| Author |
Message |
|
Harry J. Fletcher
|
 Posted: Sun 24 Jan, 2010 6:32 pm Post subject: Lot Of Ground To Cover Here |
 |
|
Not wanting to offend anyone let me say that the beginning post is based on my own conclusion, cutting tests, observed demonstrations, reading, and simple common sense.
To reiterate this post was about the medieval sword with a straight blade Type X circa 1000 A.D. and similar swords although others of a straight bladed form could be considered as well. My hypothesis was that (1) a blow of a sword was just as important as cutting, (2) any cut achieved by a sword blow would be a cleaver cut rather than a slicing cut, and (3) and enhancement of the cut by drawing would not be as important as (1) and (2).
To be sure cuts were made with a sword but many times an opponent was bludgeoned with a series of blows until a disabling cut or blow could be made. Yes, there were more effective weapons such as an axe or a mace or simple cudgel for this job but many times the sword was a secondary weapon that was available and IT IS THE SWORD WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE. My view is that of Mike Loads' view "...a sword is a sharpened iron bar..." One blow may injure but it can disorient or put an opponent off balance for another and another and another until he is either injured, knocked off balance and placed in position for that killing strike with the sword. One must remember that there were different fighting techniques which developed overtime. Sometimes a fighting technique had developed, been forgotten, then relearned and applied. There is a time continuum in the middle ages and usually it starts for us around 800 A.D. and ends around 1550 A.D. Many people seem to forget this, more simply want to cling to their own ideas of how things were done. However, I want to state there were no rules in war when fighting one's opponent except if he called for mercy and was of the nobility or at least a knight. Anything that worked was used...and things that we never thought of doing most likely were done.
I think this discussion has stirred up some thinking and I don't think disagreement is bad if leads us to reconsider our own ideas and consider the arguments of those who disagree with us.
here is another video which I think helps to make my point:
http://www.youtube.com./watch?v=tzKC3O0RnlY
To Study The Edge of History
|
|
  |
 |
Steven Reich
Location: Arlington, VA Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Jan, 2010 6:56 pm Post subject: Re: Lot Of Ground To Cover Here |
|
|
| Harry J. Fletcher wrote: | | To reiterate this post was about the medieval sword with a straight blade Type X circa 1000 A.D. and similar swords although others of a straight bladed form could be considered as well. My hypothesis was that (1) a blow of a sword was just as important as cutting, (2) any cut achieved by a sword blow would be a cleaver cut rather than a slicing cut, and (3) and enhancement of the cut by drawing would not be as important as (1) and (2). |
First, I reject the dichotomy of "cleaver rather than slicing cut". A good cut is a good cut--it might have different characteristics based on the sharpness of the sword and the shape of the blade, but in a system such as Liechtenauer where you might at times use a straight blade and at others a curved, I don't see any difference in the actual cutting. Additionally, who in the WMA world with significant experience with JSA has ever said that the cutting is radically different?
| Harry J. Fletcher wrote: | | To be sure cuts were made with a sword but many times an opponent was bludgeoned with a series of blows until a disabling cut or blow could be made. Yes, there were more effective weapons such as an axe or a mace or simple cudgel for this job but many times the sword was a secondary weapon that was available and IT IS THE SWORD WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE. My view is that of Mike Loads' view "...a sword is a sharpened iron bar..." |
A sword is not a sharpened iron bar and does not act like it. Nowhere in the historic sources do we see any evidence that swords were meant to "bludgeon" the opponent. The only techniques which involve bludgeoning are those where the sword is turned around and the hilt and pommel are used for the strike. In the event that an opponent was so well armored that you had no chance of penetrating it with a sword, perhaps then you might "Bludgeon" him out of necessity--in the same way you might bludgeon an opponent with a rifle butt if you are out of ammunition. However, the latter case is not a model for determining how a rifle is used; neither is the former a way to figure out how to use a sword.
I don't know who Mike Loads is, but I think that the idea of a sword as a sharpened iron bar is baloney.
Steve
Founder of NoVA-Assalto, an affiliate of the HEMA Alliance
|
|
 |
|
Glen A Cleeton
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Jan, 2010 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ken Speed wrote: | | Devices? What devices? What kind of devices are you guys talking about? I truly don't know. |
If I am reading David correctly, devices being manipulations of either bodily actions or specific targets and the swords themselves. In a nutshell, staging a cut to perform in a fashion that is less swordsmanship and more preparation (be that target, tool or the person cutting). A perfect model of those might be someone cutting tatami with a sword prepared to excel at that while applying significant form, none of which available in everyday swordsmanship.
Just my take of the term in that context.
Cheers
GC
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Kelly
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Jan, 2010 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I don't know who Mike Loads is, but I think that the idea of a sword as a sharpened iron bar is baloney. |
In my opinion it's a gross over simplification of a much more complex subject. There's a problem with using television programs, like those Harry has posted, as an example to support a position. Programs like these are done in soundbite fashion, on the fly and as cheaply as possible. They're made to appeal mainly to the "monkey v. shiny object" mindset, not the serious student of the given subject. They only hit the high points and many times not very well, not to mention many of the more inferior ones are rife with misinformation. The programs featuring Mike Loads are actually better than many, but far from perfect. They shouldn't be used to support a definitive position any more than cuts on pool noodles and plastic jugs.
Getting back to the original point of curved v. straight blades: either one will work, and did work well enough for centuries and their users were well satisfied with the results. In the european context both straight and curved blades saw widespread use in the given era. If one was inherently superior to the other I'm sure it would have gained wider acceptance, especially since the users were engaging in something other than an academic exercise. Using semantic hyperbole like "percussive", "cleaver", "slicing", etc. is really irrelevant and myopic. By obsessing over this kind of minutae you're missing the forest for the trees. The end result is they worked and performed their intended function. Such arguments really have no more value than sandbox drama like, "my dad is tougher than yours".
Just my opinion, could be wrong, and no offense meant of course. 
"In valor there is hope.".................. Tacitus
|
|
 |
|
|
P. Cha
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Jan, 2010 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Harry, you once again donīt have enough experience to really understand about western swords if think cleaving and bludgeoning is what they are for. If the mail hold, then your not gonna disable the person underneath that easily. Remember, I got beat up enough to get a bloody lung and it really didnīt stop me from fighting that night. It did over the next couple weeks due to doctorīs order...but for life and death, without getting through the mail, your ability to debilitate the person underneath will be pretty damn difficult. Arms, leg and head on the other hand would be easier targets to debilitate and ruin a personīs fighting capability.
As for personal experience...well yeah that is one thing you can base things off...but then again, you could be doing things completely wrong. I was in an argument about stabbing from vom tag. A video shows that the person who insist that you can stab from vom tag in tempo was actually doing a cut that just happens to be hitting at the tip...which isnīt a stab.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nicholas Allan Wilson
Location: New Orleans Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Jan, 2010 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| J. Scott Moore wrote: | [quote=
but IMHO it is a pointless one. |
Here, Here!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Jan, 2010 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| J. Scott Moore wrote: | | I think, at this point that we have all pretty much agreed that a curved blade has the ability to cut better than a straight sword. this is because the curved edge is always presented at an angle. with that in mind, the angle of the edges on many longswords also allows the edge to be presented at an angle to the target. very few swords were ever made with edges that were perfectly parallel, except in hollywierd. |
The classic discussion of the cutting power of curved vs straight blades dates from the 1800s, and is in Marey, Memoir on Swords (English translation, 1860), available on Google Books and archive.org . Elements of the discussion in this book reappear in various newer (and new) books on swords and cutting. The main point is that striking with the blade at an angle decreases the apparent angle of the blade (i.e., effectively making the blade appear sharper), the the whole discussion is fairly thorough. Last I looked, there were two version on Google Books, one with bad figures, and the other with bad text, but available, free, and together if not so well alone, quite readable.
One can strike at an angle with a straight blade, whether the edges of the blade are parallel or not (the taper of a typical blade is gentle enough so that the effect on the angle of the strike is small), by having the hands forward, and point back, relative to the direction of the cut. With a curved blade, this happens rather more automatically. The other element is slicing vs chopping, and hands-forward with straight blade helps with this. I've read claims that a curved blade gives this automatically too, and this seems reasonable for strongly curved blades where the curve puts the hands (and CoB of the sword) forward automatically.
The curvature of a katana isn't enough to give automatic slicing - I've seen nice examples of batting plastic bottles with katana to show this. Perhaps it helps, but "helps" is not "automatic". I assume that the inclusion of specific instruction to pull the hands back while cutting, in order to get that slicing, in iaido etc. styles is not accidental or irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
James Head
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Jan, 2010 8:10 pm Post subject: Re: Lot Of Ground To Cover Here |
|
|
| Harry J. Fletcher wrote: |
To reiterate this post was about the medieval sword with a straight blade Type X circa 1000 A.D. and similar swords although others of a straight bladed form could be considered as well. My hypothesis was that (1) a blow of a sword was just as important as cutting, (2) any cut achieved by a sword blow would be a cleaver cut rather than a slicing cut, and (3) and enhancement of the cut by drawing would not be as important as (1) and (2).
|
Hi Harry. I just want to understand this a little more. You have devised a hypothesis concerning the capability of a European sword VS Katana based upon some bottle cutting you did in your back yard? It would be nice to see a video of your cutting session so we can all observe the process and end results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nicholas Allan Wilson
Location: New Orleans Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Jan, 2010 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I do have a question to ask and it may belong as another topic. Buuuuuuuuuut I'll post it here.
After reviewing the various vids posted under this topic and throughout the net, it seems that the majority of longsword cuts would be easily predictable, therefore directly influencing the cuts attempted. Is this often the case? That due to this predictability the cuts are shorter and choppier? I ask this because I often see cuts being made from one side of the body instead of the middle/center. I'm referring more to the cutting demos done on the newyorklongsword.com site. I understand that those are just cutting demos but I see a direct relation to vids of bouting I have seen where attacks begin on a particular side (usually right) of the body. I am not directly criticizing or attacking anyone's technique btw and I'm sure I'm seriously wrong. It just seems its more difficult to feint to a particular side convincingly therefore leaving the majority of the action in front of the body. And by that I mean the build up and release of kinetic energy.
~nicholas
P.S.
WHO DAT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nicholas Allan Wilson
Location: New Orleans Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Jan, 2010 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P. Cha wrote: | | Harry, you once again donīt have enough experience to really understand about western swords if think cleaving and bludgeoning is what they are for. |
You should really be careful when attacking someone's experience. Unless you have killed someone with a sword in battle that is... Otherwise it may be better to just say you disagree.
~nicholas
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Jan, 2010 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nicholas Allan Wilson wrote: | I do have a question to ask and it may belong as another topic. Buuuuuuuuuut I'll post it here.
After reviewing the various vids posted under this topic and throughout the net, it seems that the majority of longsword cuts would be easily predictable, therefore directly influencing the cuts attempted. Is this often the case? |
Hello Nicholas,
I'm not sure what you mean by easily predictable. All cuts are easily predictable. When someone is coming at you and steps into measure, he is going to cut you. If you mean the angle of the cut is easily predictable, this is not necessarily the case, as several differnt cuts can be launched from the same guard. The majority of entry cuts in cutting videos, WMA and JSA, are diagonal oberhaus, that is diagonal cuts from above (kesa giri in Japanese parlance) or unterhaus, cust from below (kiri age or gyaku kesa giri), which are angled cuts from one side to the other. Not much difference there.
However, we also have the zwerchhau, which comes in horizontally with hands held high, yet is launched from the same guard as the oberhau and unterhau.
| Quote: | | That due to this predictability the cuts are shorter and choppier? |
Again, I am not sure what you mean by this. Please explain.
| Quote: | | I ask this because I often see cuts being made from one side of the body instead of the middle/center. I'm referring more to the cutting demos done on the newyorklongsword.com site. I understand that those are just cutting demos but I see a direct relation to vids of bouting I have seen where attacks begin on a particular side (usually right) of the body. I am not directly criticizing or attacking anyone's technique btw and I'm sure I'm seriously wrong. It just seems its more difficult to feint to a particular side convincingly therefore leaving the majority of the action in front of the body. And by that I mean the build up and release of kinetic energy. |
This part I think I get. You are talking about the fact that we hold a guard on one side of body and cut from that side, correct?
If so, we are specifically told to do this in period texts, though we do have strikes from guards over the center of the head, and these have advantages and disadvantages.
There are very good reasons to strike from a particular side of the body in a predictable manner (is that what you meant by predictable?). When you close measure and strike, the person you are attacing has three options. Die, counter/parry or void. We'll assume he neither dies nor voids but instead attempts to counter. In such a situation, it is often advantageous for you as the attacker to have him know generally where your cut is coming from. I mentioned above that several strikes can be launched from the same guard, but generally all of these attack from the same side of your body to the same side of his.
This is very important because if he makes a mistake and counters the wrong side, then both of you will die.
As for feints, feints are very specific techniques and have a very well defined criteria for execution. What most untrained fencers or those without training in a genuine art think of as feints do not usually fall into that creteria and would be very bad to try against a trained swordsman.
As for comparing Western cutting to Japanese cutting, there really isn't that much of a difference, mechanics wise, and the differences that do exist are not what you would think. For example, we turn our shoulders into the cut, Japanese artists tend not to (at least in the styles I've studied). We have a short edge and can cut up without turning our sword, they do not (though I've seen some JSA people do that faster than I can cut up with the short edge). We both have cuts from one side of the body, and cuts from the center.
I hope this answers some of your questions.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Jan, 2010 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nicholas Allan Wilson wrote: | | P. Cha wrote: | | Harry, you once again donīt have enough experience to really understand about western swords if think cleaving and bludgeoning is what they are for. |
You should really be careful when attacking someone's experience. Unless you have killed someone with a sword in battle that is... Otherwise it may be better to just say you disagree.
~nicholas |
Nicholas,
A word of advice if I may. When you use that reasoning, you make people think you have no training or experience, as that is often an arugment used by such people to justify arguing with people who are genuine authorities in their various fields. I am not saying you are such a person, but this argument makes you look like one.
There are many different kinds of experience, knowledge and expertiese. Some of the best close quarter combat instructors have never killed anyone, but people who have come to them to learn how to do it better. If your training is based on the teaching of people will real combat experience, the training is solid, whether you've ever had to use it or not.
The argument you put forth above makes it seem as though you believe that no one in any weapon art has any real experience, as to the best of my knowledge, none of us have every killed anyone with a sword. I'm sure that's not what you mean, but I wanted to make you aware of how you may come accross.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Jan, 2010 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Kelly wrote: |
Getting back to the original point of curved v. straight blades: either one will work, and did work well enough for centuries and their users were well satisfied with the results. In the european context both straight and curved blades saw widespread use in the given era. If one was inherently superior to the other I'm sure it would have gained wider acceptance, especially since the users were engaging in something other than an academic exercise. |
You say "work well enough", not "cut well enough", "inherently superior", not "inherently better for cutting". Since this is a cutting-oriented thread, let me amplify by noting that there is more to a sword that cutting with it. Like thrusting with it. Which leads to the whole cut-vs-thrust Holy Wars. Marey (Memoir on Swords, mentioned above) has some on this, but it continued to the point of producing the Patton saber. If it was only about cutting, then perhaps one type would have been adopted as the universal type. One could consider the widespread adoption of the tulwar in India, and the lack of use of the point in Indian swordlay (but which is the chicken and which is the egg?).
But if talking about cutting alone, sure one sword might be better for cutting. If one less good for cutting is still good enough for the cutting tasks faced, then one doesn't need the better sword. "Inherently superior" is not necessarily "sufficiently inherently superior to matter".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nicholas Allan Wilson
Location: New Orleans Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Jan, 2010 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes it does. I am a JSA practitioner myself and was basing these questions from my own short experience. I tend to be vague a lot and I'm sorry for that. But I think you responded quite well. Learn something all the time here. Thanks.
~nicholas
|
|
|
|
|
David Teague
Location: Anchorage, Alaska Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Jan, 2010 8:54 pm Post subject: Re: Lot Of Ground To Cover Here |
|
|
Hello All,
I just got back from Emceeing a local Music event so I will now deal with each point.
| Steven Reich wrote: | | First, I reject the dichotomy of "cleaver rather than slicing cut". A good cut is a good cut--it might have different characteristics based on the sharpness of the sword and the shape of the blade, but in a system such as Liechtenauer where you might at times use a straight blade and at others a curved, I don't see any difference in the actual cutting. Additionally, who in the WMA world with significant experience with JSA has ever said that the cutting is radically different?[ |
Hi Steve!
FYI, in my use of the longsword I have two ways of striking (hewn), one is a slicing cut, the other a percussive strike. I can show you the next time we meet (which won't be at the W-4 I'm sorry to say). With my 18th century backsword studies it's a slicing cut.
Hi Michael,
I guess you don't remember the phone call. We agree on most points. What I teach now is based off of our phone call. Maybe you missed my point?
| Quote: | | I currently teach them 2 ways to hew with the longsword, small frame percussive strike, large frame slicing strike and I teach them the tactics on when to apply each one in the fight. |
Large frame slicing strike = Vor and Nachrisen
Small frame percussive strike= Nach and the Zornhau
Isn't that how you teach the tactics of the use of each form of hew?
| Quote: | | To me, this thread is about mistaken assumptions about the cutting ability and purpose of Western swords, and in this regard I feel I have not strayed. |
I don't think I have any gross mistaken assumptions about the cutting ability and purpose of Western swords after 16 years. Sorry you think that.
| Quote: | | I get all your points, I really do. Here are mine: we disagree on the mechanics of an entry cut. I think most cuts should be done with the intent to cut through. If you stop me, we are in a bind and I am in langen ort and then all the other plays come in. If you don't, you're either dead, or you voided and I am in and you try to nachreisen and then all those plays come in. You seem to think that you should aim for langen ort...correct me if I'm wrong. It's fine to disagree on this point and it has nothing to do with cutting. |
This is where we disagree, all of my texts say cut into the two hangers. A key part of the 17 main parts of the Liechtenauer system. I do cut into wechselhut , but only as a failer to set up following plays per the words of the Liechtenauer masters. However I teach them to strike as if they are cutting though, but to stop the sword in the hanging.
| Quote: | | We do not disagree that the sword should not be cocked back in measure. However, I am a firm believer that the sword can and often should be cocked backing during the approach while still out of measure, the closer to "just out of measure" the better. I am far from the only one that feels this way (e.g. the MEMAG guys like to pull back to zornhut while just out of measure...and their cuts are strong and true and there is no tempo to exploit). This disagreement is fine, and not really a factor in this discussion. |
What disagreement? Please show me where we disagree on this point?
You keep reading points in to my post that aren't there. 
| Quote: | | I believe STRONGLY that every HEMA practicioner must cut, or their art is missing a crucial component. |
Ok.. I'm trying to read where I didn't make the same point with : "Yes, I think it's great to be able to cut though mats cleanly, it show proper edge alignment and slicing movement. All students of a sword style should learn how to do just that as PART of their training. They should be able to do it without adding risky power generator such as cocking the sword back (in measure) or bring the sword around in a 360 deg arc (in measure) if their opponent's sword is not suppressed. Otherwise they are setting themselves up for a surprise."
| Quote: | | This is why I defend cutting, both good and even mediocre cutting, vehemently. When someone is first learning to cut, their cutting will stink or be mediocre at best. Discouraging people during this phase of their training is very bad, in my opinion, for the art as a whole. Whether you mean to do this or not, this is what I think yours posts do.. |
Really, how is that? By advising to cut with proper foot work and power generators? By advising to practicing your cuts as if in sword play against a armed opponent? By stepping into measure after precharging your sword? Sounds like common fencing sense to me.
| Quote: | | Using semantic hyperbole like "percussive", "cleaver", "slicing", etc. is really irrelevant and myopic. By obsessing over this kind of minutae you're missing the forest for the trees. The end result is they worked and performed their intended function. Such arguments really have no more value than sandbox drama like, "my dad is tougher than yours". |
Hello Patrick,
I'm sorry, its not semantic hyperbole. No offense, but percussive and slicing cuts are two ways to attack with the longsword , yes both forms work. Both would effect the further outcome of a sword fight if landed with force.
| Quote: | If I am reading David correctly, devices being manipulations of either bodily actions or specific targets and the swords themselves. In a nutshell, staging a cut to perform in a fashion that is less swordsmanship and more preparation (be that target, tool or the person cutting). A perfect model of those might be someone cutting tatami with a sword prepared to excel at that while applying significant form, none of which available in everyday swordsmanship.
|
Hello Glen,
You nailed it. 
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."
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Jan, 2010 9:04 pm Post subject: Re: Lot Of Ground To Cover Here |
|
|
| David Teague wrote: |
Really, how is that? By advising to cut with proper foot work and power generators? By advising to practicing your cuts as if in sword play against a armed opponent? By stepping into measure after precharging your sword? Sounds like common fencing sense to me.
|
Because all of your post come accross as dismissive of cutting in general, whether you intend for them to or not. If we are really just talking about minutia, then it is a matter of presentation. As I said before, when people start learning to cut, their cutting will be full of devices. If they are discouraged from cutting at this point, intentionally or not, then they have been done a disservice.
btw...I keep hearing about this advice to always cut into the hagners, and I must confess that I don't remember where that is. I have been focusing on a small subset of the texts lately to develop our novice curriculum so it may be just a matter of poor memory, but I can't for the life of me remember where it says to do that.
Unless you are referring to 3227a? I don't use that text much because of the questionable transcription and all the resulting translation errors (I've been burned too often by that book), but I vaguely recall reading something along those lines there, though my read at the time was that it was similar to "hold four guards alone (except that this other one is the noblest and the best, so hold that one too, on and here are some others, but like yeah, only hold four)".
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nicholas Allan Wilson
Location: New Orleans Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Jan, 2010 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | [
There are many different kinds of experience, knowledge and expertiese. Some of the best close quarter combat instructors have never killed anyone, but people who have come to them to learn how to do it better. If your training is based on the teaching of people will real combat experience, the training is solid, whether you've ever had to use it or not.
I am only saying that it is unreasonable to claim that a particular person does not "understand" a subject seeing as it can be difficult to interpret an individual's physical expression of the topic he is writing about and totally disregard it. The fact that a lot of techniques are speculative when it comes to manuscripts makes these arguments futile. That is not to say that the training from these manuscripts isn't any good, just that it might be done with a grain of salt and humility.
The argument you put forth above makes it seem as though you believe that no one in any weapon art has any real experience, as to the best of my knowledge, none of us have every killed anyone with a sword. I'm sure that's not what you mean, but I wanted to make you aware of how you may come accross. |
That is not what I meant and I'm sorry. I just feel that directly attacking someone's understanding in that way was unreasonable and somewhat snooty. I'm not trying to undermine authority or anything. Otherwise there would be no organizations to study under. I am almost positive that any of the techniques discussed and shown could severely damage and/or kill me. If I'm still not clear I'll try again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nicholas Allan Wilson
Location: New Orleans Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Jan, 2010 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Mart of my writing was accidentally added to the quote FYI.
|
|
|
|
|
David Teague
Location: Anchorage, Alaska Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Jan, 2010 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Michael!
We've had an internet breakthrough! Yes, minutia and perspective.
As for BAD cutting vids, I am dismissive, but you keep mistaking my complaints of them as complaints towards all.
I think we need to set down together an watch some bad vids beers in hand and I'm sure you see my perspective by the time we are though
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."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nicholas Allan Wilson
Location: New Orleans Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: Sun 24 Jan, 2010 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: |
Nicholas,
A word of advice if I may. When you use that reasoning, you make people think you have no training or experience, as that is often an arugment used by such people to justify arguing with people who are genuine authorities in their various fields. I am not saying you are such a person, but this argument makes you look like one.
|
And I have a lot left to learn. A whole lifetime in fact. I really don't care how I "look" because I'm not trying to impress anyone or impart facts. I mainly ask for opinions and interpretations because that is what this venue is good for. That and sharing our collective passion for historical arms and armour. Not to prove ourselves and strut around like peacocks. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
~nicholas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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