SyrRhys wrote:I guess your bowing out was too good to be true.
Not really, just quit mentioning my name and taking digs at me. I believe I still get to speak to Galleron when I want to, Hugh.
The point that you are ignoring, apparently, is that the masters themselves tell us this is *one art*, and when something different needs to be done, they tell us. "Armoured combat" is not it is own art in the 15th c - it is a subcomponent of armizare or the Kunst des Fechtens. That isn't Greg speaking that is the actual fencing Masters: Fiore, Vadi, Monte, the anonymous author of 3227a, Manciolino, Marozzo, Le Jeu make this explicit. The German compendia do as well, as long as we remember that they are multiple authors so it is not the same sort of narrative.
Re: jousting - Dall'Aggochie, Book Three is entirely on jousting, Monte writes extensively on the topic, there are many Iberian sources, which you can now look at in Noel Fallow's book - which make it clear that jousting is something distinct from real lance combat. The Germans have a sub-set of books - the tournier book - to glorify the joust, and there are indeed separate jousting treatises Note that there is no such thing to discuss p
So whether it is in armour or not, with swords or not, is irrelevant; the point is:
When martial sport specifically requires a different set of techniques and ideas from those of earnest combat, the Masters tell us so, and there are even separate books or chapters of the same book, for that discipline. No such thing exists in any shape or form, nor is it referenced, for armoured foot combat, and it contradicts what other masters tell us.As to:
The techniques as they are delivered in the Fechtbücher are quicker and lighter than they need to be for most targets covered in armor.
I disagree. Some are, many are not. A trained fighter should easily recognize which is which.
Our instructions for cutting are quite specific: To do so as if a string went from your edge to the target in a straight line and in as short a path as possible. This tells us to use a push-pull motion of the hands that we see time and again in all the cuts--especially the Zwerch and Krump. Unfortunately, this is *not* a good way to generate the level of force my experience tells me you would need to really hurt (meaning multiple blows could stun or daze) someone through armor. Moreover, many of those techniques would be extrmely difficult in gauntlets--a fact that we can tell by their absence in free play videos on the web showing people trying to do them in gauntlets.
Seeing as I learned a "Zwerchau" from Master Einar Haakonson back in 1986 - he called it a "Two Count" - and he, myself and the students he taught it to, which include a number of royal peers, were able to use it in SCA crowns, I'm afraid your own argument shows otherwise, Hugh. There are also plenty of WMA people the world over fencing in gauntlets *good gauntlets* and using exactly those blows that you say can't be made.
Whether or not *you* can strike a blow like a Zornhau with sufficient force, do not put words in the Masters' mouth. It is simply a matter of using a wave motion to generate power, rather than the simple hip-twist to create large circular energy.
It is different Greg. Anyone should be able to see that. When I see people trying to use Bloßfechten Fechtbuch techniques in armor in SCA fighting it frustrates me very much because it shows a real desire for authenticity but a lack of understanding of what's going on in the sources we have.
[/quote]
Hugh, I will say this for the last time - what modern people do or don't do is not the issue - that is based on incomplete mastery of the source material. But many people do and can do just that - some of those actions *do* indeed exist in the SCA - but they are not any different than what is in the source.
But all of this is based on the idea that "anyone should see I am right", rather than looking at three very clear points:
1. Not a single text has a Master supporting what you say;
2. Not a single text has instruction for specialized ways to cut against armour, nor are there any such specialized texts, even though there are texts for all other martial sports - jousting, spear games, wrestling, friendly unarmoured fencing matches, etc.
3. Most men fighting in combat in the 15th c would not engage in a duel of any sort, let alone an unarmoured one. Nor would they fight a battle in nothing but street clothes. If your art only works in civies and in full harness, you have a problem. That means I need a way to fight for everything in between - which requires avoiding armour, but also understanding how and when to strike to against it. There are examples of that, and they do not support your idea of a separate sub-art.
For you to be correct, everyone else in the community not only has to be wrong (which is possible), but we must assume that the Masters themselves misspoke or exaggerated when they repeatedly tell us that it is a single, integrated art with sword, spear, dagger, wrestling and axe, in harness and without, on horse and on foot, based largely on your word and how you look at iconography.
I'm sorry Hugh, but Occam's Razor suggests otherwise. This is like trying to prove the existence of God: the evidence is based on personal experience of something ("revelation") and the reading of signs and symbols and an unshakable faith in what they must mean. And I say that as a Catholic speaking to an atheist - if this discussion were someone trying to argue the evidence of a Divine power behind the Big Bang - you would be openly mocking them.
Religion, however, is a topic best left to faith - martial arts reconstruction to data.
