Posts: 333 Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Sun 31 May, 2009 11:07 am
| Steven H wrote: |
Just at Bill says the technique being shown does work. No dispute there. However, I don't see how it could work in the other ways in which krumphau is described. If we assume, as I do, that the same action is used in each of the different variants of Krump that appears in the texts then I do not see how this action matches all of the texts.
It does not cut over the hands. I don't see how it can attack the hands at all .
I do not see how it can "move the tip of your sword over his sword to a schrankhut" (Ringeck, trans Lindholm & Svard, pg. 60)(emphasis mine). |
Steve
Against a fast moving powerful Oberhau you just simply cannot go over the top of it into the barrier gaurd and protect yourself. You can knock an Oberhau aside but you cannot knock it down. Think about it, the blade is already moving down at a very high speed! Trying to go over an Oberhau just does not make sense! I have Lindholm's translation and Tobler's translation and I make good use of both. Very often I'll have both books opened along side Goliath. The technique you refer to on page 60 of Lindholm's book is one of those places where I like Tobler translation better, it make much more sense.
| Tobler, Secrets of..., page 42 wrote: |
| ...and put you point against his sword into the Schranckhut. ... |
Now we are dealing with a situation where your sword is not over the other blade but against it. Now perform John's Krump on your left side and you'll see how it will take you into the barrier guard where the flat of your blade will stop the oncoming blade. The other blade is against your sword but not against your body. Counter attacking is just a matter of simply Krumping back out of the barrier guard. To parry the Oberhau and counter attack you are just performing two quick Krumps. Simple, effective, historically valid, and martially sound. What more can you ask?
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
Posts: 333 Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Sun 31 May, 2009 11:39 am
| Steven Reich wrote: |
Hmmm...looking at the video, there is something that gives a ballpark position. Look at the position the two fencers end up in at around 5:15. Now, imagine three things: 1. Both fencers have single-hand swords (although it would work with the swords they have); 2. JC is making that same cut first instead of as a counterattack; 3. JC's partner's sword-arm(s) is extended, his head is back, and his true-edge is up.
Now as I said, this isn't the most common parry in the Bolognese school, but it is in there. |
Steve
Ok, now I understand. We do perform this same technique with both longsword and single hand swords. However, I do think there is a difference in how we execute it. When I step to the left with my right foot I step into the cut but not beyoud it. In other words, my right foot will be under the other blade and never to the left of it. If I did step far to the left with my right foot then it would indeed lead to a high speed edge-on-edge impact. But because only I step under the other blade my edge will cut up into his flat and it will be my guard that actually stops his cut. Although this might be an uncommon action within the Bolognese swordsmenship I do consider it a common action within Europen swordsmenship. We see a similar actions in Talhoffer (Marl Rector, plates 226-227) and I.33 (Forgeng, page 53).
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
Posts: 237 Location: Arlington, VA
Sun 31 May, 2009 12:18 pm
| Randall Pleasant wrote: |
| Ok, now I understand. We do perform this same technique with both longsword and single hand swords. However, I do think there is a difference in how we execute it. When I step to the left with my right foot I step into the cut but not beyoud it. In other words, my right foot will be under the other blade and never to the left of it. If I did step far to the left with my right foot then it would indeed lead to a high speed edge-on-edge impact. But because only I step under the other blade my edge will cut up into his flat and it will be my guard that actually stops his cut. Although this might be an uncommon action within the Bolognese swordsmenship I do consider it a common action within Europen swordsmenship. We see a similar actions in Talhoffer (Marl Rector, plates 226-227) and I.33 (Forgeng, page 53). |
Ah I see. Yes, it is very similar. Doing it that 'your' way would be possible, except that if you finger the ricasso on a simple hilted sword, you're likely to lose your finger. Now I understand the Germans didn't tend to do this--even in Meyer's rappier section--however, if you look at the plates in Marozzo, you can see that all of the plates where the illustration is clear enough to show it show the finger over the ricasso (and not all of the plates show complex hilts).
Steve
Posts: 871 Location: Paris, France
Sun 31 May, 2009 12:21 pm
| Bill Grandy wrote: |
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | | Randall Pleasant wrote: | | It honestly seems strange that the medieval and early Renaissance fighters would have cared so much for their swords and all of a sudden the Bolognese for example decide that it's OK to damage the swords (stressing again that it's the attacker's blade that will likely take the most damage). |
Especially considering that the Bolognese tradition most likely is a continuation from the Medieval period into the early Renaissance. |
This post is actually a mishap from the server migration. It is my post, not Vincent's, and it was quoting Vincent, not Randall. |
Thanks Bill, I was wondering who spoke as me in this post :) I'd rather not think about how the database mangled things up to this point...
Posts: 333 Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Mon 01 Jun, 2009 8:57 am
| Steven Reich wrote: |
| Ah I see. Yes, it is very similar. Doing it that 'your' way would be possible, except that if you finger the ricasso on a simple hilted sword, you're likely to lose your finger. Now I understand the Germans didn't tend to do this--even in Meyer's rappier section--however, if you look at the plates in Marozzo, you can see that all of the plates where the illustration is clear enough to show it show the finger over the ricasso (and not all of the plates show complex hilts). |
Steven
I noticed that when I don't finger the ricasso I end in a position similary to a left Ochs with my point on my adversary but if I do finger the ricasso then I end in a position where my point is somewhat to my right. When not fingering the ricasso I perform a parry and when fingering the ricasso I perform a stopped. This leads to my next question. Do any of the text on Bolognese swordsmenship say specifically to always keep the index finger over the ricasso? Or is this an interpretation based upon the images alone? Even when performed as a stop my finger seem to be at risk.
Thanks,
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
Last edited by Randall Pleasant on Mon 01 Jun, 2009 9:09 am; edited 1 time in total
Posts: 333 Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Mon 01 Jun, 2009 9:06 am
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: |
| I'd rather not think about how the database mangled things up to this point... |
Not unlike what we have just seen on this fourm, a couple of times I have seen several million dollars completely disapper from corporate systems. I was always very thankful I was not on the teams that had to quickly find the missing money :wtf: or the managers who had to explain the lost of several days interest on the money. :eek:
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
Posts: 237 Location: Arlington, VA
Mon 01 Jun, 2009 9:51 am
| Randall Pleasant wrote: |
| I noticed that when I don't finger the ricasso I end in a position similary to a left Ochs with my point on my adversary but if I do finger the ricasso then I end in a position where my point is somewhat to my right. When not fingering the ricasso I perform a parry and when fingering the ricasso I perform a stopped. This leads to my next question. Do any of the text on Bolognese swordsmenship say specifically to always keep the index finger over the ricasso? Or is this an interpretation based upon the images alone? Even when performed as a stop my finger seem to be at risk. |
In the Bolognese works, I think we have only the images of Marozzo and Viggiani as evidence. I can't remember if Altoni says anything (a Florentine text, but contemporary within a few decades of Marozzo, so pertinent), and I should really look at Viggiani, as he sometimes goes into detail on fundamental things like this.
I have to say that I find the differentiation between 'stop' and 'parry' to be rather strange. I think I understand what the reasoning behind it is, but in the Italian texts, parare (the word English borrowed for the term 'parry') is used to designate any sort of defensive action with your blade: stop, deflection, striking the opponent's sword, etc. For example, Marozzo might say something like: "...then you will parry by going into Guardia d'Intrare and catch your opponent's sword on your true edge..." where the word used for you will parry would be parerai or riparerai.
Note that in my Guardia d'Intrare example (i.e., the 'left Ochs' block, if I understand your terminology), the 'Bolognese' way to do it will result in your point being directly forward or a little to your left, but with the oblique step of your front foot (or a circular step of your rear foot), it will to the right of your opponent. The single-tempo alternative is to move directly forward into the opponent's Mandritto with your palm up so that you deliver a thrust to the opponent's face and simultaneously catch his cut on your sword. In this case, it would not really be edge-to-edge, and his blade would slide down to your hilt--even more dangerous for your finger (unless you have a buckler or targa to protect your hand).
Steve
Posts: 333 Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Mon 01 Jun, 2009 12:24 pm
| Steven Reich wrote: |
| I have to say that I find the differentiation between 'stop' and 'parry' to be rather strange. |
The confusion was due to me, I use "parry" when I should have used "stop". The difference is between a stop with the edge and a stop with the guard. Sorry for the confusion.
Ran Pleasant
Posts: 333 Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Mon 01 Jun, 2009 12:44 pm
Steven
With more than a little embarrassment I must admit that I have caused a lot of confusion in our discussion. I confused the guard Code Lunga e Distesa with Code Lunga e Stretta. :blush: Thus I thought my blade would be traveling from my right to my left. I now understand that my blade would be traveling left to right and that I would end in Right Och. In any case my true edge would meet the oncoming edge at a very steep angle resulting in my edge going up his flat and the actual stop being on the guard. Of course, to do this I must remove my finger from the ricasso!
Is this not basically what Fiores does with a single hand sword?
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
Posts: 237 Location: Arlington, VA
Mon 01 Jun, 2009 1:35 pm
| Randall Pleasant wrote: |
| With more than a little embarrassment I must admit that I have caused a lot of confusion in our discussion. I confused the guard Code Lunga e Distesa with Code Lunga e Stretta. :blush: Thus I thought my blade would be traveling from my right to my left. I now understand that my blade would be traveling left to right and that I would end in Right Och. In any case my true edge would meet the oncoming edge at a very steep angle resulting in my edge going up his flat and the actual stop being on the guard. Of course, to do this I must remove my finger from the ricasso! |
I think there is some confusion here, but I don't have time to write a post (with images) right now, I'll try to write more later to clear up what I'm talking about.
| Randall Pleasant wrote: |
| Is this not basically what Fiore does with a single hand sword? |
I don't know--I'm not really familiar with Fiore, so I'm not really qualified to answer this.
Steve
You
cannot post new topics in this forum
You
cannot reply to topics in this forum
You
cannot edit your posts in this forum
You
cannot delete your posts in this forum
You
cannot vote in polls in this forum
You
cannot attach files in this forum
You
can download files in this forum