I think this is one case when there is strike from the leading hand and the reason why we (the good guy) do not do it..
The text is
Aber mer ein stuck. So dir einer nach den kopf oder an der gesicht slercht. So heb dein fuss auff, welchest der die am posten sught und stoss im in dem hauch/pauch, as dei gemacht stet So felt er.
But one more piece, so one does strike you to the head or to the face, so lift you feet, whichever the leg is going at him and thrust it in his pouch/hips as it stands in the picture, so he will fall.
I initially saw that as a lead hand strike as well, the image could be interpreted as a straight lead punch that went high as the attacker lost his balance, but given the medieval bias against the left handed & the tendancy to fence/fight from an orthodox stance it seems to me that this is more likely a decending hammer fist in which the attacker is stepping through as he would with a dagger blow. Of course, I could be wrong.
Please do post anything else you run across. I'm really enjoying the conversation about language (I can't speak/read German myself so it's always good to get the perspective of those who can) but I'd love to see more detailed disscussion of technique as well. I feel like many students of the Renaissance martial arts get so focused on the sword that they neglect the unarmed component of the art & that's where my primary interest lies.
I do believe that the wrestling in the Codex is meant to be an extension of an assumed sportive training but there's a clear shift in emphasis from sport to martial combat. There's a plate in the Codex that speaks (rather distainfully) of the bodylock "as peasants do". I see the shift in focus from gaining body control to allow a winning throw/pin, to gaining arm control to defend against a dagger or to break the limb.
Originally Posted by SBG-ape
May you are being too strict?
I do not know the codex all that well, so it can be total bull here but when it is important they usually make sure that it is described.
As well my experience with medieval text, is that they use a precise example to demonstrate a generic principle.
That guy could be striking from SP with a descending hammer first or starting from orthodox and give us a back hand with a pass the movement, the result would be the same
What I get from the text is that the idea is to use the leg that is in front or that we move toward him to kick the hips of some one attaking the skull or tha face. (raising descending we do not really care).
As a bonus, If you miss the hips you have the gonads and the bladder/spleen (a murder strike in ringeck) so
We need to pe careful with “peasant” this is usually a substitute for someone who use brute strength and not arts. Ie some one untutored rather than a guy from the country side.
In this martial context peasant should really be translated by brute.
Last edited by willaume; 4/07/2009 2:01pm at .
Thank you for the note about "peasants". I took it as a juxtaposition of sport vs. martial grappling but given the social context in which it was written your explanation makes sense & does change the substance of the text.
I agree that the point being made in the plate you cited & the technique being applied are applicable to a variety of situations.
In the sources I've seen, Ringen material deals extensively with the clinch but offers only tantalizing glimpses of unarmed striking or ground work. It is, for me at least, very tempting to see a familiar posture or position & ascribe to it all the variations & strategies I know from modern arts (Boxing, BJJ, etc.) so I tend to be very strict with myself about my interpretation of techniques when it comes to those less described aspects of the fight.
I spend more time studying Jiu-jitsu each week then I do HEMA. I've dabbled (to put it generously) in boxing, judo, wrestling, MMA. There are thing that I do in my own martial practice that I will continue to do regardless of whether or not I can find any evidence of them in the fightbooks. The Jab is an example of that, the guard is another. Having said that, I think it's important to be clear on which techniques have a clear historical basis & which do not. If I ever try to introduce Ringen to an untrained person I believe it's important that I try to limit myself to historically supported techniques & that I offer a clear disclaimer if I ever waiver from that. So, while I'm quite willing to explore a variety of strikes in my HEMA training I think it's valuable to be clear on which are evident in the manuals & which are a matter of personal inference.
P.S. I'm really enjoying this wonderful new WMA forum of ours.
I think you are right about being strict when interpreting for two reasons.
One you need to do exactly as the man says to have a chance to understand what the hell is happening.
And only then you can have an idea of what the generic principle is.
If you take breaking of the guard in the long sword, I think it is really tell us what strike to use when the guy has his hands up-forward, up-back, down-forward and down-back and in the middle forward.
Otherwise it does not make sense, if a guy take posta di dona we are not going to tell him to change guard because that is not a German guard and we do not know how to break it. (I believe you need to treat il like von tag as the hands are back and up)
The juxtaposition with “sport ringen” could be the fact that there is a lot of clinch, especially grabbing the bottom of the doublet in the manuscript before 1450. It does look like modern traditional German short grabbing wrestling.
In ringeck for example we are clearly warned against letting ourselves being tied up, regardless of the weapon.
And you can not find in any piece when he grabs you by that piece of your attire. You do garb the doublet to throw and to move your opponent but it is in a very small number of pieces. There is no ground fighting proper, there is only 3 pins. we seems to have more tactical indication as well the 3 wrestling so there is a different appoach here.
that being said Whatever manual you follow, I do not think that you can get away without any prior modern striking and grappling experience. The texts are really in a technical jargon and I can not see anyone not having experience making sense of them.
Last edited by willaume; 4/08/2009 11:11am at .
on the medieval jb
On the jab may be it is no so much an issue?
Of course it depends of the original text but in some there is clear indication of punching.
It is a given that you can punch going forward with a pass punch with you lead hand and gather forward and that swapping foot or going back.
When we use the long point as we go back we do not wonder if it is really long sword fencing because you find the same move in small sword (estoc en opposition or stop thrust)
Now if you use jab to range, to keep you opponent away or to counter or to set up an attack, is it really that bad?
That is what the pieces of the long points or the vipers tong in dobringer are all about
And you can jab as part of 2 of the 3 wrestling as long as you do it to achieve what those 2 techniques are supposed to.
In each of those 2 you are supposed to strike, it is fine if is a jab a direct a cross or palm strike.
in BF the jab was called a direct bras avant and the cross a direct bras arriere.
If you opponent keep doing it, there are defence against it in the manual
I mean most of the manuscript have shooting, aiki o toshi (a variation on shoot really), kicks to the knee or the gonads
Or we could be using the normal boxing, counter jab+block or slip on the outside then may be using as you counter strike.
Now if the block of the counter jab block goes down or if you keep the inside hand low and you really counter across the arm of your opponent.
you are s going either the first or the second ringen. (of the 3 ringen)
Sure if you both stay and slug it out each time you spar then you do boxing not really Ringen.
I think what matters is what we do and why we do it. We can not “force” our opponent do proper ringer anymore than we can force to fence German.
If you are using jab, which are just a way of stiking, to gain entrance take him down and use a medieval pin. That is ringen in my book.
that did not read out as I expected
what i wanted to say is that before the term Jab was coined. People happened to punch like that and it was just a punch.
what really make the jab special is the modern boxing utilisation.
so if you jab as in modern boxing, it is not really medieval wrestling but if you jab to get one of the 3 ringen. it is all good