| Author |
Message |
Jean Thibodeau
|
 Posted: Sun 09 Aug, 2009 12:45 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I think Michael is sort of speaking in terms of Ocam's razor here in that using the historical sources, our best guesses are based on what seems the simplest way to interpret the texts rather than trying to twist the meanings in the most complex way possible.
Interpretation is always going to be unavoidable as we don't have a time machine and trying things out lead to changes in interpretations at times ( Better, worse, erroneous all being possible ).
Also, he is making the point that he is of the HEMA school of though trying to recreate the " historical arts " as closely as we can figure out and not necessarily trying to invent new ways of using a sword even if we found a " better " way.
So Ragnar, I can understand where his words may seem dogmatic, but it's because he is just saying that this is what the master's said and there is no question that it was what they said ( How we interpret what they said is another story, and we don't all agree ! ).
So it just looks a lot like the " logical fallacy " of using authority to " prove " a point but it's just stating the facts of what are the words that have come down to us.
If we go to a discussion of what could be better ways to swordfight, we " modern" might come up with a better idea than the old masters, but again the reasoning is that they did it for real with the stakes being life and death, so the odds are that trying to follow the period wisdom is a good way to go .... against more an Ocam's razor thing rather than an absolute scientific proof thing.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
  |
 |
David Teague
Location: Anchorage, Alaska Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Aug, 2009 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: |
If we go to a discussion of what could be better ways to swordfight, we " modern" might come up with a better idea than the old masters. |
Yes, we already did.
They are called firearms.
This you shall know, that all things have length and measure.
Free Scholar/ Instructor Selohaar Fechtschule
The Historic Recrudescence Guild
"Yea though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou's sword art is with me; Thy poleaxe and Thy quarterstaff they comfort me."
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Aug, 2009 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | I think Michael is sort of speaking in terms of Ocam's razor here in that using the historical sources, our best guesses are based on what seems the simplest way to interpret the texts rather than trying to twist the meanings in the most complex way possible.
Interpretation is always going to be unavoidable as we don't have a time machine and trying things out lead to changes in interpretations at times ( Better, worse, erroneous all being possible ).
Also, he is making the point that he is of the HEMA school of though trying to recreate the " historical arts " as closely as we can figure out and not necessarily trying to invent new ways of using a sword even if we found a " better " way.
So Ragnar, I can understand where his words may seem dogmatic, but it's because he is just saying that this is what the master's said and there is no question that it was what they said ( How we interpret what they said is another story, and we don't all agree ! ).
So it just looks a lot like the " logical fallacy " of using authority to " prove " a point but it's just stating the facts of what are the words that have come down to us.
If we go to a discussion of what could be better ways to swordfight, we " modern" might come up with a better idea than the old masters, but again the reasoning is that they did it for real with the stakes being life and death, so the odds are that trying to follow the period wisdom is a good way to go .... against more an Ocam's razor thing rather than an absolute scientific proof thing. |
Yes, that about sums it up. Jean, I hereby appoint you my official representative. 
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
 |
|
|
Greg Thomas Obach
Industry Professional
Location: Elliot lake Joined: 17 Dec 2003
Posts: 59
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Aug, 2009 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Jean
i agree with you completely.. .. and i've reviewed that vid again.. ( very nice ) the bulk of the attacks are taken on the low part of the defenders blade....preserving the cutting edge cop of the defenders blade...
- a softening factor... perhaps could be the these swords are not through hardened... it is tough to through harden a blade on a shallow hardening steel... so the spine maybe somewhat softer that the edge....... making a complete failure of a sword much much harder to happen !
the width on these blades ...i also think would make it much safer for edge contact........ .. it would be hard to test as we generally make swords out of modern steel..... which as you know is different from the old bloom type steels..
interesting blades... hah, now i think i have to make one.. 
|
|
 |
|
David Teague
Location: Anchorage, Alaska Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Aug, 2009 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| David Teague wrote: | | Jean Thibodeau wrote: |
If we go to a discussion of what could be better ways to swordfight, we " modern" might come up with a better idea than the old masters. |
Yes, we already did.
They are called firearms. |
Now that I'm done being droll, we all know that it was the steady development of the firearm that removed the need for swordplay for either civil defense or combat.
I study both the swordplay of the 14th-16th century German masters along with that of the 18th century British Isles. I also shoot the firearms of the period (live fire) up to current weapons, so I have a pretty good concept of how the firearms progressed along with the changes in swordplay.
The 18th century sword master Donald McBane warned against the hidden dag in his writing. The dag was a small underpowered flintlock screw barrel pistol that could be pulled by a dishonorable man when a duel was not going his way. McBane had a dag pulled on more than one occasion during a back alley encounter. The dag was feared because a shot to the main body would most likely lead to a painful death due to infection.
Thanks to the improvement of firearms you can see the change in manuals form the rich inclusive systems of the 14 & 15 century to the simple systems taught at the turn of the 19th century to soldiers and sailors.
This you shall know, that all things have length and measure.
Free Scholar/ Instructor Selohaar Fechtschule
The Historic Recrudescence Guild
"Yea though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou's sword art is with me; Thy poleaxe and Thy quarterstaff they comfort me."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ragnar A. Olsen
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Aug, 2009 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well this is really fantastic, thank you Jean for clearing things up to that degree, I obviously mistook Michael's meaning in his post.
Also want to thank Steven for his post, because thats exactly the sort of post I was hoping to see. Posts that are very educational for me, and perhaps others who haven't been studying various books of fencing.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Aug, 2009 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragnar A. Olsen wrote: | Well this is really fantastic, thank you Jean for clearing things up to that degree, I obviously mistook Michael's meaning in his post.
Also want to thank Steven for his post, because thats exactly the sort of post I was hoping to see. Posts that are very educational for me, and perhaps others who haven't been studying various books of fencing. |
Ragnar,
I'm glad Jean managed to clear that up for me, and I apologize for any misunderstandings. This is an old debate, and sometimes it's easy to forget that it's not old to everyone.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Aug, 2009 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| David Teague wrote: | WTF??? "We don't what they meant when they wrote it, so we kinda make it up?"
That's how your post comes across to me.
While your group may be forced to only work from "written text, often a English translation from another modern language translation from an older version of that language" (which might have been true a few years ago but I would think no more) I'm lucky enough to have friends within the WMA community that can do English translations from the original text.
|
David
Yes, I'm saying that when one reads text, even in the same language, they are basically making an interpretation about what the writer was actually trying to say. Steven Reich reads Italian, yet if he reads the orginial Fiore text he has to make an interpretation about what Fiore was really saying. Even the most simple of statements can be totally mis-understood. An exmple of this can be seen in a recent thread http://www.thearma.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23968 on the "Falling Under the Sword & Shield" technique in the I.33 manual. The instruction to "fall under the sword and shield" seems very simple, clear, and direct to me, espeically since it is so well support by images. As shown in the I.33 images your sword just falls and moves under the other person's sword & shield. Yet, other well known scholars have come with interpretations of this technique where they bind, thrust, and perform other actions that seem to have nothing to do with the given instruction. So how did those scholars come up with actions that don't match the actual instructions? The answer is "interpretation". And interpretation is nothing more than educated guessing. And it is very easy to get it wrong!
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Aug, 2009 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | | Even the most simple of statements can be totally mis-understood. An exmple of this can be seen in a recent thread http://www.thearma.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23968 on the "Falling Under the Sword & Shield" technique in the I.33 manual. The instruction to "fall under the sword and shield" seems very simple, clear, and direct to me, espeically since it is so well support by images. |
I don't practice I.33, but that passage doesn't seem nearly as simple as "cut into his attack" or "with your edge."
Does it mean a literal fall, as in lowering your sword? Or a figurative one, as in falling on the sword? Do you bind and then drop the sword, or do you attack from below? There are passages in Liechtenauer manuals that say "when he falls on your sword from above" which talks about binding from above, so perhaps falling under means fall on the sword from below, as in bind from below.
I have no idea...as I said I don't work with I.33, but clearly, as your topic shows, there is room for different understandings with that passage.
How does one interpret "cut into his attack" differently? Or for that matter, "with your edge"?
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
Last edited by Michael Edelson on Sun 09 Aug, 2009 4:48 pm; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
David Teague
Location: Anchorage, Alaska Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Aug, 2009 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | | David Teague wrote: | WTF??? "We don't what they meant when they wrote it, so we kinda make it up?"
That's how your post comes across to me.
While your group may be forced to only work from "written text, often a English translation from another modern language translation from an older version of that language" (which might have been true a few years ago but I would think no more) I'm lucky enough to have friends within the WMA community that can do English translations from the original text.
|
David
Yes, I'm saying that when one reads text, even in the same language, they are basically making an interpretation about what the writer was actually trying to say. Steven Reich reads Italian, yet if he reads the orginial Fiore text he has to make an interpretation about what Fiore was really saying. Even the most simple of statements can be totally mis-understood. An exmple of this can be seen in a recent thread http://www.thearma.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23968 on the "Falling Under the Sword & Shield" technique in the I.33 manual. The instruction to "fall under the sword and shield" seems very simple, clear, and direct to me, espeically since it is so well support by images. As shown in the I.33 images your sword just falls and moves under the other person's sword & shield. Yet, other well known scholars have come with interpretations of this technique where they bind, thrust, and perform other actions that seem to have nothing to do with the given instruction. So how did those scholars come up with actions that don't match the actual instructions? The answer is "interpretation". And interpretation is nothing more than educated guessing. And it is very easy to get it wrong!
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW |
Hello Ran,
When a scholar takes a work from one language to another that is translation. Yes, the scholar can make mistakes and his (or her) work can be flawed, but it's when we pick up the weapon and try to make the written word come to life that it becomes "interpretation". Were some of the manuals poorly written, as we both know, hell yes, but in the case of the German body of work we have over 60 text spanning a 250 year period to help cross reference our "interpretations".
Have some of our fellow scholars gone down the wrong path with their interpretation. Sure, but if they are true scholars they should being willing to trash the incorrect interpretation and restart, I know I trashed and rebuilt a interpretation of the 18th century manual of Thomas Page five times. I'm happy now with what I have, but should I come across new data that requires a rebuild of the interpretation well that's what I will have to do.
That's what true students of the sword should be willing to do, be willing to compare current works with others and adjust when necessary. Keep an open mind. None of us have it quite right (depending on the system) and there is room for change in everybody's work as we get closer to what the masters were trying to tell us.
Cheers,
DT
This you shall know, that all things have length and measure.
Free Scholar/ Instructor Selohaar Fechtschule
The Historic Recrudescence Guild
"Yea though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou's sword art is with me; Thy poleaxe and Thy quarterstaff they comfort me."
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Aug, 2009 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To return to the original question: there was a lot of variation within the messer form, as in any form. I wouldn't think messer blades would be better or worse suited for edge-parrying than falchions or stortas with similar cross-sections.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ragnar A. Olsen
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Aug, 2009 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Michael it's me who should apologize to you, as Jean said, I thought it was a "logical fallacy". So we were talking completely past each other. I'm glad it seems like neither of us took offence.
I'd like to restate, that I don't have the faintest idea what is really correct, nor do I claim to have any idea whats better to do in a fight. I have no vested interest one way or the other, just that this thread up to a point, made one point of view seem more likely then the other.( Sorry if I seem to be repeating this a lot, but it's something some posters seem to forget/miss.)
I will try to keep in mind though that this, and possibly other issues that might be of great interest to me, can be very tedious to others.
Also want to point out what Jean pointed out from one of my earlier posts. When we read the phrase Edge on Edge, or Edge on flat, many of us seem to think of different "images". To me Edge on Edge, means nearly 90 degree forceful edge on edge damaging strikes, and Edge on flat basically means any sort of angle that will deflect some of the energy and thus being far less damaging to both weapons. Not that the defender or attacker, are presenting the flat of their blade to the enemy in any sort of exaggerated movement.
As for <How does one interpret "cut into his attack" differently? Or for that matter, "with your edge"?>, to me that can actually mean edge to flat. (at least with that little context)
I would however be really thrilled if anyone would care to post any unambiguous text from a historical source about this with regards to messer fighting. If I understood Steve correctly he was referring to rapier which I believe is a bit different in construction and use. (If I'm wrong please correct me.)
Also would like to thank everyone for reading my long rambling posts. Especially Jean, he is at least in my opinion a real asset to this place with all that patience and understanding with a newbie like me.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Aug, 2009 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Ragnar,
No apology necessary, these things happen, and I'm usually the one to blame.
| Ragnar A. Olsen wrote: | | As for <How does one interpret "cut into his attack" differently? Or for that matter, "with your edge"?>, to me that can actually mean edge to flat. (at least with that little context). |
The problem with that is that you would be adding something that isn't there. Here is a passage from Von Danzig (translation by Christian Tobler):
| Quote: | | Note, when he strikes with the Zwerchhau from his right side to your left side above to the head, then parry with the long edge and keep the point before his chest. |
This is very specific, and very clear. In the original German it says "versetz mit der langen schneid ." Versetz means parry, mit der means with the, and langen schneid means long edge.
Now you can say "but he might mean hit your long edge into his flat", but it doesn't say that (and isn't possible in this play, at least not in any way I can imagine). It might also mean many other things it doesn't say, but we can't go on what it doesn't say, we have to go with what it does say.
Does this make it clearer?
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
David Teague
Location: Anchorage, Alaska Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Aug, 2009 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Ragnar,
| Ragnar A. Olsen wrote: | | I would however be really thrilled if anyone would care to post any unambiguous text from a historical source about this with regards to messer fighting. |
I thought Cory did with his post on the first page of this thread.
| Cory Winslow wrote: | Hey Guys,
I'm glad to see that our video has inspired some discussion!
| David Sutton wrote: |
The other possibility is that people are simply misinterpreting fechtbuch illustrations. Taking an image which is actually showing edge on flat to be edge to edge. |
The texts make it quite clear that you parry with the edge in some cases. Here is an example of such a parry from the Sigmund Emring Fechtbuch:
"Item, when one to you will cut or stab, then conduct yourself thus; set your left foot forward and hold your messer near the right hip in the hand, and when he cuts above to your head, then step to him with the bad displacement, that the edge is above, and spring with the right foot in to the left side and cut in to the head or where you may hit him, then is he your possession."
Note that this type of parry is called the "bad" displacement here. In Lecküchner it is called the "bad" or "crooked" (Krump) displacement, and the sixth Meisterhau, which Lecküchner added to Liechtenauer's Five, is described as a counter to this type of parry.
http://mdz10.bib-bvb.de/~db/bsb00002184/image...p;seite=67
-Cory |
| Ragnar A. Olsen wrote: | | If I understood Steve correctly he was referring to rapier which I believe is a bit different in construction and use. (If I'm wrong please correct me.). |
Steve is referring to a cut and thrust type of sword now known in popular usage as a "sidesword". This is the type of weapon favored by the Germans for Rapier and the Bolognese school of swordsmanshp,
Cheers,
DT
This you shall know, that all things have length and measure.
Free Scholar/ Instructor Selohaar Fechtschule
The Historic Recrudescence Guild
"Yea though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou's sword art is with me; Thy poleaxe and Thy quarterstaff they comfort me."
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Reich
Location: Arlington, VA Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Aug, 2009 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | | Yes, I'm saying that when one reads text, even in the same language, they are basically making an interpretation about what the writer was actually trying to say. Steven Reich reads Italian, yet if he reads the orginal Fiore text he has to make an interpretation about what Fiore was really saying. Even the most simple of statements can be totally mis-understood. An example of this can be seen in a recent thread http://www.thearma.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23968 on the "Falling Under the Sword & Shield" technique in the I.33 manual. The instruction to "fall under the sword and shield" seems very simple, clear, and direct to me, especially since it is so well support by images. As shown in the I.33 images your sword just falls and moves under the other person's sword & shield. Yet, other well known scholars have come with interpretations of this technique where they bind, thrust, and perform other actions that seem to have nothing to do with the given instruction. So how did those scholars come up with actions that don't match the actual instructions? The answer is "interpretation". And interpretation is nothing more than educated guessing. And it is very easy to get it wrong! |
Well, Fiore isn't really my area, so I won't debate that. However, Bolognese is my area of specialty, and in this case, I would have to say that if you disagree with my interpretation, and for your argument to have an intelligent and meaningful basis, it would be mean that you can read the treatises in the original language (note that by you, I mean the non-specific "you"). Now for the Bolognese, a lot of that isn't really all that hard if you understand Italian and have a strong understanding of grammar so that you can also analyze the text (basically, you can identify all of the parts of a sentence so that you know that you aren't confusing the subject and the object, etc.). That doesn't mean that the entirety of the Bolognese system can be understood. For example, Marozzo names a few guards for the Spada da Due Mani that he does not describe (e.g. Guardia di Stella, Guardia di Spalla, Guardia di Gombito, Guardia di Consentire, and Porta di Ferro Accorata). Some of these are used in the text, and some of them are only names on the page. In this case, interpretation can very likely be wrong (if it is even meaningful at all). However, many parts of the text are quite clear and consistent within the tradition. In addition, doing things like going through all of the material for a tradition and reading every description of the technique you are interpreting can clear up things quite well.
However, interpretations aren't an all or nothing type of thing--some parts of a system can ambiguous and others can be quite clear, but the ambiguities don't mean that every single aspect of a system is hazy and in need of re-interpretation by each new student of WMA. In addition, some systems are much better understood than others. For example, I would state--quite strongly--to anyone who thinks that there are any major secrets to be found (i.e groundbreaking interpretations waiting to be discovered) in 17th century Italian rapier, I would have to say that he needs to go back and read the Italian, because this just isn't true. OTOH, I would also say that the same thing can't be said about I.33 or even Bolognese (which, as clear as it is in some places, is quite vague in others)...
Steve
Founder of NoVA-Assalto, an affiliate of the HEMA Alliance
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Reich
Location: Arlington, VA Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Aug, 2009 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ragnar A. Olsen wrote: | | Also want to point out what Jean pointed out from one of my earlier posts. When we read the phrase Edge on Edge, or Edge on flat, many of us seem to think of different "images". To me Edge on Edge, means nearly 90 degree forceful edge on edge damaging strikes, and Edge on flat basically means any sort of angle that will deflect some of the energy and thus being far less damaging to both weapons. Not that the defender or attacker, are presenting the flat of their blade to the enemy in any sort of exaggerated movement. |
Well, now we're getting into arguing semantics. For what it's worth, when I say edge-on-edge, I mean all sorts of blade-to-blade interactions, but where the edges interact to at least some extent in an action that is a block rather than a deflection. Do these actions have the potential to cause edge damage? Yes, but the texts describe what they describe (see Dustin R. Reagan's note on a parry breaking the attacker's sword on a previous page of this thread; if breaking a sword isn't blade damage, then I don't know what is).
| Ragnar A. Olsen wrote: | | I would however be really thrilled if anyone would care to post any unambiguous text from a historical source about this with regards to messer fighting. If I understood Steve correctly he was referring to rapier which I believe is a bit different in construction and use. (If I'm wrong please correct me.) |
Actually, I was referring to the sword the WMA community generally calls the "sidesword" which was somewhat heavier than what we generally refer to as a rapier--that is, for a system where the cut is as likely to be used as the thrust (although that's not quite accurate, but to really clarify that would be to really digress from the topic). The treatises that describe the use of this type of sword were written in the 1500s.
Steve
Founder of NoVA-Assalto, an affiliate of the HEMA Alliance
|
|
|
|
|
Jessica Finley
Industry Professional
Location: Topeka, Kansas Joined: 29 Dec 2003
Posts: 110
|
| Posted: Mon 10 Aug, 2009 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey everyone -
The thing that bothers me about this discussion, and indeed the original topic, is that it places a great value on the messer itself. In my understanding of the weapon in it's context is that it is basically the medieval European man's equivalent of a machete. Now, I don't know about anyone else, but in my world, a machete is a disposable weapon. It's useful for a variety of things, from cutting down brush, to clearing a path, to chopping food, to (yes) self-defense.
I don't know of *anyone* who owns and uses a machete in a daily-life context who is concerned about edge damage beyond that they realize they will have to frequently sharpen the tool (yes, tool). And like any tool, there is an expectation of an end of the practical usefulness for said tool, ie, it will break eventually.
We're not talking about a high-end knightly weapon here, we're talking about a day-to-day tool. The expense of replacement of this tool is small. And if we're assuming that the messer techniques were brought to us in a self-defense sense (missing a parry means death) then we can assume our techniques were maximize our bodily safety, even at the expense of the tool itself.
Jessica
Selohaar Fechtschule, Free Scholar
http://www.selohaar.org/fechtschule
Fühlen Designs, Owner/Designer/Seamstress
http://fuhlendesigns.com
|
|
  |
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Mon 10 Aug, 2009 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jessica,
The messer have have begun as a humble peasant weapon, but there are examples that are fancy enough to have been owned by wealthier people. The Emperor Maximilian had messers made for his personal guards.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Jessica Finley
Industry Professional
Location: Topeka, Kansas Joined: 29 Dec 2003
Posts: 110
|
| Posted: Mon 10 Aug, 2009 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: | Jessica,
The messer have have begun as a humble peasant weapon, but there are examples that are fancy enough to have been owned by wealthier people. The Emperor Maximilian had messers made for his personal guards. |
Chad - Thank you for your reply. I am aware of the "upscale" versions and I believe they would have been treated with all the care that a high-end car is treated with today. In other words, you bring it out for special occasions, car shows, parades and the like, but you don't take it to the grocery store every day, nor do you use it to haul cattle.
My point is, 99.9% of these weapons were meant to be used as tools. Their importance was secondary to the importance of the life they were saving - *when we're discussing their relevance to the techniques devised to use them*. And that, I think, is key.
Maximilian's messers for his personal guards may have seen action, but they weren't intended to. They were intended to convey the wealth and status of the merest of individuals who consulted with his person.
Jessica
Selohaar Fechtschule, Free Scholar
http://www.selohaar.org/fechtschule
Fühlen Designs, Owner/Designer/Seamstress
http://fuhlendesigns.com
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Mon 10 Aug, 2009 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: | Jessica,
The messer have have begun as a humble peasant weapon, but there are examples that are fancy enough to have been owned by wealthier people. The Emperor Maximilian had messers made for his personal guards. |
I agree some are much too rich in decoration and quality to be cheap weapons but then the really Rich would have a nice one reflecting their social status but in a fight the priority of not getting cut, seriously wounded or killed would probably be no different than the poor man and his cheap disposable version.
In period these being " tools " and " tools of war/selfdefense " the concerns for damage might be the same we have for our cars !? First it's a convenience to get you from place to place and a new car will be babied but an old clunker can look pretty worn out and still be mechanically in great shape.
Also, we today are " collectors " in mentality and most of us dread that first scratch while as person using a messer as a tool might not care about cosmetic damage as much.
Hmmmm: Another way of looking at it is that in my career I used at time a 35mm camera that belonged to my employer ( As well as video recording equipment and a full production studio of stuff ) and although I was careful to not do damage to the camera I really didn't care or worry about scuff marks or scratches to the anodized black finish ! Now, my personal stuff I would care about any little blemish. 
So I think one can distinguish between functional damage and aesthetic damage as well as using stuff as a tool or the same having value as a status symbol: These factors varying as the same person might own a beater messer and a go out to Church on Sunday or go to Court show piece messer.
The whole swordsmanship debate is almost a complete separate subject as in period I might not care about light damage fixed by a quick resharpening on the functional level but might still care " after " the fight about aesthetic damage, and if
" RICH ", I might get rid of a no longer pristine weapon and replace it with a nice new shiny one.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
This is a standard topic