| Author |
Message |
Artis Aboltins
|
 Posted: Fri 02 Oct, 2009 11:03 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Luke Zechman wrote: | Ok this is a pretty heavy topic and I am a complete newbie to Western martial arts, and any communities dealing with such, but I wanted to say a few short things. I understand that a lot of us are really into being historically accurate. With some things that may be possible, but with others it may not. I know there are some surviving documents that contain the teachings of masters from times past, but how practical is this really. Imagine actually going back to a battlefield from a past time and having the equipment to engage and possibly kill someone. How many of the men ( and I am even including the ones that where great at winning/killing other men on the battle field) in any given battle do you think where actually taught and trained by one of these "masters". I am not trying to evoke any anger here but want to make a point. Eastern martial arts have been better preserved then Western ones have. With that said I can pretty much guarantee you that they have changed substantially from then till now. Martial arts, like language, like species, like styles, like so many other things change over time. How many of the people engaging in this thread have actually picked up a sharp sword, suited up for battle and gone out on the battle field and killed anyone? I commonly engage in similar arguments that crop up in the scientific community. "Well I think T-rex had feathers" ... "Well I think T- rex didn't have feathers" There is no right answer, when the real answer is unobtainable! I say appreciate each other form being interested in the same sort of things. Take what works for you and use it well, and enjoy yourself. Life is to short, and time is to precious to squabble over things that will never be resolved. I hope I haven't made any enemies by posting this thought. Live in the now and realize that the art of fighting with a long sword or flail or mace is HISTORY. In the mean time, for those of you waiting for the anarchy to rear its ugly head, keep doing what you do and maybe just maybe you will get to see if you are right.
P.S. I am not taking any sides here, nor looking to make any enemies. I am just trying to engage in a civil, intellectual conversation. Keep being passionate about what you do. |
Hmm, I belive you are taking a slightly incorrect approach here - to be able to discuss things depicted in the works of specific masters of the past you do not have to go to battlefield and actually kill some - you have to study the works of said masters. To discuss possibilities of T-Rex having had feathers or not, you do not have to invent time machine and go back into the past, you have to study surviving evidence and have a good knowledge and understanding of the materials pertaining to the matter (as it happens to be, my primary education is geology, and that does include paleontology and aforementhioned discussion about dinosaurs having feathers  ). If we could just go back and see either T-rex or master Lechtenauer in fight, there would be no discussion - we would know. As it stands now, there are different possibilities how to interpret surviving evidence on both occasions and that is what leads, or should lead, to scientific discussion. The problem, however, is when someone "steps up the soapbox" and proclaims that he has some knowledge that nobody else has - other experts in the field usually want to see that evidence what supports the claim and if a person can not provide it... well it reduces his credibility. Also, in scientific community it is generally frowned upon on making wide, sweeping claims regarding how and what others do - normally you describe your own work, often in relation to what others have done, using quotes from those persons research and so on, but you do not go on proclaiming that everyone else doesn't know anything about what they are doing and you are the sole prophet of the universal truth. It is simply considered inappropriate as it only leads to antagonize your possible opponents and instead of scientific discussion that would lead to new discoveries you end up in "pissing contest". Which is counterproductive to say the least.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Herbert Schmidt
|
| Posted: Sat 03 Oct, 2009 3:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
I edited my post because it was just a repetition what others said.
| Mike S. wrote: |
So until there is actual work to discuss, please, .... |
So if there isn't anything actual in the article - why write it?
Basically your statement says it all in a nuthsell.
Apart from that, I can't see what he does different from the hints in his article.
I am impressed however that he has written every article, book and publication in english, french, german, italian, polish, hungarian, russian, czech and a lot of other languages over the last 10 years! I have never thought that he has mastered that many languages and has got time to read that much. I stand in awe before this achievement.
Herbert
www.arsgladii.at
Historical European Martial Arts
|
|
 |
|
|
Nat Lamb
|
| Posted: Sat 03 Oct, 2009 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Luke Zechman wrote: | | There is no right answer, when the real answer is unobtainable. |
That is a rather bold, and somewhat dubious epistimelogical statement. It may be impossible to veryify, but that does not stop one answer being right and another wrong, just means we can't tell, which is an entirely diferent kettle of fish. Either T-Rex did or did not have feathers (or "sorta" did, say, stole feathers from other dinosaurs to line it's nest...) and our inability to determine does not efect the state of play x million years ago, just means we need to stay openminded and rational when discussing it. Unless of course you are going to go the whole hog and that our inability to determine means that there really is no truth of the matter of course, but there is no reason to do that unless you are trying to impress Simone de Buviour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
James Head
|
| Posted: Sat 03 Oct, 2009 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
@ Luke Zechman.
I think you've started a completely different topic with you original statement. It would probably be best to re-post it under it's own thread. Essentialy you have shown up out of the blue and dismissed this entire thread and suggested that ALL of the various discussions concerning WMA research that are happening right now are pointless because there will never be enough period evidence. I'd love to debate your claim in a respectful way, but let's do it somewhere else.
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 03 Oct, 2009 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike Cartier wrote: | Well my apologies, I am certainly not trying to attack anyone. However i have not been warned of anything.
|
Everyone in this thread has already been warned once (see my post from Tue 29 Sep, 2009 11:06 pm above). Plus, our rules show what behavior we expect. So between our rules, which everyone who posts here is subject to, and my prior warning in this thread, everyone involved has been more than sufficiently warned to warrant my final warning.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
 |
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 03 Oct, 2009 6:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Herbert Schmidt wrote: | I am impressed however that he has written every article, book and publication in english, french, german, italian, polish, hungarian, russian, czech and a lot of other languages over the last 10 years! I have never thought that he has mastered that many languages and has got time to read that much. I stand in awe before this achievement.
Herbert |
The sarcasm is unnecessary and unwarranted, not to mention counter to the culture we're trying to create and nurture.
If people continue this behavior (sarcasm, personal attacks), posting privileges will be revoked. Enough is enough.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin Fredrick
Location: Richmond Joined: 02 Oct 2009
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Sat 03 Oct, 2009 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: | | Herbert Schmidt wrote: | I am impressed however that he has written every article, book and publication in english, french, german, italian, polish, hungarian, russian, czech and a lot of other languages over the last 10 years! I have never thought that he has mastered that many languages and has got time to read that much. I stand in awe before this achievement.
Herbert |
The sarcasm is unnecessary and unwarranted, not to mention counter to the culture we're trying to create and nurture.
If people continue this behavior (sarcasm, personal attacks), posting privileges will be revoked. Enough is enough. |
Agreed.
This thread has become much more offensive than anything the author of the article might have written.
My two cents.
Ben
|
|
|
|
|
Steven H
|
| Posted: Sat 03 Oct, 2009 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin Fredrick wrote: | I've been quietly watching RMA for a couple of years now and although I'm certainly no expert in the field I have some general observations over this discussion of Die Vaage . I have seen no one school and certainly no general movement that publicly stressed the importance of this stance that is until I read Mr. Clement's article. In fact I haven't seen this stance (Die Vaage) demonstrated consistently in any of the videos made available to the public on the web with exception to those put out by the organization ARMA. Not to say that its not out there but if it is, it isn't being touted to the extent where I can find it.
So I have to surmise that from my viewpoint either Mr. Clements is on to something that the rest of HEMA either missed or dismissed as unimportant or the rest of HEMA is not disclosing the importance of Die Vaage to me who has been seemingly left in perpetual ignorance. Now if Die Vaage starts showing up as the new standard, then I will know something. I see a man who has made some sweeping statements, but I have also watched him being dismissed before he's really had his say. If he wants to wait to have his say until he has published his book, then good for him.
I am not a member of any of the organizations represented on this thread. Sorry to be the contrarian.
Ben F. |
Hello,
You make a very reasonable response. Allow me to attempt to address it.
I think that the primary reason you see few schools address Die Vaage is that few manuals address the matter. Especially as it applies to the wide stance. The wide stance (as seen in Craig Peters avatar) is pretty much exclusive to 16th century manuals on the Lichtenauer tradition. More specifically Meyer and Sutor. Paulus Hector Mair also includes the wide stance, and it seems to be his usual, but he also includes two others.
Mair describes three balances: high, middle, and low. The low balance is the wide stance being advocated John Clements and clearly depicted in Meyer and Sutor. The high balance is a very narrow stance; it is suited to quick turns but not at all to grappling - as such it is only used from a greater measure. I am not aware of any depictions of this stance outside of Mair. The middle balance is in between these two and it is the stance most commonly seen in 15th century manuals and modern students.
In summary the wide, "Die Vaage" stance is clearly correct, but so is the narrower middle balance. Therefore to state categorically that a middle stance is wrong is to ignore quite a bit of evidence to the contrary*. Furthermore, quite a number of groups studying the Lichtenauer specifically focus on the 15th century manuals. For those people using Meyers' stances would be clearly incorrect. Additionally, Fiore's stances, as pictured, are also like the middle balance so the wider stance is incorrect for those students as well. The problem then is Clements' assertion that the wide stance is the only correct stance.
Forte Swordplay, with whom I've trained, has done quite a bit of work with Paulus Hector Mair. Their training includes all three of his Balances. I will admit though that I've only seen Jeff Tsay, the leader, do a good job of incorporating it all into his fencing. A good job both in that he looks like what the pictures and words show and that he frequently beats me with it.
The Lichtenauer traditions manuals spread over 180+ years, so it is natural to seem some change, some progression or evolution of the technique. I believe the reason for the change in stance is understood as well. 15th century and earlier manuals included instruction for fighting in armour. The low, wide stance of Meyer doesn't work well with 45+ lbs of armour, but the stance seen in most 15th century manuals works just fine. So the training crosses over into armoured play more readily. I believe, but am no Scholar of Fiore, that Fiore specifically addresses this point - that the unarmoured training is to be used while armoured as well.
By the 16th century, when Mair and Meyer are having their pictures drawn, such armour is falling out of favor for dueling and amongst the nobility. The works of Mair and Meyer seem to be addressed exclusively towards a civilian usage where armour will not ever be a factor. As such we see the use of wider stances just like you see in the exclusively civilian rapier styles.
If ARMA's studies are intended to only ever be used for unarmoured fencing, then the focus on the later, wider stances is quite sensible and accurate. But again they cannot accurately say that it is the only correct stance.
A depiction of many stances from various manuals can be found here. Note that this essay is on the ARMA site and written by John Clements. The evidence and pictures he presents are still as accurate today as when he first wrote this article even if he now does things differently himself.
Cheers,
Steven
* Unfortunately, focusing on confirmatory evidence while blindly ignoring contradictory evidence has been done before in other ARMA essays i.e. edge-vs.-edge.
Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 03 Oct, 2009 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steven H wrote: | | * Unfortunately, focusing on confirmatory evidence while blindly ignoring contradictory evidence has been done before in other ARMA essays i.e. edge-vs.-edge. |
There are umpteen other threads dealing with the edge parrying issue. We do *not* need to digress in that direction in this thread.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Sat 03 Oct, 2009 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike Cartier wrote: | | Randall your problem has always been your blind defense of even John Clements most outlandish statements . |
Mike
You know as well as I do that ARMA members don't blindly follow John Clements. We follow John because he walks what he talks and he doesn't accomedate any BS in the study of these arts.
| Quote: | | Its is a very arrogant article and has little facts involved, lets see the facts already, many of us here spend lots of time on manuals so we are perfectly capable of understanding. I think you can understand why most of us would have little reason to take his claims on faith. The manuals are the true authority not modern organizations or personalities, so simply lay out your sources and conclusions, its not very hard really. |
Finding better interpretations and sharing them is not arrogant and insulting. In any case ARMA is in the business of re-creating these lost arts and educating the public. ARMA will do its business, including sharing its interpretations with the public.
About 80 to 90 percent of what John is talking about didn't come out until well after your departure from ARMA. However, you did see Die Vaage and the new Krump interpretation. You have seen Die Vagge, you know its effectiveness, and you know no one outside of ARMA was using it. You also know well that the old Krump does not break Ochs, you know that Jake suffered may bruises in his chest and ribs trying to make it work against John and that it completely failed. And you know that John's new Krump interpretation does work extremely well, matches the historical documents, and fits in well with the other master cuts. You have a nice piece of the cheese, are you going to now drop it and run back to where it use to be?
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Sat 03 Oct, 2009 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steven H wrote: | | The problem then is Clements' assertion that the wide stance is the only correct stance. |
Steven
Maybe you should wait until John Clements article on Die Vaage comes out and read what it actually says before you disagree with it.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin Fredrick
Location: Richmond Joined: 02 Oct 2009
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Sat 03 Oct, 2009 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steven H wrote: |
Hello,
You make a very reasonable response. Allow me to attempt to address it.
I think that the primary reason you see few schools address Die Vaage is that few manuals address the matter. Especially as it applies to the wide stance. The wide stance (as seen in Craig Peters avatar) is pretty much exclusive to 16th century manuals on the Lichtenauer tradition. More specifically Meyer and Sutor. Paulus Hector Mair also includes the wide stance, and it seems to be his usual, but he also includes two others.
Mair describes three balances: high, middle, and low. The low balance is the wide stance being advocated John Clements and clearly depicted in Meyer and Sutor. The high balance is a very narrow stance; it is suited to quick turns but not at all to grappling - as such it is only used from a greater measure. I am not aware of any depictions of this stance outside of Mair. The middle balance is in between these two and it is the stance most commonly seen in 15th century manuals and modern students.
In summary the wide, "Die Vaage" stance is clearly correct, but so is the narrower middle balance. Therefore to state categorically that a middle stance is wrong is to ignore quite a bit of evidence to the contrary*. Furthermore, quite a number of groups studying the Lichtenauer specifically focus on the 15th century manuals. For those people using Meyers' stances would be clearly incorrect. Additionally, Fiore's stances, as pictured, are also like the middle balance so the wider stance is incorrect for those students as well. The problem then is Clements' assertion that the wide stance is the only correct stance.
Forte Swordplay, with whom I've trained, has done quite a bit of work with Paulus Hector Mair. Their training includes all three of his Balances. I will admit though that I've only seen Jeff Tsay, the leader, do a good job of incorporating it all into his fencing. A good job both in that he looks like what the pictures and words show and that he frequently beats me with it.
The Lichtenauer traditions manuals spread over 180+ years, so it is natural to seem some change, some progression or evolution of the technique. I believe the reason for the change in stance is understood as well. 15th century and earlier manuals included instruction for fighting in armour. The low, wide stance of Meyer doesn't work well with 45+ lbs of armour, but the stance seen in most 15th century manuals works just fine. So the training crosses over into armoured play more readily. I believe, but am no Scholar of Fiore, that Fiore specifically addresses this point - that the unarmoured training is to be used while armoured as well.
By the 16th century, when Mair and Meyer are having their pictures drawn, such armour is falling out of favor for dueling and amongst the nobility. The works of Mair and Meyer seem to be addressed exclusively towards a civilian usage where armour will not ever be a factor. As such we see the use of wider stances just like you see in the exclusively civilian rapier styles.
If ARMA's studies are intended to only ever be used for unarmoured fencing, then the focus on the later, wider stances is quite sensible and accurate. But again they cannot accurately say that it is the only correct stance.
A depiction of many stances from various manuals can be found here. Note that this essay is on the ARMA site and written by John Clements. The evidence and pictures he presents are still as accurate today as when he first wrote this article even if he now does things differently himself.
Cheers,
Steven
* Unfortunately, focusing on confirmatory evidence while blindly ignoring contradictory evidence has been done before in other ARMA essays i.e. edge-vs.-edge. |
Steven,
Thank you for responding to my post. I do understand much of what you are trying to say however my original observation still stands. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't a majority of HEMA practice unarmoured fencing? I assume this is due to the cost involved with armored or mounted combat? If that's true, it appears to me that most of HEMA uses the middle stance almost entirely exclusive to the high or low stance. I make this assessment based only on what I've seen in photos and video no matter which master was being studied. My point is that if there are several of you who have been soundly defeated while participating in unarmoured sparring due to an opponent employing the low stance, then why hasn't there been more of a fuss made about it until now?
I mean no disrespect, but those are the obvious questions from my somewhat limited point of reference.
Ben
|
|
|
|
|
David Teague
Location: Anchorage, Alaska Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Sat 03 Oct, 2009 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | | You have a nice piece of the cheese, are you going to now drop it and run back to where it use to be? |
Randall,
What is your thing with cheese?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5v9i04XsqU
Oh... I see.
I like cheese too, but it has nothing to do with the subject matter.
I've asked a few questions in my prior posts and yet to receive a response. Here is one:
"If the deep stance of Meyer and Jakob Sutor isn't being used anywhere else (other than ARMA and William Carew) how did Arne Koets of the Royal Armory (Leeds) kick my @ss during a bit of fun freeplay 2 years ago using that very deep stance and Die vaage footwork? "
I hope its not because of the living history thing I do...
David
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."
|
|
|
|
|
David Teague
Location: Anchorage, Alaska Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Sat 03 Oct, 2009 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin Fredrick wrote: |
Steven,
Thank you for responding to my post. I do understand much of what you are trying to say however my original observation still stands. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't a majority of HEMA practice unarmoured fencing? I assume this is due to the cost involved with armored or mounted combat? If that's true, it appears to me that most of HEMA uses the middle stance almost entirely exclusive to the high or low stance. I make this assessment based only on what I've seen in photos and video no matter which master was being studied. My point is that if there are several of you who have been soundly defeated while participating in unarmoured sparring due to an opponent employing the low stance, then why hasn't there been more of a fuss made about it until now?
I mean no disrespect, but those are the obvious questions from my somewhat limited point of reference.
Ben |
Hello Ben,
I'm not Steven, but I'd like to answer your base question.
First, it depends what a practitioner is trying to achieve with the Art. If they are trying to recreate the teachings of particular Master or known system as accurately as possible, then they need to do what the manuals say. If they are trying to create a modern sport based off of the period text then a mix and match of what they find useful out of related text is just fine. Both types of WMA practitioners exist.
In my personal case I study the late 14th to mid 15th century German masters to recreate the period use of the weapons. In my area of study the deep stance of Meyer is just wrong with the longsword, the reason why have been covered twice so far in this very thread. The fact that most students of the longsword wont pursue harness fighting studies of the same time frame does not negate the "proper" form of that time frame.
Now, when we pick up the messer, things change. The 14th & 15th century messer is a unarmored fight and the manuals show the deeper stance that is far closer to Meyer/Sutor. We train with the deep stance with messer because it's what the period manuals show.
Now, if the Die Vaage footwork was THE ANSWER to all forms of swordplay, we would not have seen it disappear from the later period sword systems. It did. While some study only one weapon, school, or timeframe as a WMA practitioner I study the later swordplay of the 18th century also. This broad time frame of study gives me a good perspective on the ever changing guards, stances, use of the weapon in period, and footwork.
I hope this helped clear things up a bit.
Yours,
David Teague
P.S. | Quote: | | My point is that if there are several of you who have been soundly defeated while participating in unarmoured sparring due to an opponent employing the low stance, then why hasn't there been more of a fuss made about it until now? |
Please don't let my story "fool" you, there were many factors at play that day beyond my 15th century Kal vs his 16th century Sutor. I was 49 at the time, Arnie is a good 20 or more years younger than me, we didn't have fencing masks on (which he was used to, but I held myself a bit in check as I wasn't). the swords were overweight p.o.s and not my personal blade, it was 100 deg in San Deigo that day and I was use to the much milder Alaskan temps of 65 degs and I still got some good licks in...
So there is the rest of the story.
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 H
|
| Posted: Sat 03 Oct, 2009 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin Fredrick wrote: |
Steven,
Thank you for responding to my post. I do understand much of what you are trying to say however my original observation still stands. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't a majority of HEMA practice unarmoured fencing? I assume this is due to the cost involved with armored or mounted combat? If that's true, it appears to me that most of HEMA uses the middle stance almost entirely exclusive to the high or low stance. I make this assessment based only on what I've seen in photos and video no matter which master was being studied. My point is that if there are several of you who have been soundly defeated while participating in unarmoured sparring due to an opponent employing the low stance, then why hasn't there been more of a fuss made about it until now?
I mean no disrespect, but those are the obvious questions from my somewhat limited point of reference.
Ben |
I'll use David as an example since I suspect he wouldn't mind. As David points out his group specifically studies the late 14th, and 15th century tradition. For his group the wider stance would be incorrect. David's group is not atypical. I know several groups who specifically study only one master or text or at least a limited time frame. I could name quite a few more names on this but I don't want to accidentally put the wrong words in other people mouths.
In fact many feel that the Lichtenauer system undergoes too large a change between the 15th and 16th century for them to combined/syncretised. It is quite clear that many sporting specific elements are incorporated into Meyer's work. This does not in any way invalidate Meyer's work and there is plenty of the deadly martial art left. But for many, a technique that relies on the bounce from hitting with the flat of a foil leaves a bad taste in their mouth. For this reason many will leave out Meyer and/or other late material so that they may focus on a more combative art. I must say that this is large a matter of personal taste.
For those who are interested in winning fencing matches at modern HEMA tourney's we can expect a different attitude. And a whole continuum of different approaches as well. I'm not gonna venture to say that one is inherently wrong - anymore than I would say that Stage performers are wrong for using stage combat techniques instead of historical technique (because if they did they'd kill actors).
It's never been made entirely clear to me but I get the impression that ARMA is endeavoring to syncretise all of the material from ~1300 to ~1600. They may succeed in producing a very effective system both from a training standpoint and a fencing standpoint in doing so but they lose some purity along the way. I'm not gonna say they are wrong for doing this either, but most of us in the HEMA community are not doing that. So saying we are all wrong due to a narrow historical focus is problematic.
Some people choose to study only one Master, even if it doesn't make them the best fencers. Okay. That's fine. Why does John Clements feel the need to criticise them?
Hopefully I've helped explain this better.
Cheers,
Steven
P.S. Jeff Tsay doesn't consistently beat me either 
Kunstbruder - Boston area Historical Combat Study
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Sat 03 Oct, 2009 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| David Teague wrote: | | What is your thing with cheese? |
David
Please read my earlier posts and you'll see that I referenced the book "Who Moved My Cheese". It's a good book and will help you understand the reaction that has taken place in this thread.
I didn't miss your earlier post but I don't have time to reply to every post. As I told Steven, maybe you should wait until John Clements article on Die Vaage comes out and read what it actually says before you disagree with it. ARMA provides material to help people advance their efforts but everyone is free to accept or not accept that help. All the best to you in your efforts.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
|
David Teague
Location: Anchorage, Alaska Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Sat 03 Oct, 2009 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Randall Pleasant wrote: | | David Teague wrote: | | What is your thing with cheese? |
David
Please read my earlier posts and you'll see that I referenced the book "Who Moved My Cheese". It's a good book and will help you understand the reaction that has taken place in this thread.
I didn't miss your earlier post but I don't have time to reply to every post. As I told Steven, maybe you should wait until John Clements article on Die Vaage comes out and read what it actually says before you disagree with it. ARMA provides material to help people advance their efforts but everyone is free to accept or not accept that help. All the best to you in your efforts.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW |
Hello Ran,
Thank you for the reply!
I missed that your remarks was a reference to a book... on the bright side the power of cheese clip is a hoot. 
You are right, we brave few have generated a multi-page thread on a total unknown as we have not read the upcoming article. 
With that, I'm logging out of this thread .
Cheers,
David
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."
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Peters
|
| Posted: Sat 03 Oct, 2009 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steven H wrote: | | Especially as it applies to the wide stance. The wide stance (as seen in Craig Peters avatar) is pretty much exclusive to 16th century manuals on the Lichtenauer tradition. More specifically Meyer and Sutor. Paulus Hector Mair also includes the wide stance, and it seems to be his usual, but he also includes two others. |
Steven,
This actually isn't the case. We see examples of this footwork in numerous manuals prior to the 16th century. One of the great examples comes from an image of Talhoffer's 1459 edition fechtbuch. Incidentally, that image is the one shown here with Jeffrey Hull's translation: http://www.thearma.org/Fight-Earnestly.htm . We can also find depictions of it, allowing for artistic differences, as early as MS. I.33. While the images here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MS_I33_32r.jpg are not the best examples, we can clearly see in the case of the sacerdos and Walpurgis how widely placed the feet are from one another. Allowing for artistic limitations, it's clear that even the earliest sword and buckler teachings employed wide and deep stances.
In fact, if we look at the width and breadth found in nearly all manuals, it becomes clear that the fighters are often employing wider stances, as well as narrower, more upright ones. Given also, as the upcoming article will explain, that being a lower position allows one to shift balance forwards or backwards, something which is also seen in various earlier manuals, we cannot say that the footwork did not exist.
One final note: in my own research, I have found examples of fighters in deep stances illustrated as early as the 11th century, and also in a 12th century depiction of knights fighting on foot in the Bible which clearly shows their knees bent and their legs widely spaced apart. The wide stance found in Meyer and Mair cannot be attributed as a later development or something that's not consistent with 15th century long sword, because that simply isn't the case.
Last edited by Craig Peters on Sat 03 Oct, 2009 5:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 03 Oct, 2009 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For whatever its worth:
I've been employing a wider stance for a few years now for the 15th century works, as seen in many of the 15th c. manuscripts from Codex Wallerstein, Talhoffer, and even other works such as Durer. I know the MEMAG guys have as well, as have a number of other groups. I have no idea if this is what ARMA is interpreting with the Die Vaage footwork or not, and will wait for Clements's article before commenting on that specifically, but a wider stance, in of itself, has been practiced and utilized for quite a while for a number of groups.
At the same time, the stance is not appropriate for all arts. For example, Thibault's teachings clearly do not employ this (and I'm not just talking about his rapier, because his longsword stances are also pretty narrow as well).
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise.” -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
|
 |
|
|
|
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