| Author |
Message |
Jason G. Smith
|
 Posted: Fri 27 Nov, 2009 12:22 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | Bill Grandy wrote: |
And your comment about the Italian guard isn't relevent: What Fiore does isn't related to what we see in a German source by any provable connection. Lots of martial systems in the world use huge, wide cuts: that merely proves that they can be done, not that a certain group did them. Fiore could use that guard in serious fighting and the Germans only in Schulfechten. |
|
I've been following this thread for a bit now, and find it quite interesting. Thanks all for the differing views - it keeps things interesting!
Now to address a small point here about Fiore's posta di donna. Just because Fiore has this cocked-back guard does not necessarily imply a "huge, wide cut." Its use is far more subtle than that, and in fact it allows very straight cuts to the target whilst gaining distance without stepping, forcing the opponent to come to you where you can effectively counter them in proper measure. Yes, it is a charged position, allowing powerful cuts, but charged and powerful does not equate with "huge, wide."
Best,
Jason
Les Maîtres d'Armes
Member of the
Chivalric Fighting Arts Association
... above all, you should feel in your conscience that your quarrel is good and just. - Le Jeu de la Hache
Last edited by Jason G. Smith on Fri 27 Nov, 2009 12:41 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
  |
 |
Jason G. Smith
|
| Posted: Fri 27 Nov, 2009 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | Show me a Duplieren in Fiore; show me the Abschneiden with the short edge. There are *lots* of techniques that differ between the two schools, and even the root concepts are different, with Fiore being much more focused on wrestling at the sword than the German school, for example. We have to go past the fact that they're both fruits and recognize that one's an apple and the other's an orange.
|
Again, a few notes here.
A duplieren is described in the works of Fiore, it simply isn't spelled out for us like in the German styles. Germans are far more meticulous about those things, after all.  Fiore tells us there are three things we can do with the sword, or three turns: the volta stabile, the mezza volta, and the tutta volta. Now, there are differing takes on which one represents what, but each turn refers to a hand/sword position. A volta stabile is thought to be a winden maneuver up into posta di finestra from posta breve (pflug to ochs for you good folks), a mezza volta is a half-turn of the hands and sword, and is therefore a duplieren, while a tutta volta is pretty much a cut over and around the blade to the other side à la zucken.
As to wrestling at the sword being a focus, well that's another misnomer. He may very well illustrate its use more, but that is only to show the universal application of principles with which he starts the manuscript - abrazare, or wrestling. It is the foundation of his Art (at least in two examples of his manuscripts), and he applies its lessons across the board. I recall another very early reference in the German lineage that tells us "all fencing comes from wrestling."
Besides, one could easily argue that the very techniques you describe - hende trucken and abschneiden are wrestlings at the sword due to collapsed measure, and there is a fair amount of info about these techniques if my memory doesn't fail me. The Liechtenauer school is seemingly all about slicing.
While I don't ascribe to the "one, universal Art" theory, I still believe longsword is longsword, regardless where you practice it, considering they are used in the same period versus the same armies and in the same lists... These aren't necessarily wholly different Arts, the are different styles, with the preferences of the Masters shining through.
My pet theory is that Liechtenauer was a tall lanky guy who liked to use his sword's length and his reach to fight with, and eschewed physical contact unless necessary. On the flipside, Fiore was a short stocky guy who had to get in close to finish the job. Same weapon, different tactical approach. I'll never know, but I can entertain the fancy...
Good day!
Les Maîtres d'Armes
Member of the
Chivalric Fighting Arts Association
... above all, you should feel in your conscience that your quarrel is good and just. - Le Jeu de la Hache
|
|
|
|
|
|
Max W.
Location: South Germany Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Fri 27 Nov, 2009 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | I do not believe we're supposed to do the Krumphau all the way down to Schrankhut |
Mscr. Dresd. C 487: Sigmund Ringeck page, 25r & 25r
| Quote: | Aber ain stuck vß dem krumphaw°
Krump wer wol seczet mitt schrÿtten er vil hew~ leczet ~:
Glosa
Daß ist wie du mitt dem komp krump haw° die obern häw abseczen solt daß stuck trÿb also Wann er dir von sÿme sine~ rechten sÿtten oben ein hawet zu° der blosß so schrÿt mitt dem rechten fu°ß vff sÿn lincke sÿten v~ber sin schwert / mit dem ort vff die erden In die schranckhüte dz trÿb zu° baÿden sÿtten Och magstu In vß dem abseczen vff dz haupt schlachen ~ |
| Quote: |
Another play from the Krumphaw
Who sets the krump well with steps hurts many hews
Glosa:
This is how you should displace the upper hews with the Krumphaw perform this play as follows when he hews towards you from his right side above towards your opening so step with your right foot towards his left side over his sword / with the Ort (point) on the earth in the Schrankhüte (barrier guard) perform this at both sides you might as well out of the displacing hit him on the head. |
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | There's simply no reason to.. |
Lets stick to this "when he hews towards you from his right side above towards your opening" situation:
If you perform the Krumphau with the long edge from your right side too fast while stepping out to his side and miss his sword, resulting in an accidentially "Durchwechseln", you're still catching his blade on the short edge before he hits your knees or legs (assuming he trails behind your movement while hewing).
In my opinion that's an important aspect of the Meisterhaue, even if they miss the're still fulfilling a purpose. This is why you can perform some of them without being mindful about his blade as the old masters emphasize. Either you're hitting with them or you are still guarded, just perform them without hesitation. In a training situation i try not to pay attention on his blade or hands which i want to hit but instead just on the Krumphau movement by itself, it's direction and the Nachschlag move i should have in mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Fri 27 Nov, 2009 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Max W. wrote: | | Hugh Knight wrote: | | I do not believe we're supposed to do the Krumphau all the way down to Schrankhut |
Mscr. Dresd. C 487: Sigmund Ringeck page, 25r & 25r
| Quote: | Aber ain stuck vß dem krumphaw°
Krump wer wol seczet mitt schrÿtten er vil hew~ leczet ~:
Glosa
Daß ist wie du mitt dem komp krump haw° die obern häw abseczen solt daß stuck trÿb also Wann er dir von sÿme sine~ rechten sÿtten oben ein hawet zu° der blosß so schrÿt mitt dem rechten fu°ß vff sÿn lincke sÿten v~ber sin schwert / mit dem ort vff die erden In die schranckhüte dz trÿb zu° baÿden sÿtten Och magstu In vß dem abseczen vff dz haupt schlachen ~ |
| Quote: |
Another play from the Krumphaw
Who sets the krump well with steps hurts many hews
Glosa:
This is how you should displace the upper hews with the Krumphaw perform this play as follows when he hews towards you from his right side above towards your opening so step with your right foot towards his left side over his sword / with the Ort (point) on the earth in the Schrankhüte (barrier guard) perform this at both sides you might as well out of the displacing hit him on the head. |
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | There's simply no reason to.. |
Lets stick to this "when he hews towards you from his right side above towards your opening" situation:
If you perform the Krumphau with the long edge from your right side too fast while stepping out to his side and miss his sword, resulting in an accidentially "Durchwechseln", you're still catching his blade on the short edge before he hits your knees or legs (assuming he trails behind your movement while hewing).
In my opinion that's an important aspect of the Meisterhaue, even if they miss the're still fulfilling a purpose. This is why you can perform some of them without being mindful about his blade as the old masters emphasize. Either you're hitting with them or you are still guarded, just perform them without hesitation. In a training situation i try not to pay attention on his blade or hands which i want to hit but instead just on the Krumphau movement by itself, it's direction and the Nachschlag move i should have in mind. |
Hello Max,
No one says the text doesn't say to cut over to Schrankhut (although I suspect the part you quoted is just clumsy and is really talking about cutting *from* Schrankhut). My point is he's giving you a direction into which to cut--he's saying to cut over toward Schrankhut. One of the primary drills in my Schule is if someone is foolish enough to overcut with the Krumphau so that his point heads too far toward the ground then you do what the masters always have us do when someone beats our point too far down: You execute a Durchwechseln, because your opponent has yielded the Vor and his point is not threatening you, so you have plenty of time in which to act. So it's not about the person doing the Krump executing a Durchwechseln as you suggested, it's the person being struck doing it that I was talking about above.
You see, by driving your point down too far over the enemy's sword that way you yield the Vor and give him time in which to act. It's the simplest thing in the world to yield to your opponent's strength if he does that and pull your point out for a Durchwechseln while he's busy burying his point in the ground.
Overcutting is always bad (from the German point of view--I know other systems use it, Vincent), always yields the Vor, and is contrary to the primary tenets of the system.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
  |
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Fri 27 Nov, 2009 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Hugh,
| Hugh Knight wrote: |
At Christian: It's not "anachronistic" to talk about the Italian and German shools being different; it's shortsighted not to look deeply enough to see the differences. Show me a Duplieren in Fiore; show me the Abschneiden with the short edge. There are *lots* of techniques that differ between the two schools, and even the root concepts are different, with Fiore being much more focused on wrestling at the sword than the German school, for example. We have to go past the fact that they're both fruits and recognize that one's an apple and the other's an orange. |
I'm not sure, but I think there's an analogue to Duplieren. But differing techniques don't speak to wide distinctions. By that reckoning, we must consider the varying German sources to be different fruits too, and they really aren't.
I don't see particularly more wrestling in Fiore, save for that explained by his preference for a wider measure in some crossings; in such a case, he'll do a blade grab instead of the winden. And, again, I did say that our 'read' on this is (overly) colored by the longsword. The wrestling, dagger, spear, and mounted curricula are largely the same.
| Quote: | | As for what that picture in Talhoffer shows, I don't know because he didn't give us enough information to make sense of it. I do know that the wide cuts are contrary to the sense I read in the other manuals, and all the evidence I've read from people in this discussion so far is highly ambiguous and can easily be read differently, where the one source we do have that speaks plainly on the issue says such things have no place in fighting in earnest. That makes figuring this out very easy. |
It shows a guy being beheaded, which requires a full cut. It's really not ambiguous. Since medieval art is rife with depictions of decapitations and dismemberments, it hardly seems likely that *any* medieval fight system would declare them 'wrong'.
There's also nothing ambiguous about the fact that a full cut need be neither wide nor long. Those words have specific meanings, and they don't apply to a cut from vom Tag to left Nebenhut, when it's performed tightly. If a cut is neither wide nor long, it doesn't contradict the advice in 3227a.
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
|
|
 |
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Sat 28 Nov, 2009 12:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, since nothing in the sources seems to be enough to convince Hugh, let's look at this from a tactical standpoint. Personally I think we moderns overthink this stuff. I can picture Talhoffer shaking his head and saying, "Dude, just cut." But that aside...
What are the advantages of cutting to langenort?
1. You can't be nachreisened because you're not leaving yourself open. Really? I think this is totally wrong. You can be nachreisened just as easily, only you'll be hit in the hands instead of the head. And a nice direct cut to the the hands from above is a fight ender, so the real difference is you won't be hit on the head immediately. But wait...you can try a sprechfenster play to avoid being nachreisened, right? Well, if you do a full cut you can try a nebenhut play to avoid being nachreisened. Is there that big a difference?
2. You present the threat of the point after your cut. Okay, yeah, you do. But if you cut and end up in a bind, it doesn't matter if you did a half cut or full cut...you're in a bind with your point threatening. So the only difference is if you don't end up in a bind, and the only way that can happen is if you purposely or accidentally cut short or if he voids. Either way, nothing has happened, except that you are now facing you opponent in langenort, threatening with the point. Well, if you cut to nebenhut or wechselhut, you are also presenting a threat, the threat of the edge. What is better, the threat of the point, or the threat of the edge? Well, how many plays do we have that begin with a cut, and how many do we have that begin with a thrust?
So, really, where is this huge tactical disadvantage of full cuts?
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Sat 28 Nov, 2009 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | Okay, since nothing in the sources seems to be enough to convince Hugh, let's look at this from a tactical standpoint. Personally I think we moderns overthink this stuff. I can picture Talhoffer shaking his head and saying, "Dude, just cut." But that aside...
What are the advantages of cutting to langenort?
1. You can't be nachreisened because you're not leaving yourself open. Really? I think this is totally wrong. You can be nachreisened just as easily, only you'll be hit in the hands instead of the head. And a nice direct cut to the the hands from above is a fight ender, so the real difference is you won't be hit on the head immediately. But wait...you can try a sprechfenster play to avoid being nachreisened, right? Well, if you do a full cut you can try a nebenhut play to avoid being nachreisened. Is there that big a difference?
2. You present the threat of the point after your cut. Okay, yeah, you do. But if you cut and end up in a bind, it doesn't matter if you did a half cut or full cut...you're in a bind with your point threatening. So the only difference is if you don't end up in a bind, and the only way that can happen is if you purposely or accidentally cut short or if he voids. Either way, nothing has happened, except that you are now facing you opponent in langenort, threatening with the point. Well, if you cut to nebenhut or wechselhut, you are also presenting a threat, the threat of the edge. What is better, the threat of the point, or the threat of the edge? Well, how many plays do we have that begin with a cut, and how many do we have that begin with a thrust?
So, really, where is this huge tactical disadvantage of full cuts? |
Hello Michael,
Simple. If your opponent makes a mistake your sword will be there to take full advantage of it. As Döbringer says, "never give an advantage for nothing" (Hs 3227a fol. 18r). We want to always maintain our point on the center line because that's how we control the center. Döbringer says: "Before all know and note that the point of the sword is the center and also its center and core and from this comes all fighting and all returns to it. So the Hengen and the Winden are the hanging in and the going around of the center and from these good fighting will be done" (Hs 3227a ff. 18v-19r) So he wants you to keep your point on line so as to control the center because the point is *faster* than the edge when the edge is far away (e.g., Nebenhut).
And why does he want this? So you can hit an opponent who makes a mistake, such as leaving the bind when you are ready for him: "If he moves off when you have come on the sword in front of one another and extend the points at one another to the openings, then you shall—before the opponent has time to gather himself in order to strike or thrust—follow him with the point and do a good thrust to the chest or something like that as quickly and directly as you can. That is, you should not let him escape unharmed from the sword. Since you know at once that you have a shorter way to the opponent since you already have your point on the [his] sword, as close and as short as possible. Then, if you move away to do another strike or thrust and you do a wide movement, then the opponent will always be able to beat you to the Nachschlag with a strike or thrust, then he can hit you with the first strike. [emphasis mine—HTK]” (Hs 3227a ff. 21r-v)
In other words, he wants you to control the center because when you do so your point is in position for the fastest possible response—a lighting thrust—that can work faster than your opponent can do something else, like a cut. And he then goes on to specifically tell us that if you do wide techniques (meaning things like cutting so that your point is not online) your opponent will be able to beat you with a Nachschlag because you’ve given up this advantage.
As to your first point, that holding this center line isn’t a guaranteed defense, you’re right, of course. You *can* be hit if you sit there like an idiot, so we shouldn’t do that. But it’s certainly faster to Absetzen (for example) when your opponent tries to hit you in long point than it is to pick your hands up from a low or wide posture to defend yourself. So you can be hit, but holding the center helps make it harder for your opponent to do so.
And sure, you can cut down to the ground to use the Wechselhau—I’ve admitted that from almost the first post, I think. But my experiments show that you’d be hard pressed to do that unless your opponent is at long range (which I define as requiring a full step to hit you). For that reason, I only use this technique against an opponent who pulls back or retreats when I attack.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
Travis Canaday
Location: Overland Park, Kansas Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Sat 28 Nov, 2009 2:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | Personally I think we moderns overthink this stuff. I can picture Talhoffer shaking his head and saying, "Dude, just cut." But that aside... |
Word! The worrying about picking up bad habits by test cutting seems unfounded. I don't feel that all my years cutting things with swords and machetes (I love clearin' brush more than GWB) have led to any bad habits. If anything it has given me very good edge alignment skills. I can still pop off a nice Kalesque zornhau thrust to the face.
As far the German vs. Italian thing goes... I think some people will always be lumpers or splitters. I tend to be a lumper and see this as being different styles of one thing (i.e. longsword fencing). Since Hugh keeps mentioning the Hs.3227a, I had to bring this up:
Und vor allen dingen und sachen / soltu merken und wissen das nur eyne kunst ist des swertes / und dy mag von manche hundert jaren sein finden und irdocht und dy ist eyn grunt und kern aller kunsten des fechtens...
And first of all / you shall remember and know that it's only one art of the sword / and it may have been found and invented some hundred years ago and it's a basis and core of all arts of fencing ...
(Translated by Stephan Dieke)
Sounds like they thought there was only one art of the longsword.
Travis
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Sat 28 Nov, 2009 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Hugh,
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | Have you compared the techniques of Katori Shinto Ryu and Maniwa Nen? They were created in almost the same period and in the very same country, and yet some of the techniques are completely different, and each does things the other school says shouldn't be done. Sure there are some gross similarities, but the techniques just look very different. You can have two fighters in *any* system right next door to each other, one of whom says to do things one way and the other says not to. |
Of course, and there are also branches within the schools that do things differently too (at least it is the case in Katori Shinto Ryu which is the school I know best). But you make it look like German ernsfechten was one unified form through centuries, united and consistent in the rejection of full cuts, completely separated from the Italians. If we're going to compare the situation to Japan it appears less than likely, and I wouldn't be surprised if for example Paulus Kal and Talhoffer had different mechanics and tactical emphasis.
Besides, the presence of full and half cuts is what I'd call "gross similarities". This is not technical refinement we are talking about here; they are the two most basic motions you can figure with a sword. If it were that important and non-obvious, it would be in the original verses as well, don't you think? And given that you have not put them forward so far, I guess it's not there...
| Quote: | | And no, you don't need to practice a thing seriously in order to learn to counter it. I don't practice the Mittelhau because it's never mentioned in any of the longsword sources we use, and yet I practice techniques against it. |
Here we differ: I consider that training to counter someone that is not good or not trying to be good at what he attempts is a good way to misunderstand the counters and be surprised when facing a competent adversary.
Regards,
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Sat 28 Nov, 2009 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | [Simple. If your opponent makes a mistake your sword will be there to take full advantage of it. As Döbringer says, "never give an advantage for nothing" (Hs 3227a fol. 18r). We want to always maintain our point on the center line because that's how we control the center. Döbringer says: "Before all know and note that the point of the sword is the center and also its center and core and from this comes all fighting and all returns to it. So the Hengen and the Winden are the hanging in and the going around of the center and from these good fighting will be done" (Hs 3227a ff. 18v-19r) So he wants you to keep your point on line so as to control the center because the point is *faster* than the edge when the edge is far away (e.g., Nebenhut). |
Hugh, have you ever considered taking up the rapier?
Anyway, it seems perfectly clear that 3227a is talking about controlling the center in the bind. If it was talking about always controlling the center, then why would you ever stand in vom tag? You are clearly not controlling the center with the point facing back over your shoulder.
| Quote: | | As to your first point, that holding this center line isn’t a guaranteed defense, you’re right, of course. You *can* be hit if you sit there like an idiot, so we shouldn’t do that. But it’s certainly faster to Absetzen (for example) when your opponent tries to hit you in long point than it is to pick your hands up from a low or wide posture to defend yourself. |
Again, why not always stand in longpoint then? If you miss a full cut because your opponent steps back, you're pretty much in wide measure, holding nebenhut, or maybe alber, or maybe wechselhut. If you're at some great tactcial disadvantage here, then why do we have plays from these guards, like all those nifty nebenhut plays?
| Quote: |
And sure, you can cut down to the ground to use the Wechselhau—I’ve admitted that from almost the first post, I think. But my experiments show that you’d be hard pressed to do that unless your opponent is at long range (which I define as requiring a full step to hit you). For that reason, I only use this technique against an opponent who pulls back or retreats when I attack. |
Unless I'm a complete screw up, if I miss you with my cut, it's because you voided. To void, you must take a step back out of my measure. To strike me after my cut, you must therefore take a step forward. Now it maybe a smaller step than if you were closing from wide measure, but it's still a step.
In the first cut in my cutting movie, the tripple, from the time my oberhau ends in wechselhut to the point where the follow up short edge unterhau fully passes through the mat takes exactly 0.19 seconds. That's one fifth of a second. In contrast, from the time I finish stepping into wide measure with the left foot (and immediately begin to close and cut) to the time my first oberhau meets the mat is 0.42 seconds.
Can you step and strike in less than a fifth of a second? I can't.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Sat 28 Nov, 2009 10:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | Hugh, have you ever considered taking up the rapier? |
Nope.
| Quote: | | Anyway, it seems perfectly clear that 3227a is talking about controlling the center in the bind. If it was talking about always controlling the center, then why would you ever stand in vom tag? You are clearly not controlling the center with the point facing back over your shoulder. |
He's talking about when you're at close range--the range at which you can hit without stepping. You are, normally, going to be in a bind at that range.
| Quote: | | Again, why not always stand in longpoint then? If you miss a full cut because your opponent steps back, you're pretty much in wide measure, holding nebenhut, or maybe alber, or maybe wechselhut. If you're at some great tactcial disadvantage here, then why do we have plays from these guards, like all those nifty nebenhut plays? |
I already answered that: We have them to use when we tried to step in, but the enemy stepped back, and we want to appear open to lure him into stepping in.
| Quote: | | Unless I'm a complete screw up, if I miss you with my cut, it's because you voided. To void, you must take a step back out of my measure. To strike me after my cut, you must therefore take a step forward. Now it maybe a smaller step than if you were closing from wide measure, but it's still a step. |
So you're trying to say it's safe to use your wide and long cut when you know your opponent is going to step out of range? We already know that--that's the Wechselhau we've already discussed, and I which I said from almost the first post is a documentable technique. But how do you know he's going to void back? You don't. So the right way to cut is to Langenort, since we've already established that you can *choose* to continue a cut to Langenort down to the ground more easily than you can choose to change a committed cut to stop it at Langenort if you need to.
Michael, I think it's just time to agree to disagree. I've shown you the explicit instructions from Döbringer to cut so that you threaten with your point, and you prefer to disbelieve that in favor of a plate in Talhoffer that seems to show a beheading (but about which we know nothing) and a very ambiguous statement in von Danzig that you choose to interpret as a wide cut to the ground, niether of which, in your opinion, is ambiguous. At this point we're just saying the same things to each other over and over, so let's stop before either of us gets too frustrated.
I have changed my opinion on the subject to the extent that I agree that if you have rendered your opponent hors de combat (and you're *sure*!!) you may as well kill him with a wide, long cut to make it as sure and as painless as possible (although that does *not* justify the pernicious practice of test cutting--you just don't need it) and you don't need to worry about him stopping you or countercutting. Of course, that's no longer swordsmanship at that point, it's mere butchery.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Sat 28 Nov, 2009 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hugh,
I'm happy to agree to disagree, but I've failed to communicate a very important point and I want to make sure I get it through.
If I cut a full cut and we bind, unless I blow through your defense, I'm going to be in langenort or as close to it as you'll be after a half cut. In a bind, it won't matter if I cut full or half, I'll end up in the same place.
If you void, then you'll need to step to hit me and everything I said in the above post applies.
So really, full cuts, half cuts, it's a moot point. The only difference is how you'll be countering his nachreisen.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Sat 28 Nov, 2009 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Hugh,
Continuing to repeat that we (Michael, myself, Bill G & C, etc.) are using 'wide' cuts, and using that as the lynchpin for debate, when there's nothing 'wide' about them, is unproductive.
Since we're performing said cuts in a narrow frame that doesn't exceed the width of the body, calling it 'wide' is simply ignoring what that word means and instead reading a lot more than is intended by the Hs. 3227a passage. It also ignores the fact that we now cut in a narrow frame whether the blow stops in Langenort, binds in Pflug, or continues to Nebenhut or Wechsel. I doubt many would view this action as 'wide' and I'm further confident that such an action is not what comes to most people's minds when they read the 3227a passage(s) in question.
These days, when I strike a Zornhau, I cut from my shoulder at a roughly 60-70 degree angle. No reasonable person could possibly describe such a trajectory as 'wide'. In fact, a conventional reading would require a 45 degree angle or shallower to be regarded as 'wide'. If I cut a half-blow, such as for the Zornhau-Ort play, I'll stop in Langenort. If a full blow is called for, such as finishing an opponent by actually *cutting* him, then as I cut through, I may follow through on the came cutting line from vom Tag>>Langenort>>Wechsel. I may, as we've discussed, also do this by fooling with the measure to set up the Wechselhau. But in either case, my blade moves within a narrow frame, and without great extension - it is therefore neither wide nor long.
As for the Talhoffer picture...I can't but help scratch my head as to how there can be any ambiguity. The caption tells us what's happened - it's the end of an encounter between a swordsman and a halberdier; since the 'end' requires closing, we can presume this happens in the Krieg. Given the swordman is off to the side, we can read he's flanked his man and is delivering the death blow from up close and personal. It's just not that complicated.
What we *might* read is this: that half-strokes are likely preferable (save for special cases, read: Wechselhau) from the Zufechten, but once your guy has overcommitted, a full cut is safe to use in close. In fact, I'd say the full blow is far safer in this instance, for simple reasons of takedown power. You're safest with your man down, for even an ultimately mortal blow may not prevent your opponent from striking you - even if he's just flailing in pain - if he's not utterly incapacitated or dead.
The importance of neutralizing the opponent was particularly driven home to me by the research of Doc Swinney and Scott Crawford, who examined the punishment people can take before expiring, using case studies from history and their own experience as trauma doctors. Dr. Bill Ernohazy can report similar results from his own experience.
I'll let this be my final word too. I don't believe I'm going to change your mind, but I felt it was important to get the above points out there for other readers of this thread.
Cheers,
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Travis Canaday
Location: Overland Park, Kansas Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Sat 28 Nov, 2009 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | ...(although that does *not* justify the pernicious practice of test cutting--you just don't need it) and you don't need to worry about him stopping you or countercutting. Of course, that's no longer swordsmanship at that point, it's mere butchery. |
The practice of test cutting is only pernicious to the target being cut. Don't need to? I want to, it's fun. Although one can make plenty of valid arguments of what swordsmanship is or is for, one can easily say it is a study of butchery with the sword. We're not swinging bouquets around.
Seriously though, I think these are two separate issues (related but separate). I see Hugh's point about the importance of maintaining the point as a threat. Also, this emphasis of cutting threw thick material seems a little unnecessary as I wouldn't be targeting a cut to those places in general (much easier to thrust through a gambeson). At the same time I honestly don't see how test cutting done properly has negative effects. And certainly the ability to throw a powerful cut is a good thing.
Travis
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Sat 28 Nov, 2009 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: |
I have changed my opinion on the subject to the extent that I agree that if you have rendered your opponent hors de combat (and you're *sure*!!) you may as well kill him with a wide, long cut to make it as sure and as painless as possible (although that does *not* justify the pernicious practice of test cutting--you just don't need it) and you don't need to worry about him stopping you or countercutting. Of course, that's no longer swordsmanship at that point, it's mere butchery. |
Of course you don't need test cutting, since this is 2009 and you can afford to compeltely seperate your art from any semblance of reality. One does not need to know how to cut to score a touch in a bout.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 28 Nov, 2009 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | Perhaps, but since we don't see these "wide and long" cuts in Ernstfechten sources, |
What "wide and long" cuts? As stated multiple times, a full cut needn't be "wide and long" to be effective.
| Quote: | | and in fact we have a source that clearly and unequivocally says that they're only used in Schulfechten, |
It only says that there are big, sweeping cuts seen in schulfechten, not that full cuts aren't ever used in ernstfechten.
| Quote: | | and since we *do* see them in Schulfechten sources (e.g., Meyer), |
Meyer also shows full cuts in his dussack, rapier, staff, and halberd material, all of which were meant for real combat in his day.
| Quote: | | I think it's very safe to assume that when we see someone cutting from all the way behind his back all the way to the ground it's pretty clearly Schulfechten. |
Again, this assumes that EVERY two handed sword system is meant for sport, which clearly isn't the case.
| Quote: | | And your comment about the Italian guard isn't relevent: |
If you are arguing that full cuts are only in schulfechten, then yes, its relevant, because it shows a system meant for real combat that uses full cuts.
| Quote: | | What Fiore does isn't related to what we see in a German source by any provable connection. Lots of martial systems in the world use huge, wide cuts: that merely proves that they can be done, not that a certain group did them. Fiore could use that guard in serious fighting and the Germans only in Schulfechten. |
But, according to your core argument, if you don't keep your point forward, you will be hit in the nachreisen. By your argument, all students of Fiore, Silver, Vadi, Marozzo, etc, have this major flaw in their system, and only the Germans ever figured out how to counter this flaw, and somehow even the Germans still used full cuts for sport anyway. Also, by your logic, any oddball guard in Talhoffer must be schulfechten, even when the exact same edition primarily show duels to the death and limbs being hacked off, with no evidence of schulfechten other than the fact that it shows some things that aren't part of what you assume ernstfechten is. These are huge leaps of logic for me to accept.
Again, if you are *only* arguing that you feel the Liechtenauer tradition doesn't prefer full cuts, I might disagree, but I could at least accept that there is a lot of room for ambiguity here since the texts aren't always crystal clear on this subject. But you keep saying why full cuts are so easy to exploit, and how they are the mark of bad fencers, and that's fairly easy to disprove.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Sat 28 Nov, 2009 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | Of course you don't need test cutting, since this is 2009 and you can afford to compeltely seperate your art from any semblance of reality. One does not need to know how to cut to score a touch in a bout. |
Michael, your sarcasm was uncalled for. I have been polite and respectful to you, and I wrote that to show I had come to agree with a part of your position--there was nothing insulting in it. Up to this point I had been impressed with your ability to engange in debate on a subject about which you felt strongly without resorting to personal attacks--something I'm not accustomed to others being able to do.
Lots of very serious sword arts don't do test cutting. In fact, most of the great sword-wielding warrior cultures didn't practice it, such as the medieval Europeans (read the books: They practiced on the pell, not the cutting stand) and the Japanese bushi (yes, the Japanese: Test cutting by practitioners didn't start until after the period when swords were commonly used in battle; before that, test cutting was only done by test-cutting professionals whose job it was to test the swords, not the art of using them. I can show you the documentation, but if you read the serious historians like Don Draeger I wouldn't have to.). Many of the great Japanese sword masters of today don't practice test cutting, and many of those who do, do it only for reasons of spiritual perfection, not for making their swordsmanship more realistic. Are they separating their arts from reality? Of course not.
Test cutting is what divorces you from reality, not the other way around. Most of the arguments in favor of it are specious ones intended to simply justify something people want to do in spite of the lack of evidence for its value. Bottom line: Real warriors didn't do it, and those who study their arts still don't need to. And please don't bring up the old chestnut that real warriors didn't need to do test cutting because they learned by really cutting people. Very few people, statistically speaking, ever engaged in serious swordfights in the middle ages. How did they learn before such a fight? By practicing on a pell, of course, just like the books tell us.
I am finished here.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Sat 28 Nov, 2009 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hugh,
There was no sarcasm there at all, though there was disapproval. Those are two different things, but I do apologize if you took it personally, it was not intended that way. The fact is that you don't need test cutting. You don't need realism in your art, and you don't need to know how to cut to be a good swordsman in the modern sence. Heck, you don't even need a sharp sword to do this, and many HEMA people don't even own one.
Let's face it, when evaluating someone's skill, almost all of us turn to bouting, which is, in my opinion, far more removed from actual combat than is test cutting. If you want to know why I feel this way, I wrote an article on the subject available on our website.
Medieval Europeans and Japanese didn't need to do test cutting. They cut people. They all knew how a sword worked. The Japaense started doing it when the martial arts of the sword seperated from the reality of combat, and they did it for the same reasons we should--to keep it real.
On a side note, did you understand my point in the post before the cutting one? That if you cut and your opponent doesn't void you end up in langenort regardless of what type of cut you made, full or half? And that if he does void, he then needs to step to hit you so you're back at square one in a diferent guard?
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
Last edited by Michael Edelson on Sat 28 Nov, 2009 9:17 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Sat 28 Nov, 2009 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | Continuing to repeat that we (Michael, myself, Bill G & C, etc.) are using 'wide' cuts, and using that as the lynchpin for debate, when there's nothing 'wide' about them, is unproductive. |
You're right. As usual, when I start getting too casual in my writing I get jumped on: I should know by now I have to say the same thing with all the qualifications every single time. Sorry, Christian, these cuts are, as I should have said every single time, not just most of the time, "wide and long" as Döbringer called them. The cuts all the way to the ground should more properly be classed with the long half of that expression. If you are cutting to the ground you are cutting *long*. Both are wrong, as Döbringer tells us, and I was wrong for not using both terms every single time I wrote about this subject.
| Quote: | | As for the Talhoffer picture...I can't but help scratch my head as to how there can be any ambiguity. The caption tells us what's happened - it's the end of an encounter between a swordsman and a halberdier; since the 'end' requires closing, we can presume this happens in the Krieg. Given the swordman is off to the side, we can read he's flanked his man and is delivering the death blow from up close and personal. It's just not that complicated. |
Did he wound him first and then use a big cut to finish him off (remember that Michael convinced me you could do that if your opponent was hors de combat)? Where was the enemy's halberd positioned before the killing cut? Would Döbringer have changed his instructions for a longsword vs. halberd fight (after all, you have a lot more time to react to an out of position halberd than you do to an out of position longsword)? Did someone really cut a head off, or was this merely one more example of the medieval artist appealing to the audience's love of gory art, such as the case when the artist adding blood to the training shots in Paulus Kal's longsword material, or the pictures in various sources that show one-handed swords drawing blood through helmets? As you can see, there is a great deal of ambiguity about this picture, and it *is* that complicated; or rather, it's only complicated because of all the things Talhoffer doesn't tell us.
And at Vince: For the last time, just because the Germans didn't believe in it (for Ernstfechten) and argued against it doesn't make it a universal principle of combat. I really don't know how to make that any plainer. Yes, I know other systems *did* use wide and long cuts. I think there's no question about that. Lord, Vince, I said as much three pages ago; in fact, I never said they didn't. But that others systems did do so doesn't prove the Germans did (in Ernstfechten). You can point at Morazzo or Fiore doing wide and/or long cuts and go "See? See? It's not a bad thing!!" You're right, they didn't see it as a bad thing. But you can't point at them and say "See? See? They did it so the Germans must have done it!!" because that conclusion isn't justified. You have to learn to distinguish between arguing what one group felt was the right way to do things, and arguing that doing that thing was a universal principle (in fact, I'm not sure there are any universal principles, or not many, anyway). Case in Point: I studied Shotokan karate, and in that class I learned never to kick someone in the head (someone standing up, I mean). They felt that was bad technique, and contrary to the tenets of their art. People who practice Taekwando, however, feel that head kicks are superb techniques. It would be a mistake to argue that either position is a "universal truth of combat", but it would not be a mistake to say what each school believed was best. And Vince, if it goes to the ground or all the way out to the side, it's a wide or long cut. After all, if it goes to the ground, it can't *get* any longer.
Again, I'm finished with this debate, but these obvious misrepresentations had to be corrected.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Sat 28 Nov, 2009 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fair enough, so now that the debate of whether cuts are full or not in a subset of German fencing is more or less settled, I'd like to come back to this:
| Quote: | | Another issue that I would like to see more discussion of, and that is important to this control problem, is synchronicity between the foot and cut. If the sword reaches the target before the landing of the advancing foot (I mean significantly before) it's more difficult to stop the cut short and adapt, also the finish of the step brings the body further forward which could be problematic during a full cut. This seems to occur very easily with the quick tip-first strikes, unless the step is shortened significantly. |
I hate to quote myself but I'd really like to see the opinions about this timing of sword impact and foot landing. I have my own interpretations of other traditions (Thibault and montante, I still have some looking up to do in other rapier texts) but is there something specifically German out there?
Regards,
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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