I reckon the literal interpretation of mort stosß as "murderous stroke" might be missing the point; if Ringeck actually meant that these techniques were killers, or even reliably likely to literally kill someone, I doubt that he would have presented them as openers to grappling.
Assuming the luck and skill to be able to pull them off, most of these techniques are painful and can be at least temporarily debilitating; maybe that's what he meant to imply?
Good point. It would not really make sense to apply further techniques after you already killed your opponent.
Originally Posted by DdlR
On the other hand I think it should be kept in mind, that a german-speaking reader of von Ringeck's manual, especially someone still in the learning process, would take the term "mord stoß" literally. Because the name explicitly means "a blow to kill". Von Ringeck must have known that when he chose the names. I think it could be argued, that he marketed those techniques as beeing "t3h d3adly". Even though he probably knew they werent.
BTW... comparing the older codex HS.3227a (Hanko Döbringer) from 1389 with von Ringecks manual, i think Döbringer uses a much less sensationalistic approach. His language simply feels more like that of a refined teacher of martial arts. I have not read it word by word yet, but on first sight I could not find any mention of Ringeck's "murderstroke" techniques in Döbringers manuscript.
Von Ringeck wrote his manuscript about 50 years later. Willaume, do you probably know if there is any hint/proof that von Ringeck actually knew Liechtenauer personally and/or learned from him?
Hum I am not too sure about that one.
Originally Posted by kwan_dao
I don’t think murderstossen are designed to kill. It is to enable you to gain clear the way to wrestling. I mean he makes it abundantly clear that we are supposed to wrestle after.
Basically it is not a king fun killing punch but just the way we use strike in Trad JJ or in pre-war aikido.
Mortshloss is when you are in half-sword and you strike with the pommel of the sword basically swapping the hand that hold the guard to grab the tip and fulcrum the whole thing around the hand that holds the sword in the middle of the blade and you target the knee or the hand
i would not say he tells us to grab the belt but rather that he tells us to grab any location above the belt.
Greyff den man an mitt der lincken hand ober der gürtel, wo du wilt.
Greyff den man an mitt der lincken hand ob der gürtel (ob=ober)
To be “grab him by the belt” I would expect
greyf im den gurteln
greyf im bei dem grutelm
greyf im an den gurteln or dem grutelm (though I am not sure that the accusative and dative after a preposition that cans use both mode, have the grammatical value that it has in modern German)
For the point I tried to get across it actually does not matter where you grab him. Point is you grab your opponent with the left (somewhere on his body, supposedly getting a hold of his clothing) and throw a right to his temple.
Originally Posted by willaume
It even would not matter if the strike was to go to the throat instead of the temple.
This technique leaves you wide open for counterattacks. In fact there are so many openings, that I would probably have a problem with choosing for which target I should go first.
Fact is, if you try that on a resisting opponent (someone who is not stunned by some other attack, or just too drunk to fight anyhow), you're very probably done for. At least if your opponent has the slightest idea of what fists can be used for.
I have to say that I had some doubts about some as well.
The one I had doubt about, was the navel thing because I though that even with my not so good abdominal belt you can punch me there for a while.
Until I put my thumb in my navel and noticed that it went trough like butter.
I tried it plenty of people and it has worked on every one.
The trick is to push with you all body and not with you arm only.
As well if you do a series of light teep kick as if you were jabbing with a front kick you will get one or two there and it does take your mind of what you’re doing.
If you strike with you hand instead of a fist it seems work much better.
Regardless of all that well the balder just bellow the navel is a target in MT and in early 20 cent it is a target for punch.
So I think it does make sense.
The other one is the temple but to be fair the vocabulary issue came before the does it work does it not question.
I am quite happy with the punch
But the pressure on the temples with both thumbs does not really cut it for me.
It is not painful enough to break structure and moving your head can shake the hold.
But may be it is a good grip to bring the head down towards you as opposed to on the side ?
I can see what you are saying with schlauff being the temple, I came up with the under the adman apples because schlauff is not in the medieval dictionary other than slûf, slôf or slâf
And of course they all really primarily mean sleeping but they all have a second meaning slâf can be used for temple and slûf can be used for a pod or something that is going to burst/hatch as well can be a recess or a nook.
Originally Posted by kwan_dao
We know very little from all those guys.
Paulus Kal list Ringeck as one of the genuine student of the Lichtanauer tradition but there is no way we can tell if he is a direct student or a second generation student
To be honest we are not even sure of the date, the Dobringer is dated because it is a house book and the calendar start in 1398 and we are not sure when the “ringeck was written.
from the way the reference to lichtanauer is written, he was alive when the dobringer was written and dead when the ringeck was written.
There is almost no wrestling in the Dobringer. On the sword part, the ringeck and the Dbringer both have a chapter this is not in the lichtanauer but it is goo to use where other glossator do not.
I think it is having a very modern look on that, the mudershloss in armour do not target anything vital and it is still called a murdershloss.
It is just the way they were called at the time, just like the five strikes at the sword are called strike of wrath, crooked strike, cross strike, glancing strike and parting strike.
After all that is coming from an oral tradition so you need name that sticks in your memory and Those two book where not designed to be best seller, it is one copy to one patron.
from what we know , and it is very little, the ringeck is either manuscript for the patron or for the sucessor.
That being said I think you do have point if we are talking about the talhoffer and paulus Kall manuscript, which blatantly are look how good I am please hire me.
I guess it is hard for me to imagine how difficult it must be for you to deal with the myriads of different dialects within what is commonly called "german". You have my respect for coming that far.
Originally Posted by willaume
For us native speakers it is a natural thing we grew up with. To give you a contemporary example of how different "german" can be:
This is part of a poem, originally written in "Walserdeutsch":
föfzg jaar uf felsa hert ond fescht
renda safteg chromme escht
schtarche würza länge naadla
rondom dia ganza gschwischtreg aadla
The same in common "Hochdeutsch":
fünfzig jahr auf felsen hart und fest
die rinde saftig, krumme äst
starke wurzeln, lange nadeln
rundherum die ganzen geschwister-latschen.
As said, both versions above are contemporary, spoken german. That is the reason why most german native speakers are used to deal with a wide variety of different spellings and pronounciations.
To me (I had the luck to be exposed to a lot of different local versions of our language during childhood) Althochdeutsch and Mittelhochdeutsch are halfway understandable, because they are nearly identical with some dialects actually spoken today.
As a tip, I think it could well be helpful for you, to get some dictionaries on german dialects (they are hard to come by in english though). Your dictionary on "medieval german" can only bring you so far, because there was no coherent german dialect at that time to begin with.
Dictionaries on the "bairische" and "alemannische" dialects (sorry, dunno the translations for those terms) could be a good start especially for Ringeck.
Last edited by kwan_dao; 4/21/2009 6:37am at .
It really depend how you read it.
Originally Posted by kwan_dao
Yes you are right trying to grab and then trying to hit after is a little bit phoo.
The way I understand it the idea is to get both at the same time and in quick succession.
So it covers the spectrum from what I do in 0.56
YouTube - Stage Escrime mÃ©diÃ©vale Lille 2009 - 2Ã¨me Session - partie 3
This is a video of a seminar I gave ion France. I have nothing to do with the format. This vid is just explain how to use the long point in fencing. Basically I am saying that it not different from the way the fence is used in SD. I.e. to get close I ask him what time it is. It is a bit daft but well.
To YouTube - Defense versus the jab
When he defect the jab with one hand and strike with the other hand.
Well, the Ringeck can at least be approximated though. There is a reference to Ringeck beeing fencing master under Albrecht, Duke of Bavaria. Seeing as this could only refer to Albrecht III, who carried this title from 1438 onwards, the Ringeck would have to be written after that date.
Originally Posted by willaume
Peter von Danzig supposedly takes passages from the Ringeck manuscript in 1452, so von Ringeck must have written it somewhen between 1438 and 1452.
Edit: Holy shmoly, that last video has some serious Bas in it! :qgreenjum
I think I get what you meant. Video is allways a great help. Too bad they didn't have them back in the days. The "Johannes Liechtenauer DVD-collection" would make things sooo much easier. Supposed we'd still be using DVD's after a few hundred years.
Last edited by kwan_dao; 4/21/2009 7:04am at .
Sorry Yes I think as well that it is albert III and I think 1430-1440 is the most likely date.
But I am so used to talk to bloody historians that I put 3 braces and 5 belts when I write about that. (The link with VD is really dodgy so they will always come back with albert IV as a possible)
May be it was a bit too facetious of me to call it dim-mak, when it is jut targeting the best return on investment target to get a momentary advantage and break his structure
You know I had massive rows on swordforum with German native speakers about dialect compare to using proper medieval dictionary and scholars in medieval languages.
None of them made the case for dialect as you did. Even I still think that there is a case to double check the meaning of the word in a medieval dictionary, nonetheless kudos to you mate. That is a good argument
About interpreting the text,
it is a bit of a leap of faith and what you have done before and what how well acquainted to the text.
For example for me it was relatively obvious that the text meant do it in quick succession.
You can even use that the open up a clinch, not by striking per se, but by placing the fist and thrusting and moving back the opposite foot, Kind of punching you away.
Or you can use that as part of the 3 ringen, (kind of generic rules on how to start up in nice position when it is not a zu lauffen. (Really what Bas does is almost the 2nd ringen)
But for example, if it is pressing the temples with each thumb, I can’t see how that would work.
In all the other pieces against the front bear hug, you affect the position of the head so that he his weaker in his grip and it is not that easy to get the head free.
I can not see how you can do that in the thumb on temple case.
If anyone have ideas please let me know.
so i have to say having a bit of fluidity in the translation does quite suit me there ..:icon_bigg
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO