228801 Bullies, 5539 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 11 to 15 of 15
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Mordschlag is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    193

    Posted On:
    5/22/2013 10:19pm


     Style: ARMA, Antagonistics

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Eudemic View Post
    Please bear in mind that it's not unreasonable to assume that whoever illustrated MS I.33 was working with fencers who were posing for the benefit of the production; I say this in-part on the basis of the seemingly random inclusion of "Walpurgis" for the demonstration of a guard that didn't actually require a new person to show. If it is the case they were working off of models then those models likely would not be showing very much action.
    I agree that the illustrators were likely having them pose at least to some degree. That's pretty much the way that artists had to work up until more modern times, what with cameras being long in the future when these books were written. The underlying issue here is that frankly we don't know what the masters precisely meant due to the inherent qualities of writing fight books, so it's possible that: the fencers are still, the fencers are not still, the fencers are moving slowly, or all of the above. As an aside, I personally think that Walpurgis is in there to help show that the fighting in I.33 is meant to help monks and nuns defend themselves (as this isn't depicted as a knightly art).

    But again, the point that I keep repeatedly stressing is that I don't think the plates in any fight book represent a static encounter or anything of the sort; they are merely one second out of time. So even though it is possible that some of them are paused or waiting, I think it is most probable based on the writings that accompany the images that the images depict some sort of movement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eudemic View Post
    I hope you can agree with me that fighting under the same, or similar, principles does not imply technically identical fighting. For example, if you compare most of the stances used with the longsword at later dates they are much more upright than the stance shown in I.33. This is also true of most examples of messer-fighting I've seen, as well as later sword & buckler, when they are also compared to what is shown in I.33. I wasn't trying to suggest that people had completely abandoned a more forward stance when using shorter weapons (which they clearly hadn't) or that the bind/clinch was no longer important, just that the more upright stances shown in later examples of fighting with shorter weapons was the result of habits developed with the longsword.
    Sure, I do agree that it doesn't imply purely identical fighting. Doesn't Meyer say that everyone fights differently, after all? But I still stand by what I said. It requires the least amount of assumptions that people fought generally upright and continued to do so later, rather than they fought mostly forward and then slowly shifted upright due to a single weapon becoming widespread. After all, knives existed before the longsword and knife fighting in the books is also upright. So again this could be that everything slowly changed to sync up with longsword training (as early as Fiore) or it could be what I'm stating which is that the longsword is upright because fighting generally was upright before it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eudemic View Post
    We can agree that working from the bind or from a clinch is important in fighting with either sword & buckler or messer?
    Totally agree. Is it not said that Ringen is the basis of the Art?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eudemic View Post
    So why wouldn't a fencer assume a stance which provides some of the benefits of a wrestling stance?
    Here is where I disagree. A forward stance is great when you don't have to worry about being attacked in the approach. If you can only be attacked in der Krieg, then sure! But recall that in Ringen you have to be on guard against strikes and unusual grips, which a forward posture (in my opinion) doesn't guard well against. Additionally consider that fighting with the dagger is identical to fighting without the dagger. Such a forward stance doesn't help much against the rondell and thus we don't see it in all of the rondell dagger plates we have available. So again, consider the amount of assumptions: did they have separate systems of wrestling without the dagger and with the dagger, or was it all one system that were built on the same principles regardless of weapon? What do we see in the books?

    What I'm stating, again, is that it's safer to begin upright and then adopt a more forward stance Indes in accordance to an opening of your enemy. This is true of Ringen without daggers and with daggers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eudemic View Post
    Please allow me to also point out that keeping one's heel raised does not have any more of a significant/noticeable impact on your mobility than turning your toe outwards.

    My response to this is that in MS I.33 the fencer's forward knees are more bent than in later treatises, that their backs are more forward-leaning in relation to their hips, and that their shoulders are more-or-less above their forward knee in many cases. The benefits to this are that it removes your lower body as a target (which additionally makes your opponent's attacks more predictable) and provides you greater stability/power in the bind or the clinch.

    These are also important considerations with the messer.
    Then why do it all, if there is no big difference? Why not stay on your heels, as you do when you walk normally? If it were important, wouldn't one of the masters brought it up in their books? To be clear: I don't do it because of my personal taste and because I don't see it in the books. Maybe I'll change that if I read a fight book that specifically states that one ought to do so, but I think you won't change my mind until that occurs.
  2. Eudemic is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    514

    Posted On:
    5/23/2013 8:59pm


     Style: Out of Practice

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mordschlag View Post
    I agree that the illustrators were likely having them pose at least to some degree. That's pretty much the way that artists had to work up until more modern times, what with cameras being long in the future when these books were written. The underlying issue here is that frankly we don't know what the masters precisely meant due to the inherent qualities of writing fight books, so it's possible that: the fencers are still, the fencers are not still, the fencers are moving slowly, or all of the above. As an aside, I personally think that Walpurgis is in there to help show that the fighting in I.33 is meant to help monks and nuns defend themselves (as this isn't depicted as a knightly art).



    But again, the point that I keep repeatedly stressing is that I don't think the plates in any fight book represent a static encounter or anything of the sort; they are merely one second out of time. So even though it is possible that some of them are paused or waiting, I think it is most probable based on the writings that accompany the images that the images depict some sort of movement.
    . . .I can agree with pretty much all of the above.

    Sure, I do agree that it doesn't imply purely identical fighting. Doesn't Meyer say that everyone fights differently, after all? But I still stand by what I said. It requires the least amount of assumptions that people fought generally upright and continued to do so later, rather than they fought mostly forward and then slowly shifted upright due to a single weapon becoming widespread. After all, knives existed before the longsword and knife fighting in the books is also upright. So again this could be that everything slowly changed to sync up with longsword training (as early as Fiore) or it could be what I'm stating which is that the longsword is upright because fighting generally was upright before it.
    I think that the knife/dagger fighting isn't so extremely forward because it doesn't actually provide an advantage with the extremely short weapons; unless you're already clinched or grappling, Uberlaufen would make your hand/arm big, fat targets if you were to try to attack your opponent's lower-body without first establishing some degree of control over them.

    The forward stance is also less of an issue with the longsword because uberlaufen is, while still an important principle, of less weight than with shorter weapons.

    Totally agree. Is it not said that Ringen is the basis of the Art?
    Quite so.

    Here is where I disagree. A forward stance is great when you don't have to worry about being attacked in the approach. If you can only be attacked in der Krieg, then sure! But recall that in Ringen you have to be on guard against strikes and unusual grips, which a forward posture (in my opinion) doesn't guard well against. Additionally consider that fighting with the dagger is identical to fighting without the dagger. Such a forward stance doesn't help much against the rondell and thus we don't see it in all of the rondell dagger plates we have available. So again, consider the amount of assumptions: did they have separate systems of wrestling without the dagger and with the dagger, or was it all one system that were built on the same principles regardless of weapon? What do we see in the books?

    What I'm stating, again, is that it's safer to begin upright and then adopt a more forward stance Indes in accordance to an opening of your enemy. This is true of Ringen without daggers and with daggers.
    Again, identical principles doesn't necessarily mean identical techniques (but we've already agreed on that.)

    I would also like to say that you seem to be getting a little distracted by the ringen. . .

    Then why do it all, if there is no big difference? Why not stay on your heels, as you do when you walk normally? If it were important, wouldn't one of the masters brought it up in their books? To be clear: I don't do it because of my personal taste and because I don't see it in the books. Maybe I'll change that if I read a fight book that specifically states that one ought to do so, but I think you won't change my mind until that occurs.
    Because, while it doesn't significantly impact mobility, it changes where and how much tension is on the lower-body. Think of the Downward-Dog pose in yoga; how much tension do you feel through your calves when your heels are down? How much tension do you feel when they are up? You will be much more relaxed through your legs if your heel is up when you are in the more forward stance.

    Also, going back to the illustrations in I.33. . . Virtually all of them show the Priest and his student in the forward stance (with their forward knee bent and their shoulders out above it.) Regardless of their guard, or their attack, they usually will have their rear heel raised. I think that means that stance isn't just the result of a movement related to any singular technique.
  3. Mordschlag is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    193

    Posted On:
    5/27/2013 4:57pm


     Style: ARMA, Antagonistics

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Eudemic View Post
    I think that the knife/dagger fighting isn't so extremely forward because it doesn't actually provide an advantage with the extremely short weapons; unless you're already clinched or grappling, Uberlaufen would make your hand/arm big, fat targets if you were to try to attack your opponent's lower-body without first establishing some degree of control over them.

    The forward stance is also less of an issue with the longsword because uberlaufen is, while still an important principle, of less weight than with shorter weapons.
    I agree that fighting forward with those weapons isnít advantageous, since it would expose both your arms and head. I reference the dagger because generally theyíre not much shorter than a Langes Messer. The Messer we use at my ARMA group is about 30-36 inches long. My Rondel is 20 inches. So if Iím going to fight from a more balanced, upright posture using my 20 inch dagger, I donít think Iíll suddenly adopt a more forward one just because my weapon is roughly a foot longer. This is especially so because, generally, dagger combat ends up corps a corps so I know I will need to adopt roughly the same stances as I do when unarmed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eudemic View Post
    I would also like to say that you seem to be getting a little distracted by the ringen. . .
    As I said before, I can admit my own bias. And that is true here as well. But I also want to state that my bias is well founded. It has been said by more than one master that wrestling is the basis of the Art. Hence, I see it being logical for my unarmed posture will be largely the same as my armed posture. The same principles apply in both scenarios, so I train in a way that fosters constancy between my longsword fighting, dagger fighting, spear fighting, and abrazare\Ringen. But just as importantly, armed fighting often turns into wrestling when everyone gets too close to effectively use their weapons. I see it as a natural, logical choice for me to ensure that I donít stray too far from my abrazare\Ringen foundation for that reason as well.

    But bringing it back to the original discussion, fighting with sword and buckler and Langes Messer, we do see a fair amount of Ringen in the manuals depicting combat with those weapons. You need to be stable enough to kick, shield-strike, hit with the pommel, arm-trap, and gain a hold of a body part. Frankly I donít feel stable doing those techniques with my heel up, except as a transitory movement between other movements.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eudemic View Post
    Because, while it doesn't significantly impact mobility, it changes where and how much tension is on the lower-body. Think of the Downward-Dog pose in yoga; how much tension do you feel through your calves when your heels are down? How much tension do you feel when they are up? You will be much more relaxed through your legs if your heel is up when you are in the more forward stance.
    Iím not sure that I understand your analogy. I donít feel tension in my calves when Iím in a balanced posture. If anything the pressure is in my hamstrings and quadriceps. Honestly I donít feel stable or comfortable with my back heel up, especially since it does make me feel too forward (especially since the lifted heel causes the back leg to bend too much for my taste).

    Quote Originally Posted by Eudemic View Post
    Also, going back to the illustrations in I.33. . . Virtually all of them show the Priest and his student in the forward stance (with their forward knee bent and their shoulders out above it.) Regardless of their guard, or their attack, they usually will have their rear heel raised. I think that means that stance isn't just the result of a movement related to any singular technique.
    Thatís fair. Ultimately I canít convince you that Iím right about the plates depicting constant movement and transitory motions, since neither one of us were there and weíre interpreting the drawings of someone commissioned who likely didnít even fight or know much about fighting. Now Iíd hope that I can convince you that Iím right because of what the masters say about constant motion and using comparisons from other manuals, but I largely see this coming down to personal taste and training.
  4. Eudemic is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    514

    Posted On:
    5/27/2013 5:22pm


     Style: Out of Practice

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Mordschlag View Post
    Thatís fair. Ultimately I canít convince you that Iím right about the plates depicting constant movement and transitory motions, since neither one of us were there and weíre interpreting the drawings of someone commissioned who likely didnít even fight or know much about fighting. Now Iíd hope that I can convince you that Iím right because of what the masters say about constant motion and using comparisons from other manuals, but I largely see this coming down to personal taste and training.
    You have made a lot of good, reasonable points (so don't doubt that I think that) but I agree this does seem to be turning into a discussion of personal tastes.

    . . . And that said, your tastes should probably carry more weight than mine given that I don't have regular opportunities to experiment/play/spar and that when I do it's with people that aren't particularly concerned with developing skill or understanding.
  5. Vorschlag is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    31

    Posted On:
    6/16/2013 9:56pm


     Style: kampfringen/savate

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    "I belive" the stances shown in I33 and other manuals are not static positions, numerous masters make this clear in their treatises when they talk about becoming a set mark, taking the vor etc.
    Each Ward or guard is a position you move through, at least in the early (read as: medieval) treatises.

    The fronted weighted stance "seems" to have been the preferred starting position for an attack as it allows for a more natural passing/"leaping" motion.
    But first you must come into range so the step with the left foot should be your anchor to take that stance.

    From what we have used the positions in I33 are designed to show movement hence the feet and the folds in the clothing.

    You should find that when you lead with the point of your sword in a cut or a thrust and move in the order of hand body and foot you will find at about 3/4 extension your back foot will naturally go onto the toes before you make a pass/"leap".
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.