Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Edge to Flat Cuts Video Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next 
Author Message
Angus Trim




Location: Seattle area
Joined: 26 Aug 2003

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 870

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 1:55 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Craig Peters wrote:
It seems to me that nearly everyone here is not arguing about the martial efficacy of the techniques demonstrated in the videos. It's fairly obvious that what was demonstrated there worked at speed, with force and intensity. This is why I don't understand how people can automatically rule out techniques with obvious martial efficacy because "Well that's not MY interpretation of what the manuals say, so therefore it can't be right". Such an attitude is not a very good way to evaluate techniques, nor is it particularly conducive to one's own growth in historic European martial arts. Remember, what we're talking about here is an interpretation. There's lots of different interpretations out there, so our only real way to evaluate them and compare them against each other is based on their martial efficacy, and if the text can be interpreted to support a particular execution of the technique.

So the least that you can do, therefore, is at least try out the techniques. Give them a whirl, and see how they work for you. If you're having trouble getting them to work, have another look at the video to see how the ARMA guys are doing it; there's no shame in checking to see how they're performing it. You might find that they work well and that its worth reconsidering your interpretation of the source text. The same goes for the video interpretation of the Zornhaw as well.

If you're not even willing to try the techniques, it makes me wonder if this is really about which interpretation is the closest to what the text says, or whether it's about the fact that you don't want to admit that someone else might have a better interpretation than your own.


Hi Craig

I want to thank you very much for bringing this very entertaining discussion back to life. From a more or less disinterested viewer's standpoint, its been clear for years, that some real quality students of our history have done a pretty fair job of intepreting these treatises, and have open minds to other's interpretations, if they actually fit into what the illustrations and spoken words are saying...........

Then there's other individuals, that fall into that "the earth is flat" kind of philosophy, that make up new names for 500 year old fencing techniques, misquote modern instructors, and twist words to attempt to maintain their positions.......

Its very entertaining, and has been for the last 8 years. But, just maybe its time to let this old, dead horse finally rest........

swords are fun
View user's profile Send private message
Craig Peters




PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 2:51 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Angus Trim wrote:


Hi Craig

I want to thank you very much for bringing this very entertaining discussion back to life. From a more or less disinterested viewer's standpoint, its been clear for years, that some real quality students of our history have done a pretty fair job of intepreting these treatises, and have open minds to other's interpretations, if they actually fit into what the illustrations and spoken words are saying...........

Then there's other individuals, that fall into that "the earth is flat" kind of philosophy, that make up new names for 500 year old fencing techniques, misquote modern instructors, and twist words to attempt to maintain their positions.......

Its very entertaining, and has been for the last 8 years. But, just maybe its time to let this old, dead horse finally rest........


I really don't see how this has anything to do with the text that you were responding to...
View user's profile Send private message
Angus Trim




Location: Seattle area
Joined: 26 Aug 2003

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 870

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 2:59 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Craig Peters wrote:
Angus Trim wrote:


Hi Craig

I want to thank you very much for bringing this very entertaining discussion back to life. From a more or less disinterested viewer's standpoint, its been clear for years, that some real quality students of our history have done a pretty fair job of intepreting these treatises, and have open minds to other's interpretations, if they actually fit into what the illustrations and spoken words are saying...........

Then there's other individuals, that fall into that "the earth is flat" kind of philosophy, that make up new names for 500 year old fencing techniques, misquote modern instructors, and twist words to attempt to maintain their positions.......

Its very entertaining, and has been for the last 8 years. But, just maybe its time to let this old, dead horse finally rest........


I really don't see how this has anything to do with the text that you were responding to...


Hi Craig

Just expressing my appreciation and gratitude for the entertainment........

swords are fun
View user's profile Send private message
Craig Peters




PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 3:16 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

You're more than welcome. But why not contribute to the discussion by offering your arguments for or against exclusively edge to flat parries?
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Pleasant




Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Joined: 24 Aug 2003

Posts: 333

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 3:29 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Christian Henry Tobler wrote:
Randall Pleasant wrote:
This I have never said that Guy is in ARMA camp on this issue, only that he experienced some of the same type of damage we warn against.


No Randall, in the now locked thread, you inferred that Guy was now in your department:

"It seems that Guy Windsor has recent reached the same conclusions about edge-on-edge damage that John Clements and ARMA have been advocating for well over ten years. Simple edge-on-edge tests with sharp swords can indeed be very enlightening! "

Your use of the word 'advocating' indicates not just that edges get damaged, and that Guy recognizes this, but that this is supportive of John's contentions about parrying.


That's a little nick-picky but oh well, in any case Guy's statements that I quoted makes clear that he experienced the type of edge damage that John Clements has warning about for many years.


Quote:
This represents a pattern of disingenuous behavior on this thread and others by you.


Please stop the personal attacks. I quoted what Guy said on a public forum within a proper context. There is nothing disingenuous about quoting what is said on public forum. Disingenuous is not defined by what you dont like or can't explain away. If you wish to see disingenuous behavior maybe you look at youself and your attacks on John Clements in the thread where I posted some pictures of John performing techniques in a historically valid and martially sound manner. Instead of discussion what was actually shown in the pictures you attempted to say that John's wrists were bent and turned and would not be able to do what was he was actually shown doing.


Quote:
And, this is largely why this tedious subject keeps getting dragged out into the open here, having run out of steam long ago on other fora.


This subject needs to be disucssed in the open. That you don't like ARMA's interpretaitons and conclusions on this issue is far from being reason enough to hide the issue.


Quote:
A thread is started, usually accompanying yet another piece of two to four year old ARMA video under the guise of it being some public service announcement - something of 'possible interest to everyone'. Instead, it's intended to proselytize people into a position that has been thoroughly debunked through citation of period text, some of which, most especially Greg Mele's quotes from Viggiani, are explicit and transparent in their meaning.


Appears that you have changed from personal attacks to a group attack. The fact is all of the videos recently posted on myArmoury are new. Is it not disingenuous of you to suggest that just because you don't like the interpretations and information presented in the videos that other people will not find them of interest? Christian you are not the public and you don't represent them.

Neither you or Greg Mele have enough of The Truth to allow you to claim that this issue has been "thoroughly debunked". Far from it. You have an interpretation of the period text, nothing more. You do not speak for the historical masters. The only botton line in this issue is that you and your friends have an interpretation and ARMA has an interpretaiton. As I explained to Greg, I have not studied Viggiani but in the quote from Viggiani I read nothing that required me to damage my edge. Of course, Greg disagees and that's find, but Greg has nothing more than an interpretation (love to see a video of his interpretation performed at full speed and intent).


Quote:
If you were merely a fanatic about an untenable point, that would be one thing. But you quote others out of context, and then when confronted by that, deny it.


Another personal attack? Razz

Guy Windsor wrote: "...something else training with sharps teaches you is the damage contact does to the edges; much of my opinion about how to parry with a longsword is designed to save your edge; hitting his flat doesn't damage your edge nearly so much..."

If you feel that Guy's statements have been taken out of context the please do explain to us the correct context. What do you think Guy was actually saying?


Quote:
I agree with Chad Arnow that, while this thread has on the whole been more polite, that it's become extremely tiresome that this subject is popping up repeatedly on this forum, despite the repeated standoffs it creates. It really is time to let it go and stop bringing up the subject over and over again by posting 'innocuous' videos - we all know why that's happening by now.


Why should ARMA stop discussing it's interpretations just because you feel tiresome? Are you not here of your own free will? The videos were not posted for you, they were posted for the general public.


Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Pleasant




Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Joined: 24 Aug 2003

Posts: 333

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 3:36 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Craig Peters wrote:
It seems to me that nearly everyone here is not arguing about the martial efficacy of the techniques demonstrated in the videos. It's fairly obvious that what was demonstrated there worked at speed, with force and intensity. This is why I don't understand how people can automatically rule out techniques with obvious martial efficacy because "Well that's not MY interpretation of what the manuals say, so therefore it can't be right". Such an attitude is not a very good way to evaluate techniques, nor is it particularly conducive to one's own growth in historic European martial arts. Remember, what we're talking about here is an interpretation. There's lots of different interpretations out there, so our only real way to evaluate them and compare them against each other is based on their martial efficacy, and if the text can be interpreted to support a particular execution of the technique.

So the least that you can do, therefore, is at least try out the techniques. Give them a whirl, and see how they work for you. If you're having trouble getting them to work, have another look at the video to see how the ARMA guys are doing it; there's no shame in checking to see how they're performing it. You might find that they work well and that its worth reconsidering your interpretation of the source text. The same goes for the video interpretation of the Zornhaw as well.

If you're not even willing to try the techniques, it makes me wonder if this is really about which interpretation is the closest to what the text says, or whether it's about the fact that you don't want to admit that someone else might have a better interpretation than your own.



Craig

Very well stated. I look forward to hearing the experiences of those who try the interpretations shown in the videos and helping those who don't fully understand what is being shown.

All the best,

Randall Pleasant
ARMA DFW
View user's profile Send private message
Angus Trim




Location: Seattle area
Joined: 26 Aug 2003

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 870

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 3:38 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Craig Peters wrote:
You're more than welcome. But why not contribute to the discussion by offering your arguments for or against exclusively edge to flat parries?


Hi Craig

Along with expressing gratitude, part of my point is that there really is no contribution to be made on this anymore. Yep, can have positions stated, and yep, can bring something to the table to support the position, but there's really nothing new.

When we get beyond that, then we seem to get a bit personal, and start discussing things like, why can't the other party look at things differently, then the next thing is, we're getting close to insults.........

And yet, no one wants to do that.........

This edge to flat, edge to edge, flat to flat stuff is not exclusive to the western arts. You find a bit of disagreement in the Japanese arts, the Chinese arts, and in stage combat. Having made stuff for the stage, I've always really appreciated making stuff for folks that bent over backwards to protect their edges by parrying with the flats. But that's stage combat, and stage combat has only the appearance of similarity with the real sword arts............

As a swordmaker, there was a time when I was all for parrying with the flat, as, has been stated, edge to edge creates more damage than edge to flat..........

But one's desire doesn't make things martially or historically correct. To be correct, WMA wise, not stage wise, one must follow the manuals as close as possible....... the stage does not have to do that.........

swords are fun
View user's profile Send private message
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 3:49 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

For me this is all "tiresome" because nothing new, apart from the video itself, has been presented in this thread by either side. Instead, we've flogged the deceased equine for a few pages. No one is becoming a convert. Nothing revelational has occurred. Just the normal bickering, personal attacks, and BS these threads always bring, despite repeated warnings and despite the fact that our culture and rules have been made crystal clear on so many occasions.

Most of the various groups who get atwitter during these discussions have their own websites in which they can tout their beliefs to choruses of "Amen!" Since the grand-standing here is not convincing anyone here to change sides, why do all involved keep this up here?

I see pot-stirring, digging, and egging-on more than I see a genuine desire by most people to educate folks. The first few posts might have been made out of a desire to educate and inform. Most of the rest have not.

The bickering ends here and now, or the thread and posting privileges end. It's up to those involved. There will be no more warnings.

Happy

ChadA

http://chadarnow.com/
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Vincent Le Chevalier




Location: Paris, France
Joined: 07 Dec 2005
Reading list: 15 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 870

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 4:04 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Craig,

I'm not sure I get your points here...

Quote:
That's an interesting perspective from which to look at this discussion. The problem is that I'm not sure how much ecological validity it has. If you're fencing against someone who is skilled, they're going to be striking in such a way that even if you block or parry the cut, their strong is going to be against your weak, in which case you really haven't protected yourself all that well, because the attacker still holds the initiative and now is in a good position in the bind.


Isn't this true anytime you make a static parry, edge or flat? As I said if you have an opportunity to counter, deflect or whatever, this is something you should certainly do but then edge placement does not seem so important, far less than the dynamics of the action. The one true risk for your blade is when doing a static parry.

Quote:
The other thing is that even if the flat deflections appear more difficult to do at first, they're actually not with a little bit of practice, and as you can see in the videos, they leave one in an excellent position to regain the initiative and cause harm to one's foe. Thus, the rather small amount of effort it takes to learn to ward off blows in this manner would be more than worth it for the benefit of the end position you're left in, not to mention the fact that you don't damage your sword. As I mentioned in the other thread, damaging your edges can potentially impede your ability to cause harm to your foe and protect yourself.


But here you are still in a defender perspective. As I said it is possible, but there is a step between possible and advisable... I don't see clearly how the position you end up when parrying with the flat is an advantage compared to the same parry with the edge. Well except when the mechanics call for the flat but as you say yourself the flat parry does take some amount of effort to do generally. Your edge is in line, but it is so only because you rotate it beforehand. You could do that after the impact as well. It does not take that much time from what I experienced.

I will rephrase my point in a shorter form: If you are fighting against someone who makes static parries (so clearly, he is at a tactical disadvantage or does not know better), what would you prefer, someone parrying with the flat or with the edge? What can you do, as an attacker, against someone doing hard edge blocks that you will not be able to do against someone using his flat to block?

Isn't the whole point of fencing, to do while defending what you wouldn't like to face while attacking?

Regards

--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
William Carew




Location: Australia
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Reading list: 1 book

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 154

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 4:27 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Chad Arnow wrote:


Most of the various groups who get atwitter during these discussions have their own websites in which they can tout their beliefs to choruses of "Amen!" Since the grand-standing here is not convincing anyone here to change sides, why do all involved keep this up here?


That's a good question. Why is this particular, poor dead horse dragged out for another flogging time and again? I don't post often on myArmoury, but I read the fora here regularly, and I recognise these kinds of threads from other fora in previous years. For most of the historical fencing community, this just isn't an issue worth getting worked up about - folk are just doing their best to understand what the historical texts advocate, and trying to interpret it as well as possible.

What it boils down to is this - sharing one's work with others is laudable, if they are given sufficient respect to allow them to disagree. Forcing one's interpretations (crusading in a manner) on others until they capitulate, however, is not so charitable. As Chad noted, if you have a website, by all means put your arguments and/or video up there (better yet, publish full length books and/or dvds showing your interpretations!) and give it a chance to speak for itself. And that's my 2c FWIW.

Cheers,

Bill Carew
Jogo do Pau Brisbane
COLLEGIUM IN ARMIS
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 4:46 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Please keep in mind I'm not saying martials artists can't post here or that martial arts can't be discussed here.

These things can't be posted and won't be tolerated:

-Crusades and/or rants against people or ideas
-Inter-organizational fighting (or intra-)
-Challenges to duels or sparring if you disagree on something (you'd be surprised how often this happens)
-Posts you know will inflame others and start another war of words (many of the posts in this thread)
-Any of the rest of the crap you've seen Nathan and me tell others to knock off

These threads were standard fare on other forums in years past. They've moved here recently, perhaps because the topics or some of the participants are no longer welcome on some of the other forums. This is not the place to continue old vendettas and old battles.

Both of the main sides have stakes in their position, be they published works or years of doctrine passed on to loyal students. Neither side will change the other through argument; both sides have too much invested in their current belief to change themselves.

These discussions go nowhere. Let's move on. Happy

Happy

ChadA

http://chadarnow.com/
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Glen A Cleeton




Location: Nipmuc USA
Joined: 21 Aug 2003

Posts: 1,968

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 5:20 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Craig Peters wrote:
You're more than welcome. But why not contribute to the discussion by offering your arguments for or against exclusively edge to flat parries?


Soliciting for more contention does seem to underscore these threads. Would it be ok if I highjack it completely for a moment?

Something briefly touched on earlier was the different types of battle scarring quite a few old swords show. I'd like to take that a step further and ask both camps if they have any hard numbers or period reference of just how well known 15th and 16th century (even beyond) teachings were.

I'm remembering some vauge reference to the thought of "don't share this stuff with the cannon fodder" (sic) So who, outside of those seeking it (and qualified) was even privy to finer aspects of these teachings?

A perspective from the bleachers section here. I'm just speculating but the number of folk working through period texts and drawings now has far eclipsed the numbers who would have been familiar with them then. All in all, I think that a pretty tremendous thing.

I'm sure some are going to modify just about anything they learn but it seems a bit silly to twist or ignore direct translations of text that indicate something was taking place. Aside from some agreement concerning shades of grey, Gus is right. Very little has changed in eight years (and more).

The sad thing I see (again, just one perspective) as a continuance is that ARMA (as a whole) seems to prefer an isolationist stance amongst the WMA community.

Ultimately, I think some good comes out of any of these threads but the debate is an old one.

I'm going to repeat my question here, as I managed to ramble.

So who, outside of those seeking it (and qualified) was even privy to finer aspects of these teachings?

Cheers

GC
View user's profile Send private message
Christian Henry Tobler




Location: Oxford, CT
Joined: 25 Aug 2003

Posts: 704

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 5:58 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi Glen!

We really don't know how widespread the teachings of Fiore or Liechtenauer were, with regard to the different strata of society.

Matt Galas has done some interesting research into period texts that are not about fencing but which nonetheless mention some of the terminology for the German guards and strokes with the sword. So it seems that at least the lingo was commonly known.

And that shouldn't be surprising, given that Liechtenauer is described not as an inventor, but a synthesizer of the teachings he in turn was exposed to.

Beyond that, it's difficult to say.

All the best,

Christian

Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar

Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship

Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Adam Simmonds




Location: Henley On Thames
Joined: 10 Jun 2006

Posts: 169

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 6:37 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Chad Arnow wrote:


These things can't be posted and won't be tolerated:

-Challenges to duels or sparring if you disagree on something (you'd be surprised how often this happens)
Happy



I would've thought that such could prove a most effective and practical way, for those so attached to their particular views, of cutting through all the bs and waste of time which such a wars of words involve, and would no doubt get to the point , much quicker. Big Grin
View user's profile Send private message
Steven H




Location: Boston
Joined: 10 May 2006

Posts: 545

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 6:40 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Craig Peters wrote:
It seems to me that nearly everyone here is not arguing about the martial efficacy of the techniques demonstrated in the videos. It's fairly obvious that what was demonstrated there worked at speed, with force and intensity.


I will comment on the martial efficacy of some of these parries. First let me say though that most of the parries shown work and are at least close to the way in which I do them, and mostly agree with their execution.

The parry against zwerchau. The parry demonstrated was John Clements scooting back and doing a very high sheitelhau type strike on top of the flat of the incoming blade. However if the attacker performed the zwerchau with a slope step to the right (as instructed for all attacks by Doebringer) then the parry fails to defend against the attack. The defender is struck by a blade angled around their own. Also the attacker (John Clements) is not threatening his opponent with this displacement. To counter attack he must first clear his opponents blade and then counter attack, because he has stepped back and out of measure. So he takes three tempi: parry, clear/step in, riposte.

Additionally this parry is easily deceived by attacking the low line or a change through.

The defense against zwerchhau that I prefer, and I believe is supported by the text is a Zornhau with a slope pass forward. This defense closes the line against an opponent who slope steps and also threatens the attacker and the counter-attack can be made immediately as the defender is in range.

The hanging parry. John Clements demonstrates a hanging parry with the blade 90 degrees off from the line of engagement, receiving the opponents blade on his flat, and he does not step. I am not aware of a text which describes or illustrates a hanging parry made like this.

The only similar parries of which I am aware are made with a deep pass forward to move inside the point of the opponents weapon, frequently to grapple. This version seems more martially sound because in the parry demonstrated by John Clements it is too easy for the attacker to merely change through and thrust.

* * *

I think this summarizes well the objections many have to ARMA's approach to this issue. By trying to make sure that all parries don't damage the sword some techniques are compromised.

Doing things as described in the texts leads to most parries causing no blade damage and only effective parries.

-Steven H

Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Glen A Cleeton




Location: Nipmuc USA
Joined: 21 Aug 2003

Posts: 1,968

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 6:51 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi Christian,

It is these ancillary types of notations that intrigue me. The biographies of these masters is probably a worthy reasearch pursuit, in of itself. Interesting to hear Matt is still at it, whatever that might be now Wink

I guess what I'm really wondering is if it was common at all for the writings and illustrations to have been widely circulated. It seems more like that they were assemmbled for literates that had no "street smarts" as it were. Moreso, by the time of Silver and others (at least it seems to me).

If the military experience is the real root, it begs the question of what training was being handed out along with a common sidearm. I know a lot of the recent debates kind of focus on lonsword technique but what was the common man at arms, archer, or other's real instruction?

Cheers

GC
View user's profile Send private message
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 7:22 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Adam Simmonds wrote:
I would've thought that such could prove a most effective and practical way, for those so attached to their particular views, of cutting through all the bs and waste of time which such a wars of words involve, and would no doubt get to the point , much quicker. Big Grin


If someone wanted to offer to create a friendly (key word) situation where people could test various techniques against each other, that'd be great. I doubt it would stay friendly given the vehemence many of the participants would carry, though.

There have been a few instances recently where criticism or disagreements have led to a much less-than-friendly offers between posters, though, and not just on this topic.

Just because I (or anyone) disagree with you doesn't mean I have to fight you. I never went at my folks with a longsword when I was in high school because they set a curfew or made me take out the trash. I never grappled with the cop who said I was going 82 mph in a car where the needle never went above 78 - ever. I've disagreed with many posters on this forum and others without entering the coliseum in a loincloth and bronze helmet.

We can often solve conflicts in other ways now. We can talk them through logically, rationally, and without rancor. We can compromise. We can agree that we'll never agree, shake hands, and walk away with respect for the other party. I'd love to see that last one happen, but I'm not holding my breath.

Happy

ChadA

http://chadarnow.com/
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Christian Henry Tobler




Location: Oxford, CT
Joined: 25 Aug 2003

Posts: 704

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 7:22 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi Glen!

My own personal view, admittedly unsubantiated at this time, is that the teachings we see recorded in the manuscripts is a superset of some skills that would have been more universal. To this end, I find it interesting that the Ringeck manuscript says that he (Ringeck) commented on Liechtenauer's verses so that it could be understood by someone who otherwise already knew how to fence.

As for circulation of the works proper, that too is hard to say. My working premise is that for every manuscript we have, there are 10-20 that either didn't survive the intervening centuries or are still locked away in some private library somewhere.

Still, it is a manuscript tradition, predating as it does the printing press, so how well *could* the 14th and 15th c. works have been circulated? And all of this is tied in to the question: what was the purpose of the treatises? When Paulus Kal created his manuscript, was it only for the duke, or to used as a training adjunct for his men? Who knows...

All the best,

Christian

Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar

Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship

Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Alex Spreier




Location: Central Oregon
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Likes: 2 pages

Posts: 82

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 11:08 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Chad Arnow wrote:
Folks,
We're back to where these debates always end up: with nothing new being presented. Both sides of this debate are firmly entrenched and no one is changing camps anytime soon. I have yet to see anyone from either side say "Oh, I get your point, I'm going to change how I do things." Both sides think they're right and the others are wrong, or worse yet, doltish. Happy

These polarizing topics add nothing to this site; they don't really present anything new or life-changing either. I'd love to see people agree to disagree (since there will never be any kind of other agreement) and then let's talk about something else. Happy

This is not spoken as a Moderator (yet) just a long-time reader sick to bloody death of threads of this nature. As a reader, I loathe them. As a Mod, I'm no big fan either, though this thread has been relatively well-behaved so far (thanks!).


Thank you. I am personally tired of this debate. Everyone will do things their own way.
View user's profile Send private message
Joe Fults




Location: Midwest
Joined: 02 Sep 2003

Posts: 3,646

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 11:43 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The things people do to pass the time between the end of one football season, and the start of the next one.

This thread has helped remind me why sex, weight training, cycling, folk style & freestyle wresting with my son, running, golfing (although I really suck at golf), fishing, shooting, playing fetch with my dog, shopping with my wife, working in the yard, cutting pool noodles, reading, doing laundry, eating, working on my resume, watching baseball (ek), watching basketball (ew), watching hockey (in Columbus...painful), listening to music, drinking, playing with fire, sitting in the sunshine, playing computer games, cleaning, talking with my neighbor, surfing the web, planning my retirement, doing pull-ups, ironing my pants, talking on the phone, flossing my teeth (I hate that), riding the red line in Cleveland and even watching B5 reruns on DVD, are higher priorities for me on any given day, than martial arts.

"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Edge to Flat Cuts Video
Page 4 of 9 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
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






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum