle is not good for a thrust, you have a perfect setup for a cut across teh arm, the face, or a locking throw with a neck cut. Very simple, very elegant.</font>
Interesting. I've worked with swords for a *long* time, and I don't see that thrust as either simple or elegant. You have to move your sword into an awkward position then thrust down into a target you can't see. (Not to mention the fact that it's slow compared with other things this could mean.)
I took this to practice last night and batted it around with some of the more skilled people there, and we all agreed the scorpion wrap is the only thing that makes sense. I think I'm going to go with that until and unless we get a contrary meaning fromt he text, which I'm perfectly prepared to believe we will; like I said, I'm really starting to agree with Anglo's doubts about this work.
------------------
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 Logan of Seaforth:
<B>Rhys,
From the initial position of the guard, wouldn’t a simple almost vertical thrust be a more likely attack? It would keep the sword on a vertical plane throughout the attack (and make a possible deflection if needed?) and would probably be a faster attack than any cut from that point. Maybe the finishing position that we see here is representing the thrust or simply a setup to a draw cut to the triceps as the pair separates?
Logan</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey Logan, one other thought on the draw cut:
Don't you think it would make more sense to cut from either *underneath* (e.g., into he underside of the arm you have trapped, or into the underside of the lead leg) if your sword is down, or to his head or neck or something on his left side if your sword was high at the start of the technique?
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>Rhys,
From the initial position of the guard, wouldn’t a simple almost vertical thrust be a more likely attack? It would keep the sword on a vertical plane throughout the attack (and make a possible deflection if needed?) and would probably be a faster attack than any cut from that point. Maybe the finishing position that we see here is representing the thrust or simply a setup to a draw cut to the triceps as the pair separates?
Logan</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey Logan, one other thought on the draw cut:
Don't you think it would make more sense to cut from either *underneath* (e.g., into he underside of the arm you have trapped, or into the underside of the lead leg) if your sword is down, or to his head or neck or something on his left side if your sword was high at the start of the technique?
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
Baron Logan
- Archive Member
- Posts: 380
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Kalamazoo, MI USA
- Contact:
Yes. In this unarmored combat a quick inside cut from that position would make sense to me. But it also means my sword is still inside the fight with his buckler. I’d think that cut to the back or the arm has a better chance of landing than anything inside.
I only make my assumption from the starting frame. First I looked at the starting position of the blade and the rotation of his hand and shoulder in order to maintain such a pose. I have trouble envisioning the travel path of a cut that would be as quick as the thrust all the while maintaining the integrity of the vertical sword position. Not that I think the scorpion would be impossible. It’s just that one or both of the combatants are closing and the student’s blade hand (arm/shoulder) must rotate up to clear the struggle and the teachers buckler. If he rotates the arm back down it’s a thrust. He’d need to move his arm, rotate the wrist and bring the blade back down for the scorpion. Which is viable and probably only a beat longer. It’s hard to say. The position of his elbow at the end only confuses the matter for me. I’d say he just landed a long high wrap that either traveled over his head or around his back (and completely avoiding any block by the buckler), but why start such a blow from that awkward hanging point guard?
Really once the sword arm is trapped, the student has a multitude of blows available.
Couple more questions…..
How about the position of the teachers head? Any clue there. Its bend backward at an odd angle. Could that indicate something? Any estimates on sword length and weight for something of that period? I’d guess that one in the first frame is at least 40â€
I only make my assumption from the starting frame. First I looked at the starting position of the blade and the rotation of his hand and shoulder in order to maintain such a pose. I have trouble envisioning the travel path of a cut that would be as quick as the thrust all the while maintaining the integrity of the vertical sword position. Not that I think the scorpion would be impossible. It’s just that one or both of the combatants are closing and the student’s blade hand (arm/shoulder) must rotate up to clear the struggle and the teachers buckler. If he rotates the arm back down it’s a thrust. He’d need to move his arm, rotate the wrist and bring the blade back down for the scorpion. Which is viable and probably only a beat longer. It’s hard to say. The position of his elbow at the end only confuses the matter for me. I’d say he just landed a long high wrap that either traveled over his head or around his back (and completely avoiding any block by the buckler), but why start such a blow from that awkward hanging point guard?
Really once the sword arm is trapped, the student has a multitude of blows available.
Couple more questions…..
How about the position of the teachers head? Any clue there. Its bend backward at an odd angle. Could that indicate something? Any estimates on sword length and weight for something of that period? I’d guess that one in the first frame is at least 40â€
-
Bob Charron
- Archive Member
- Posts: 430
- Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Madison, Wisconsin, USA
- Contact:
Having been in that hold and executed it on others 
, I would say the most most logical thing happening is slamming the sword blade into the monk's forehead, explaining why it is bent back.
It's very hard to do any kind of swinging work while hanging on to someone's arms in this fashion. A little body movement on their part and your cut is ruined. The thrust is very difficult to do over their right shoulder and arm, and also a little body shift on the other person's part can ruin that too.
You're in close. You've just wrapped up both arms (you're as close as you can get to him). You just cleared your sword upwards from the parry (which was in between you and him). The easiest thing to do is slam the blade into his forehead. The motion puts your hand and sword in a position to the aid the throw over your leg which is now set up.
"Throwing a scorpion wrap" to his arm while you are this close to the person and while they are wearing a cassock is not a reliable technique for injuring them at all.
Slamming your blade into his naked forehead is.
It's also consistent with other techniques from the treatises that do likewise.
------------------
Bob Charron
St. Martins Academy of Medieval Arms
[This message has been edited by Bob Charron (edited 02-19-2002).]
, I would say the most most logical thing happening is slamming the sword blade into the monk's forehead, explaining why it is bent back.It's very hard to do any kind of swinging work while hanging on to someone's arms in this fashion. A little body movement on their part and your cut is ruined. The thrust is very difficult to do over their right shoulder and arm, and also a little body shift on the other person's part can ruin that too.
You're in close. You've just wrapped up both arms (you're as close as you can get to him). You just cleared your sword upwards from the parry (which was in between you and him). The easiest thing to do is slam the blade into his forehead. The motion puts your hand and sword in a position to the aid the throw over your leg which is now set up.
"Throwing a scorpion wrap" to his arm while you are this close to the person and while they are wearing a cassock is not a reliable technique for injuring them at all.
Slamming your blade into his naked forehead is
.It's also consistent with other techniques from the treatises that do likewise.
------------------
Bob Charron
St. Martins Academy of Medieval Arms
[This message has been edited by Bob Charron (edited 02-19-2002).]
-
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 Logan of Seaforth:
Yes. In this unarmored combat a quick inside cut from that position would make sense to me. But it also means my sword is still inside the fight with his buckler. I’d think that cut to the back or the arm has a better chance of landing than anything inside.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I looked at that starting position, and it confuses me. Anglo calls it the "crutch", and it's almost a different guard (in addition to the 7 at the beginning of the book), but I don't see it's advantage. It would seem to have some value for a low-line attack, but it doesn't get used for that.
I tried it, however, and you can throw the scorpion easily from that guard too (much to my surprise).
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I only make my assumption from the starting frame. First I looked at the starting position of the blade and the rotation of his hand and shoulder in order to maintain such a pose. I have trouble envisioning the travel path of a cut that would be as quick as the thrust all the while maintaining the integrity of the vertical sword position. Not that I think the scorpion would be impossible. It’s just that one or both of the combatants are closing and the student’s blade hand (arm/shoulder) must rotate up to clear the struggle and the teachers buckler. If he rotates the arm back down it’s a thrust. He’d need to move his arm, rotate the wrist and bring the blade back down for the scorpion. Which is viable and probably only a beat longer. It’s hard to say. The position of his elbow at the end only confuses the matter for me. I’d say he just landed a long high wrap that either traveled over his head or around his back (and completely avoiding any block by the buckler), but why start such a blow from that awkward hanging point guard? [quote]
Why start *any* blow from that guard? But I tried this, and you would be surprised: If you swing your buckler in a loop to trap the attacker's arm while swinging your sword up and around for the wrap it works very well.
I've worked with the thrust as you described it, and it still seems very slow to me. You have to move your sword up over his line of attack, then thrust it down (into a target you can't see, as I pointed out earlier). I'm really finding it hard to believe that's what intended.
[quote]Really once the sword arm is trapped, the student has a multitude of blows available. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
True, so why do this when a direct attack would be simpler?
[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">How about the position of the teachers head? Any clue there. Its bend backward at an odd angle. Could that indicate something? Any estimates on sword length and weight for something of that period? I’d guess that one in the first frame is at least 40â€
Yes. In this unarmored combat a quick inside cut from that position would make sense to me. But it also means my sword is still inside the fight with his buckler. I’d think that cut to the back or the arm has a better chance of landing than anything inside.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I looked at that starting position, and it confuses me. Anglo calls it the "crutch", and it's almost a different guard (in addition to the 7 at the beginning of the book), but I don't see it's advantage. It would seem to have some value for a low-line attack, but it doesn't get used for that.
I tried it, however, and you can throw the scorpion easily from that guard too (much to my surprise).
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I only make my assumption from the starting frame. First I looked at the starting position of the blade and the rotation of his hand and shoulder in order to maintain such a pose. I have trouble envisioning the travel path of a cut that would be as quick as the thrust all the while maintaining the integrity of the vertical sword position. Not that I think the scorpion would be impossible. It’s just that one or both of the combatants are closing and the student’s blade hand (arm/shoulder) must rotate up to clear the struggle and the teachers buckler. If he rotates the arm back down it’s a thrust. He’d need to move his arm, rotate the wrist and bring the blade back down for the scorpion. Which is viable and probably only a beat longer. It’s hard to say. The position of his elbow at the end only confuses the matter for me. I’d say he just landed a long high wrap that either traveled over his head or around his back (and completely avoiding any block by the buckler), but why start such a blow from that awkward hanging point guard? [quote]
Why start *any* blow from that guard? But I tried this, and you would be surprised: If you swing your buckler in a loop to trap the attacker's arm while swinging your sword up and around for the wrap it works very well.
I've worked with the thrust as you described it, and it still seems very slow to me. You have to move your sword up over his line of attack, then thrust it down (into a target you can't see, as I pointed out earlier). I'm really finding it hard to believe that's what intended.
[quote]Really once the sword arm is trapped, the student has a multitude of blows available. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
True, so why do this when a direct attack would be simpler?
[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">How about the position of the teachers head? Any clue there. Its bend backward at an odd angle. Could that indicate something? Any estimates on sword length and weight for something of that period? I’d guess that one in the first frame is at least 40â€
-
Murdock
- Something Different
- Posts: 17705
- Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Milwaukee, Wi U S of freakin A
- Contact:
"If it was a scorpion, wouldn't his weight need to be back instead of forward?"
No, just as throwing punches in boxing. You can throw the same punch with either foot foward, you just have to know how to twist at the hips. I've always been taught that blow force, wheather in boxing, arnis, SCA, kenjitsu comes from the lower body.
In the SCA i've heard it refered to as putting your "ass" into it.
Some people can hit very hard with just their arm, but most can't. Proper form (imo) for throwing nearly any strike comes from the legs and hips. Just as the force of most throws come from the legs and hips.
As an aside, does anyone else notice how different the basic stances look from the standard SCA stance? Even looking at Agrippa, Alfieri, Grassi, Talhoffer ect, all of them seem to be leaning foward more than the SCA does. IMO the SCA stance is different due to the absence of lower leg shots.
When some of the Olaf guys have done lower legs we found ourselves in similar forward stances to the manuscripts.
No, just as throwing punches in boxing. You can throw the same punch with either foot foward, you just have to know how to twist at the hips. I've always been taught that blow force, wheather in boxing, arnis, SCA, kenjitsu comes from the lower body.
In the SCA i've heard it refered to as putting your "ass" into it.
Some people can hit very hard with just their arm, but most can't. Proper form (imo) for throwing nearly any strike comes from the legs and hips. Just as the force of most throws come from the legs and hips.
As an aside, does anyone else notice how different the basic stances look from the standard SCA stance? Even looking at Agrippa, Alfieri, Grassi, Talhoffer ect, all of them seem to be leaning foward more than the SCA does. IMO the SCA stance is different due to the absence of lower leg shots.
When some of the Olaf guys have done lower legs we found ourselves in similar forward stances to the manuscripts.
-
Baron Logan
- Archive Member
- Posts: 380
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Kalamazoo, MI USA
- Contact:
I did think about a strike to the face with the blade just above the hilt or even the hilt itself from the starting position. But the finishing position would seem to indicate that the sword was raised at some point during the attack. And if at some point you raise that sword up high enough to clear his entire body, then tip would still have to pass near his chest, throat or face. Which to my mind still begs the thrust on a lunging opponent.
Are there any artistic renderings of thrusts occurring in the rest of the manual? I mean… Do we ever actually see a sword tip shown to penetrate? If so then I would think that makes this set a cut. If not maybe its just the way our practitioners were posed during the making of the manuals illustrations. The thrust being implied??? Does that question make any sense?
Are there any artistic renderings of thrusts occurring in the rest of the manual? I mean… Do we ever actually see a sword tip shown to penetrate? If so then I would think that makes this set a cut. If not maybe its just the way our practitioners were posed during the making of the manuals illustrations. The thrust being implied??? Does that question make any sense?
-
Russ Mitchell
- Archive Member
- Posts: 11800
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: HQ, Garden Gnome Liberation Front
- Contact:
Actually, slamming the sword into his face makes more sense for the angle of the blade shown than the thrust does. Got me, Bob. Though a head-butt is also entirely likely, just pictorially...
SirRhys: I have read a translation of this, but don't own it -- and was asked point-blank not to copy it, as publication permissions were an issue. So while I have read it in the past, I haven't worked with it enough to do so from memory. The movement style is entirely my own opinion, ymmv, but if you take the long, forward-leaning stances in -- and catch this-- shoes that allow your toes to really point, as most modern shoes to not, then what happened with those of us I worked it with was that you wind up moving in this odd bouncing-rocking movement that is a little bit counter-intuitive at first, but very, very mobile, especially for shifting your weight out of striking range, and for suddenly closing. I also think the wrap exceedingly unlikely to do any damage here, given the inherent lightness and blade design of the weapons depicted. I would hesitate to throw such a false-edge cut under those conditions even with the sabres I own which are designed specifically for it. In terms of a thrust, sword smash, or any of that business, given that you already have the blade up face high pointing down, getting into that position is no big deal unless you have very tight shoulders.
Now, what does bug me is how he can stand in the first position without ripping his wrist off, given that the right elbow is very low -- but I know for a fact that I have very, very tight forearms.
SirRhys: I have read a translation of this, but don't own it -- and was asked point-blank not to copy it, as publication permissions were an issue. So while I have read it in the past, I haven't worked with it enough to do so from memory. The movement style is entirely my own opinion, ymmv, but if you take the long, forward-leaning stances in -- and catch this-- shoes that allow your toes to really point, as most modern shoes to not, then what happened with those of us I worked it with was that you wind up moving in this odd bouncing-rocking movement that is a little bit counter-intuitive at first, but very, very mobile, especially for shifting your weight out of striking range, and for suddenly closing. I also think the wrap exceedingly unlikely to do any damage here, given the inherent lightness and blade design of the weapons depicted. I would hesitate to throw such a false-edge cut under those conditions even with the sabres I own which are designed specifically for it. In terms of a thrust, sword smash, or any of that business, given that you already have the blade up face high pointing down, getting into that position is no big deal unless you have very tight shoulders.
Now, what does bug me is how he can stand in the first position without ripping his wrist off, given that the right elbow is very low -- but I know for a fact that I have very, very tight forearms.
-
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 Bob Charron:
[B]Having been in that hold and executed it on others, I would say the most most logical thing happening is slamming the sword blade into the monk's forehead, explaining why it is bent back.[b]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi Bob,
If you slammed your sword into his forhead the tip of your blade wouldn't be hangning back over his arm like that.
I don't agree. When we experimentd with grappling at an event last fall we found that in many situations, when you're locked up, a wrap is a magnificent and powerful attack; in fact, I laughed for 20 minutes when Galleron, who agrees with you that wraps don't work and wouldn't have been used, used several in a row to free himself from the bind he was in... with a *longsword* (certainly a clumsier than these weapons). Wraps are *very* effective when grappling; I've done them and seen them done. Please, let's not get so tied up in reading books that we ignore the hard evidence of experimental archeaology!
By the way, I saw a note from someone about pre-ordering your book; is it ready?
I hate to say this to a man who's better than I am, but that's not true. If your arm is free (as it must be to do any of the techniques we've discussed, a wrap is *better* because it moves away from both of you on the way to its target.
Would you please give me a reference for another technique in the fechtbucher where you strike with the point down like this and you *aren't* striking with the false edge? Come on, Bob, this is almost no different than the squinter, except the point's a bit lower and deeper.
------------------
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 02-19-2002).]
[B]Having been in that hold and executed it on others
, I would say the most most logical thing happening is slamming the sword blade into the monk's forehead, explaining why it is bent back.[b]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hi Bob,
If you slammed your sword into his forhead the tip of your blade wouldn't be hangning back over his arm like that.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">It's very hard to do any kind of swinging work while hanging on to someone's arms in this fashion. A little body movement on their part and your cut is ruined.</font>
I don't agree. When we experimentd with grappling at an event last fall we found that in many situations, when you're locked up, a wrap is a magnificent and powerful attack; in fact, I laughed for 20 minutes when Galleron, who agrees with you that wraps don't work and wouldn't have been used, used several in a row to free himself from the bind he was in... with a *longsword* (certainly a clumsier than these weapons). Wraps are *very* effective when grappling; I've done them and seen them done. Please, let's not get so tied up in reading books that we ignore the hard evidence of experimental archeaology!
By the way, I saw a note from someone about pre-ordering your book; is it ready?
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">"Throwing a scorpion wrap" to his arm while you are this close to the person and while they are wearing a cassock is not a reliable technique for injuring them at all.</font>
I hate to say this to a man who's better than I am, but that's not true. If your arm is free (as it must be to do any of the techniques we've discussed, a wrap is *better* because it moves away from both of you on the way to its target.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">It's also consistent with other techniques from the treatises that do likewise.</font>
Would you please give me a reference for another technique in the fechtbucher where you strike with the point down like this and you *aren't* striking with the false edge? Come on, Bob, this is almost no different than the squinter, except the point's a bit lower and deeper.
------------------
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 02-19-2002).]
-
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 Russ Mitchell:
I also think the wrap exceedingly unlikely to do any damage here, given the inherent lightness and blade design of the weapons depicted. I would hesitate to throw such a false-edge cut under those conditions even with the sabres I own which are designed specifically for it.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then you don't know how to throw a wrap.
Oh, and sabres are the worst weapon for a wrap; the back curve makes them very difficult to throw a wrap with and make it land, so it's not surprising that you can't do it with them. I have a sword like those depicted in I.33, and I can do it, I promise you.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
I also think the wrap exceedingly unlikely to do any damage here, given the inherent lightness and blade design of the weapons depicted. I would hesitate to throw such a false-edge cut under those conditions even with the sabres I own which are designed specifically for it.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then you don't know how to throw a wrap.
Oh, and sabres are the worst weapon for a wrap; the back curve makes them very difficult to throw a wrap with and make it land, so it's not surprising that you can't do it with them. I have a sword like those depicted in I.33, and I can do it, I promise you.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
Russ Mitchell
- Archive Member
- Posts: 11800
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: HQ, Garden Gnome Liberation Front
- Contact:
That is, of course, entirely possible, as I do not often throw direct wraps. I have indeed seen wraps thrown with sufficient power and precision to cut, though not often. If the purpose of your question is to prove that it's a scorpion wrap, nothing I say is going to convince you otherwise. Let it be one, then...
... in which case I will be a very sad man, because it would then force me to accept the conclusion that the illustrator did not know his craft, since the cutting section of the blade on his arm is nowhere even remotely near that type of sword's center of percussion, and his hand and elbow are raised far higher than would be necessary for such a cut, which in turn would unnecessarily open him up to counterpunches with the buckler in the event of a flat or glancing-edge strike.
Let us agree to disagree, then. As with the footwork, I choose to believe, that the illustrators of these manuals knew what they were supposed to illustrate, unless evidence is given to the contrary.
... in which case I will be a very sad man, because it would then force me to accept the conclusion that the illustrator did not know his craft, since the cutting section of the blade on his arm is nowhere even remotely near that type of sword's center of percussion, and his hand and elbow are raised far higher than would be necessary for such a cut, which in turn would unnecessarily open him up to counterpunches with the buckler in the event of a flat or glancing-edge strike.
Let us agree to disagree, then. As with the footwork, I choose to believe, that the illustrators of these manuals knew what they were supposed to illustrate, unless evidence is given to the contrary.
-
Jean Richard Malcolmson
- Archive Member
- Posts: 1138
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Whitehouse, TX, USA
Though Bob's view that it is a sword to the head is attractive because of its simplicity, I have to go along with Syr Rhys on this one. Though I am a lefty and the shot goes to the opposite shoulder, I throw a shot just like this. It works best on those who fight me open style. I attack their sword side (remember I'm a lefty) and close. I then throw the scorpion wrap almost from left to right between us and it lands on the upper arm or shoulder of their shield side. The plane of the shot is almost vertical and parallel to my shoulders. I can feel if I throw it right and it almost always lands and is quickly called because it lands very solidly. If I throw it wrong, I know immediatly and it is not callable. I am only able to throw it right about half the time.
Regards,
Jean Richard
Ansteorra
Regards,
Jean Richard
Ansteorra
-
Baron Logan
- Archive Member
- Posts: 380
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Kalamazoo, MI USA
- Contact:
Jean Richard…
I don’t think anyone doubts a scorpion wrap can be thrown like this against an unarmored opponent. However…I think you should try to throw that shot from the inverted guard without the benefit of a returning swing from a sword side strike.
If Rhys is right and the student does perform a cut to the back or arm, then I think it would be done in a single motion. I’m trying to see how the instructor can advance while the student either turns his sword up so that it travels over the instructors right shoulder or lifts his sword arm up enough to clear it for the wrap. In both cases the point would travel so close to the instructors face that I still can’t see why a thrust or underarm cut wouldn’t be used in an unarmored situation. Could this entire sequence be meant to represents a way to disarm?
I still see the pommel face strike as viable from the starting position, but just no way to have you sword finish in its place across the shoulder without passing through both arms.
I don’t think anyone doubts a scorpion wrap can be thrown like this against an unarmored opponent. However…I think you should try to throw that shot from the inverted guard without the benefit of a returning swing from a sword side strike.
If Rhys is right and the student does perform a cut to the back or arm, then I think it would be done in a single motion. I’m trying to see how the instructor can advance while the student either turns his sword up so that it travels over the instructors right shoulder or lifts his sword arm up enough to clear it for the wrap. In both cases the point would travel so close to the instructors face that I still can’t see why a thrust or underarm cut wouldn’t be used in an unarmored situation. Could this entire sequence be meant to represents a way to disarm?
I still see the pommel face strike as viable from the starting position, but just no way to have you sword finish in its place across the shoulder without passing through both arms.
-
Bob Charron
- Archive Member
- Posts: 430
- Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Madison, Wisconsin, USA
- Contact:
I'll have to borrow Russ' words about agreeing to disagree.
I tried to explain. You have to clear your sword to keep it from getting trapped under his arm. Doing this moves the hilt higher than the point - hence the sword orientation. If the tip is lower than the hilt, you need not raise the tip to slam the forte of your blade into his forehead - and the monks head is leaning back.
If you have both of his arms wrapped up in the buckler, you will be standing at approximately his left shoulder. Thrusting into his body over both arms would require quite a bit of contortion.
"Throwing a wrap" is out because of all the reasons Russ stated, and if this picture was depicting that the student runs a 50% chance of clearing his opponent's arms and hitting himself in his own groin or leg with the tip of his "wrapping" sword.
Let's not put our own bias into the illustration. Let's look at and see what he is actually doing. There is a point of contact being illustrated by the position of the two players. Now that I look at the pasted image again, it is quite clear, is it not, that the blade of the sword is just below the tonsure of the priest, and his head is bent back.
Man, we really need that translation
Hey Russ, it was great seeing you and Anna in Tulsa!
I tried to explain. You have to clear your sword to keep it from getting trapped under his arm. Doing this moves the hilt higher than the point - hence the sword orientation. If the tip is lower than the hilt, you need not raise the tip to slam the forte of your blade into his forehead - and the monks head is leaning back.
If you have both of his arms wrapped up in the buckler, you will be standing at approximately his left shoulder. Thrusting into his body over both arms would require quite a bit of contortion.
"Throwing a wrap" is out because of all the reasons Russ stated, and if this picture was depicting that the student runs a 50% chance of clearing his opponent's arms and hitting himself in his own groin or leg with the tip of his "wrapping" sword.
Let's not put our own bias into the illustration. Let's look at and see what he is actually doing. There is a point of contact being illustrated by the position of the two players. Now that I look at the pasted image again, it is quite clear, is it not, that the blade of the sword is just below the tonsure of the priest, and his head is bent back.
Man, we really need that translation
Hey Russ, it was great seeing you and Anna in Tulsa!
-
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 Bob Charron:
<B>I'll have to borrow Russ' words about agreeing to disagree.
I tried to explain. You have to clear your sword to keep it from getting trapped under his arm. Doing this moves the hilt higher than the point - hence the sword orientation. If the tip is lower than the hilt, you need not raise the tip to slam the forte of your blade into his forehead - and the monks head is leaning back.
If you have both of his arms wrapped up in the buckler, you will be standing at approximately his left shoulder. Thrusting into his body over both arms would require quite a bit of contortion.
"Throwing a wrap" is out because of all the reasons Russ stated, and if this picture was depicting that the student runs a 50% chance of clearing his opponent's arms and hitting himself in his own groin or leg with the tip of his "wrapping" sword.
Let's not put our own bias into the illustration. Let's look at and see what he is actually doing. There is a point of contact being illustrated by the position of the two players. Now that I look at the pasted image again, it is quite clear, is it not, that the blade of the sword is just below the tonsure of the priest, and his head is bent back.
Man, we really need that translation
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi Bob,
Try this (it works, I know, I just did it): Start in the Krutch (I don't know why he uses that; chalk it up to one more piece of weirdness). When the monk attacks the student swings his buckler up and over the monk's sword arm, trapping it in place. At the same time, in order to prevent his sword from being tangled up in the monks shield and their mutual clothing, the student pulls his sword back until it's pointing out and slightly back; as part of the same motion, he continues the arc of the sword up and over the monk's arm to cut with a squinter (scorpion, whatever; they're all the same).
If he tried to do what you suggest, and strike to the monk's head with the pommel or cross of his sword, the blade would still be down between their two bodies, *not* over the monk's back. To get it there he would have to lift it up and over, making for a very weak strike.
By the way, Bob, contrary to what you think, I'm not trying to make this work. Frankly, I'm trying to find some validity in a book that otherwise looks ridiculous. For now, I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt until such time as I see the translation, but I don't care if this is a wrap or not. For me, the wrap's validity is beyond question. There's simply no reason on earth to doubt it (unless you think our ancestors were stupider then we! <grin>). Actually, to me, this sounds like an effort on your part to wish the wrap out of existance so you can continue to bash SCA fighting; sorry to say that, but I am offended a bit when you say that I'm not expressing an honest opinion about this.
I never said this was a wrap for certain; I'm simply at a loss to find any other reasonable explanation. I didn't intend to start a debate, all I wanted to know was whether anyone had a translation for this technique.
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
<B>I'll have to borrow Russ' words about agreeing to disagree.
I tried to explain. You have to clear your sword to keep it from getting trapped under his arm. Doing this moves the hilt higher than the point - hence the sword orientation. If the tip is lower than the hilt, you need not raise the tip to slam the forte of your blade into his forehead - and the monks head is leaning back.
If you have both of his arms wrapped up in the buckler, you will be standing at approximately his left shoulder. Thrusting into his body over both arms would require quite a bit of contortion.
"Throwing a wrap" is out because of all the reasons Russ stated, and if this picture was depicting that the student runs a 50% chance of clearing his opponent's arms and hitting himself in his own groin or leg with the tip of his "wrapping" sword.
Let's not put our own bias into the illustration. Let's look at and see what he is actually doing. There is a point of contact being illustrated by the position of the two players. Now that I look at the pasted image again, it is quite clear, is it not, that the blade of the sword is just below the tonsure of the priest, and his head is bent back.
Man, we really need that translation
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi Bob,
Try this (it works, I know, I just did it): Start in the Krutch (I don't know why he uses that; chalk it up to one more piece of weirdness). When the monk attacks the student swings his buckler up and over the monk's sword arm, trapping it in place. At the same time, in order to prevent his sword from being tangled up in the monks shield and their mutual clothing, the student pulls his sword back until it's pointing out and slightly back; as part of the same motion, he continues the arc of the sword up and over the monk's arm to cut with a squinter (scorpion, whatever; they're all the same).
If he tried to do what you suggest, and strike to the monk's head with the pommel or cross of his sword, the blade would still be down between their two bodies, *not* over the monk's back. To get it there he would have to lift it up and over, making for a very weak strike.
By the way, Bob, contrary to what you think, I'm not trying to make this work. Frankly, I'm trying to find some validity in a book that otherwise looks ridiculous. For now, I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt until such time as I see the translation, but I don't care if this is a wrap or not. For me, the wrap's validity is beyond question. There's simply no reason on earth to doubt it (unless you think our ancestors were stupider then we! <grin>). Actually, to me, this sounds like an effort on your part to wish the wrap out of existance so you can continue to bash SCA fighting; sorry to say that, but I am offended a bit when you say that I'm not expressing an honest opinion about this.
I never said this was a wrap for certain; I'm simply at a loss to find any other reasonable explanation. I didn't intend to start a debate, all I wanted to know was whether anyone had a translation for this technique.
------------------
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 Logan of Seaforth:
If Rhys is right and the student does perform a cut to the back or arm, then I think it would be done in a single motion. I’m trying to see how the instructor can advance while the student either turns his sword up so that it travels over the instructors right shoulder or lifts his sword arm up enough to clear it for the wrap. In both cases the point would travel so close to the instructors face that I still can’t see why a thrust or underarm cut wouldn’t be used in an unarmored situation. Could this entire sequence be meant to represents a way to disarm?
I still see the pommel face strike as viable from the starting position, but just no way to have you sword finish in its place across the shoulder without passing through both arms.[/B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi Logan,
I didn't see your post when I got on before, but I think your suggestion that this is an elaborate disarm is a good one. I think it's a bit clumsy, but if you're right all the student would have to do would be to lift his sword straight up, maintinaing its vertical orientation, then slide it back down again over the monk's arm.
Of course, if he's going to lift his sword up that high, why not just yank it back down again as a strike, turning the blade over as he does so?
As for the way to achieve the scorpion, read my reply to Bob; if you pull your sword hand back and down as you make the trap with your buckler hand you can move into the scorpion in one smooth circle, and this has the advantage of moving the sword out from between your bodies so it doesn't get tangled. Trust me, I tried it today and this works rather nicely, actually. Of course, it works even better from more reasonable guards, but that's a separate issue, isn't it? <grin>
The more I look at this stuff, the more I think the buckler and sword don't get moved together, one gets moved, and then the other follows, but we only see the end position. That makes this a lot more realistic, I think. Of course, I *still* can't understand some of the awkward and seemingly unnecessary postures they end up in, regardless of how they got there.
We used to have a two-sword fighter out here who moved his swords into positions that kind of reminded me of these; one hand behind his other arm, etc. He was pretty good, but his weird postures made for the best way to beat him; you just pinned his arms when they were crossed, and it was as if the other arm wasn't there. It seems as though you could achieve much the same effect using a more Talhoffer-esque style against someone using this style.
Still, there's those damnable plates in the Manessa Codex; if it weren't for those I'd dismiss this whole book out of hand.
I agree with Bob (on this one point, anyway... <grin>); we need that translation!
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
If Rhys is right and the student does perform a cut to the back or arm, then I think it would be done in a single motion. I’m trying to see how the instructor can advance while the student either turns his sword up so that it travels over the instructors right shoulder or lifts his sword arm up enough to clear it for the wrap. In both cases the point would travel so close to the instructors face that I still can’t see why a thrust or underarm cut wouldn’t be used in an unarmored situation. Could this entire sequence be meant to represents a way to disarm?
I still see the pommel face strike as viable from the starting position, but just no way to have you sword finish in its place across the shoulder without passing through both arms.[/B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi Logan,
I didn't see your post when I got on before, but I think your suggestion that this is an elaborate disarm is a good one. I think it's a bit clumsy, but if you're right all the student would have to do would be to lift his sword straight up, maintinaing its vertical orientation, then slide it back down again over the monk's arm.
Of course, if he's going to lift his sword up that high, why not just yank it back down again as a strike, turning the blade over as he does so?
As for the way to achieve the scorpion, read my reply to Bob; if you pull your sword hand back and down as you make the trap with your buckler hand you can move into the scorpion in one smooth circle, and this has the advantage of moving the sword out from between your bodies so it doesn't get tangled. Trust me, I tried it today and this works rather nicely, actually. Of course, it works even better from more reasonable guards, but that's a separate issue, isn't it? <grin>
The more I look at this stuff, the more I think the buckler and sword don't get moved together, one gets moved, and then the other follows, but we only see the end position. That makes this a lot more realistic, I think. Of course, I *still* can't understand some of the awkward and seemingly unnecessary postures they end up in, regardless of how they got there.
We used to have a two-sword fighter out here who moved his swords into positions that kind of reminded me of these; one hand behind his other arm, etc. He was pretty good, but his weird postures made for the best way to beat him; you just pinned his arms when they were crossed, and it was as if the other arm wasn't there. It seems as though you could achieve much the same effect using a more Talhoffer-esque style against someone using this style.
Still, there's those damnable plates in the Manessa Codex; if it weren't for those I'd dismiss this whole book out of hand.
I agree with Bob (on this one point, anyway... <grin>); we need that translation!
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
-
Russ Mitchell
- Archive Member
- Posts: 11800
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: HQ, Garden Gnome Liberation Front
- Contact:
Hey, SyrRhys,
Just a quick one, because while I disagree with you on the wrap shot (because the rest of it just doesn't seem to me like it's drawn that way, even though I agree it could be done), see if you see what I'm seeing: it seems to me that the hooded guy's left sleeve is actually angled BACK towards himself. Otherwise you'd be looking at the back of his buckler, not the face. The fold looks to me like a sleeve going from the curve of his elbow, directly going back to the buckler. This would imply, if you think this is what he's got, that what he's done is to scoop UNDER the tonsured man's arm on the man's thrust or cut, essentially stuffing the cut or wrapping the thrust.
If that's so, then this guy's angled body becomes a really strongly turned body.
It's been ages: help me out here, since you've been staring at it all weekend. Does that interpretation make sense to you?
Just a quick one, because while I disagree with you on the wrap shot (because the rest of it just doesn't seem to me like it's drawn that way, even though I agree it could be done), see if you see what I'm seeing: it seems to me that the hooded guy's left sleeve is actually angled BACK towards himself. Otherwise you'd be looking at the back of his buckler, not the face. The fold looks to me like a sleeve going from the curve of his elbow, directly going back to the buckler. This would imply, if you think this is what he's got, that what he's done is to scoop UNDER the tonsured man's arm on the man's thrust or cut, essentially stuffing the cut or wrapping the thrust.
If that's so, then this guy's angled body becomes a really strongly turned body.
It's been ages: help me out here, since you've been staring at it all weekend. Does that interpretation make sense to you?
-
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:
... in which case I will be a very sad man, because it would then force me to accept the conclusion that the illustrator did not know his craft, since the cutting section of the blade on his arm is nowhere even remotely near that type of sword's center of percussion, and his hand and elbow are raised far higher than would be necessary for such a cut, </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You don't always need to hit with the center of percussion; I have hit people with tremendous force using the part of the blade closest to the hilt. This is even more true in unarmored combat, where tremendous force just isn't necessary. Yes, the center of percusson is the best spot to hit in most circumstances, but beware of getting so caught up in theory you ignore reality.
Also, I don't think his arm is in a really awkward position. If you throw the wrap as I desribed it to Logan and Bob below, you'll find that it's easy to end up with your sword arm bent in almost exactly the position shown (allowing for *some* crudeness in the drawing; let's face it, he's no Michaelangelo!), with your elbow bent at 90 deg.
Why do you choose to believe that? Have you never seen any of the bogus martial arts books that are out there now? You know, "Learn the Dim-Mak Death Touch in 5 Easy Lessons" or "Become a Ninja Next Week"? Even good instructors can lead people astray when they write: One of the top Kenjutsu instructors in this country is a man named Fredrick Lovret. He wrote a book called _Kenjutsu Shoden_, (That means "the first level of sword art") but it was almost *entirely* about iai (a separate art from kenjutsu; iai is an art that specializes in drawing the sword from the scabbard and cutting with it, while kenjutsu is the part of swordsmanship that comes afterward), not kenjutsu (and no, that's not nit-picking; to a student of Japanese swordsmanship there's a huge difference). I spoke with one of his students, and he said that Lovret-sensei, when asked about this contradiction, said: "I just felt like writing a book".
Some of these manuals have value (I'm becoming a *huge* Ringeck and Le Jeu fan), but some do not. Let's remember to take *everything* with a huge grain of salt, OK? Scholarship is about maintaining an educated scepticism. Otherwise you end up doing things like looking at the way artists rendered mail in statues and thinking there was a different kind of mail called "banded mail" like the Victorian "antiquarians" did ("but the artists were there; they *must* have known what thy were doing!" LOL!).
------------------
Hugh Knight
"Welcome to the Church of the Open Field, let us 'prey': Hunt hard, kill swiftly, waste nothing, make no apologies"
... in which case I will be a very sad man, because it would then force me to accept the conclusion that the illustrator did not know his craft, since the cutting section of the blade on his arm is nowhere even remotely near that type of sword's center of percussion, and his hand and elbow are raised far higher than would be necessary for such a cut, </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You don't always need to hit with the center of percussion; I have hit people with tremendous force using the part of the blade closest to the hilt. This is even more true in unarmored combat, where tremendous force just isn't necessary. Yes, the center of percusson is the best spot to hit in most circumstances, but beware of getting so caught up in theory you ignore reality.
Also, I don't think his arm is in a really awkward position. If you throw the wrap as I desribed it to Logan and Bob below, you'll find that it's easy to end up with your sword arm bent in almost exactly the position shown (allowing for *some* crudeness in the drawing; let's face it, he's no Michaelangelo!), with your elbow bent at 90 deg.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">As with the footwork, I choose to believe, that the illustrators of these manuals knew what they were supposed to illustrate, unless evidence is given to the contrary.</font>
Why do you choose to believe that? Have you never seen any of the bogus martial arts books that are out there now? You know, "Learn the Dim-Mak Death Touch in 5 Easy Lessons" or "Become a Ninja Next Week"? Even good instructors can lead people astray when they write: One of the top Kenjutsu instructors in this country is a man named Fredrick Lovret. He wrote a book called _Kenjutsu Shoden_, (That means "the first level of sword art") but it was almost *entirely* about iai (a separate art from kenjutsu; iai is an art that specializes in drawing the sword from the scabbard and cutting with it, while kenjutsu is the part of swordsmanship that comes afterward), not kenjutsu (and no, that's not nit-picking; to a student of Japanese swordsmanship there's a huge difference). I spoke with one of his students, and he said that Lovret-sensei, when asked about this contradiction, said: "I just felt like writing a book".
Some of these manuals have value (I'm becoming a *huge* Ringeck and Le Jeu fan), but some do not. Let's remember to take *everything* with a huge grain of salt, OK? Scholarship is about maintaining an educated scepticism. Otherwise you end up doing things like looking at the way artists rendered mail in statues and thinking there was a different kind of mail called "banded mail" like the Victorian "antiquarians" did ("but the artists were there; they *must* have known what thy were doing!" LOL!).
------------------
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>Hey, SyrRhys,
Just a quick one, because while I disagree with you on the wrap shot (because the rest of it just doesn't seem to me like it's drawn that way, even though I agree it could be done), see if you see what I'm seeing: it seems to me that the hooded guy's left sleeve is actually angled BACK towards himself. Otherwise you'd be looking at the back of his buckler, not the face. The fold looks to me like a sleeve going from the curve of his elbow, directly going back to the buckler. This would imply, if you think this is what he's got, that what he's done is to scoop UNDER the tonsured man's arm on the man's thrust or cut, essentially stuffing the cut or wrapping the thrust.
If that's so, then this guy's angled body becomes a really strongly turned body.
It's been ages: help me out here, since you've been staring at it all weekend. Does that interpretation make sense to you?</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi,
Can you put this another way? I'm not sure of what you're saying.
As nearly as I can make out (and the copy I have is a pretty blurry) the student's left arm is under the monk's sword arm, and is bent as far up as it will go so that the monk's arm is caught in the crook of the student's arm. I think we can assume that the buckler hand is actually gripping the monk's arm to pin it.
The student's right arm is held over his head with the arm bent at 90 deg. and his nails pointing at the monk's face.
Does that answer what you're asking?
------------------
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 02-19-2002).]
<B>Hey, SyrRhys,
Just a quick one, because while I disagree with you on the wrap shot (because the rest of it just doesn't seem to me like it's drawn that way, even though I agree it could be done), see if you see what I'm seeing: it seems to me that the hooded guy's left sleeve is actually angled BACK towards himself. Otherwise you'd be looking at the back of his buckler, not the face. The fold looks to me like a sleeve going from the curve of his elbow, directly going back to the buckler. This would imply, if you think this is what he's got, that what he's done is to scoop UNDER the tonsured man's arm on the man's thrust or cut, essentially stuffing the cut or wrapping the thrust.
If that's so, then this guy's angled body becomes a really strongly turned body.
It's been ages: help me out here, since you've been staring at it all weekend. Does that interpretation make sense to you?</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi,
Can you put this another way? I'm not sure of what you're saying.
As nearly as I can make out (and the copy I have is a pretty blurry) the student's left arm is under the monk's sword arm, and is bent as far up as it will go so that the monk's arm is caught in the crook of the student's arm. I think we can assume that the buckler hand is actually gripping the monk's arm to pin it.
The student's right arm is held over his head with the arm bent at 90 deg. and his nails pointing at the monk's face.
Does that answer what you're asking?
------------------
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 02-19-2002).]
-
Bob Charron
- Archive Member
- Posts: 430
- Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2000 1:01 am
- Location: Madison, Wisconsin, USA
- Contact:
Hugh,
If you choose to be offended, that is your decision. I will attempt to be more careful with my use of quotation marks (which I tend to us around jargon that doesn't come from the manuals when discussing the manuals). I see now that perhaps that is what you picked out as offensive.
I am not trying to talk about anything from SCA combat, really. I'm trying to talk about I.33.
I guess we wait for the translation to keep a lot of us from spilling endless ink over this. And, I do think we need to keep that in mind. Taking this in a direction we're unsure of before the translation can not only lead us into error, but into errors which become dogmatic practice and are hard to break even in the face of translation. We (this includes me) are still recovering from many misconceptions that were a result of trying to figure it all out using just the illuminations, and without the sequencing code of the manual or the translation.
Lest I should run into this same error, I will be less passionate about my interpretation
------------------
Bob Charron
St. Martins Academy of Medieval Arms
If you choose to be offended, that is your decision. I will attempt to be more careful with my use of quotation marks (which I tend to us around jargon that doesn't come from the manuals when discussing the manuals). I see now that perhaps that is what you picked out as offensive.
I am not trying to talk about anything from SCA combat, really. I'm trying to talk about I.33.
I guess we wait for the translation to keep a lot of us from spilling endless ink over this. And, I do think we need to keep that in mind. Taking this in a direction we're unsure of before the translation can not only lead us into error, but into errors which become dogmatic practice and are hard to break even in the face of translation. We (this includes me) are still recovering from many misconceptions that were a result of trying to figure it all out using just the illuminations, and without the sequencing code of the manual or the translation.
Lest I should run into this same error, I will be less passionate about my interpretation
------------------
Bob Charron
St. Martins Academy of Medieval Arms