Guys,

The ARMA has just put out a super cool video demonstrating unarmed disarms against vertical longsword cuts.

See it here: http://www.thearma.org/Videos/DisarmDemo1.htm

(Make sure your QuickTime is updated)

Edit: Now on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz-07Dtp-Qw

Hello,

Thanks for posting.

I was hoping to write this reply after watching the clip (grrrrrr) but couldn't get it to play on my computer (any chance of it getting put up on youTube?)

Are the techniques based on or derived from any particular source or sources?
Do they represent a particular style i.e. Italian - Fiore, Fabris etc., German, Silver etc?

Since I haven't seen the clip yet this question may already be addressed but . . . the title says " . . . against vertical cuts" so how have the techniques fared against other types of cuts, feints, changes of line etc. With full appreciation of the difficulty of unarmed versus longsword I'm curious how robust the techniques are against a canny opponent.

Thanks again and hopefully I'll get to actually watch it.

-Steven

The techniques are in part an extrapolation from Talhoffer's manual of 1467; see plate 77. I imagine there are other sources too, but I don't recall any off-hand.

I think the techniques here would be very difficult to perform against an experienced swordsman who employed other types of cuts. The fact of the matter is that no matter how skilled one is, someone possessing a weapon always has the advantage in a fight, and the discrepancy between a unarmed man and a man with a long sword is immense. Nevertheless, the video illustrates that it is possible for an unarmed man to triumph, and is a testimony to John's immense skill.

PS: I've already requested that it be put on YouTube.

Hey, cool stuff. While material for specifically unarmed vs. sword is incredibly scarce in the source material, it isn't much of a leap of logic to apply the principles that are seen in the mechanics of the other forms of fighting (unarmed, dagger, sword, poleaxe, etc.), just as seen here. I completely agree with Craig that it would be very difficult to do this against a skilled swordsman (unless if he were far too overconfident), but that doesn't take away from the fact that the skills can still be applied with proper timing and technique.

Hi Craig,

That's very interesting, thanks for posting. I have an observation that you are free to take on board or leave as you feel appropriate.

It appears to me that the fellow striking with the longsword is moving in False Times, by beginning to step into distance before he moves his sword forward. In my interpretation of the True Times, which I feel applies equally to longsword, the point of our sword should be the first thing that moves forward in both time and space, and the body and foot should follow the point and edge of the sword into distance (ala Hs. 3227a/Doebringer's analogy of the cord tied to the point or edge of our sword, pulling it forward by the most direct path possible). Thus, instead of following his sword into distance (which would make most of these techniques extremely risky) the chap can be grappled effectively because his sword is not a threat before his body is a target.

Perhaps this demonstrates another good reason for emphasizing True Times when attacking, especially against someone as skilled as John Clements.

Cheers,

Bill

The techniques look interesting, the basics look like standard wrestling techniques.

Besides the aforementioned points, the longsword wielder is telegraphing his attack almost everytime by either extending his arms a bit before the cut and by some slight nodding. Doesn´t mean that I could it do better ;)

Very interesting to watch.
The principles appear similar to techniques for fighting empty-hand against an attacker with a club or bayonet, such as getting inside the arc of the weapon and using the attackers' rotational or linear momentum to effect a throw and disarm.

Even a very skilled fighter (such as the man in the video) is at considerable disadvantage empty-handed against a novice with a large weapon. But a swordman well-versed in these unarmed principles would almost certainly not leave himself open to these empty-hand techniques by attacking so aggressively that he overextends and leaves his inside vulnerable. So perhaps the real importance of documenting and developing this system historically was less of actually expecting people to fight longsworders empty-handed and consistantly win, but more of training longsword fighters how to NOT to get caught off guard just because their foe was unarmed or using a smaller weapon.

And the note on the page saying none of the demonstration came from aikido/jujitsu... I totally believe this is true, but at the same time a lot of it appears so alike that a reasonable person might mistake it for an eastern martial art style. Its a great thing that the advanced development of western martial arts is now coming to light. Like Craig said, super cool.

A couple of points:

I agree that Silver's True and False Times are useful for practicing the long sword. That having been said, I have to wonder about the degree to which Silver's ideas were incorporated into German fencing. Does, for instance, Doebringer's injunction about striking as though there is cord tied to your point or edge imply that the Liechtenauer school had the exact same understanding as Silver on True and False Times? Perhaps they might have, and simply did not express it as explicitly as Silver. Or perhaps they felt that moving quickly and directly was important, but did not specifically teach that the hands must always move first as Silver does. It's something that I've considered before when thinking about the long sword.

Second, I wonder how well the principle of true time held up in actual combat situations, even for those who had specifically been trained to fight in true time. I'm guessing that perfect true time tends to fall apart in encounters. That's not to say that it isn't an important concept. Nor would I say that it's something we should not strive for in our training- it certainly would make a difference in the video shown. I'm just wondering how realistic it is to maintain it in combat.

I suppose though that one could argue that if you've trained your body through constant repetition of fighting in true time, you'd naturally perform that way in combat.

I have edited my original post to include a link to the YouTube video which has just recently been posted.

As for why this only shows cuts from above (vom tag), my thought is that you wouldn't dare to grapple like this until you saw such an opening.

Until then, you're either managing to avoid the weapon, or you're dead.

M.

Speaking of true times...

I'm still unclear as to whether or not they are meant to be applied at all distances.

From what I understood:
- True place is the place where you do not have to step in order to strike the target (though of course stepping is a bonus)
- True times stem from the fact that the hands are faster than the body, which in turn is faster than the feet
- The hands should not slow down to accommodate a motion of the feet, for example.

To me it seems hard to reconcile these three ideas when launching an attack from a full step out of striking distance, or true place. So one can strike moving the weapon first, and in this case the cut is finished before the step is completed, or one can move the weapon first but slowing it down voluntarily. Or launch the weapon first full speed, then the feet, but in this case the target will be missed because not enough distance has been covered when the weapon lands...

I think what makes success possible for the unarmed guy in this situation is, in part, that the longsword guy launches a full, commited attack from further than necessary. Of course the attack is not perfect, there has to be a tiny occasion to counter, or the unarmed fighter dies as expected :)

Many unarmed defenses against knife, for example, can be seen in other arts that use the same basic mistake from the attacker: he starts from too far, and thus is forced to provide the opportunity to counter. He cannot really do the specified attack in true time.

Hi Craig,

I must stress that whatever I've said is not a criticism of the techniques shown. I'm not remotely good enough at any grappling to do that :) It's just that I find it surprising that very often when a video showing some form of counters is posted, someone says "Ah, but the attacker is not moving in true times". So I formed the opinion that this is in fact the condition that makes the counters work.

Or to put it another way... There must be an advantage for the fighter doing the counter to exploit. Assuming the skill of both fighters is equivalent, I believe it is healthy to acknowledge that the attacker indeed makes a mistake, either in timing or in distance...

Starting from a full step away is indeed common advice, but I wonder how it should change when the opponent's range is shorter than yours, as is the case when he has no weapon. My personal idea on that is that the longer weapon allows you to start the action closer to your striking distance, while still being one step out of your adversary's striking distance. In this case respecting true times is obviously easier, and the counter is more difficult.

But knowing how to defend against someone doing a slight error is still very valuable, because it happens all the time...