218358 Bullies, 6409 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 111 to 120 of 512
Page 12 of 52 FirstFirst ... 289101112 1314151622 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. lklawson is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Dayton, OH
    Posts
    964

    Posted On:
    3/08/2010 9:09am


     Style: Bowie

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by captainzorikh View Post
    There is historical precedent for not grappling etc. In certain tournaments, grappling was forbidden. In a culture in which honor and chivalry is important, there is honor in playing by the rules and not taking unfair advantage of one's opponent, especially if you want to prove that you are better than him. To enter a tournament that only allows you to use weapons says that you are good enough with weapons that you don't need to grapple, or strike with the shield. And if you are facing someone like that, who would dare dishonor themselves by not fighting by the same rules? So while war is war, and fighting for your life is fighting for you life, it is perfectly within the chivalric tradition to fight by rules that disallow grappling and shield-bashing.
    One of the primary reasons individuals had to enter Tourney's was to prove they were good fighters and some be retained by an "employer." If that fighter were to abrogate the rules for himself, he'd find himself blackballed and starving or challenged by every third person he met until he was dead.

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
  2. lklawson is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Dayton, OH
    Posts
    964

    Posted On:
    3/08/2010 9:19am


     Style: Bowie

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimnir69 View Post
    Well that is one prime example of the key differences between Hema and SCA and martial arts and martial sports. Chivalry is simply non-existent in the fechtbuchen during the Middle Ages and the early Renaissance.
    Oh, I'm not so sure about that. I've heard it argued that I.33 shows specific ways to end fights without killing the opponent. Part of the suggestion is that the Master is shown as a monk and it is speculated that, perhaps, said monk was a Master-at-Arms or Professional Instructor for local Lords. It would be very bad form, and bad for your health, if you killed the Lord's son, particularly if he was strutting around, had a belly-full of wine, or was just trying to impress his friends.

    Whether true or not, there is the argument made. <shrug>

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
  3. lklawson is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Dayton, OH
    Posts
    964

    Posted On:
    3/08/2010 9:31am


     Style: Bowie

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by GenericUnique View Post
    Fiore has his little roleplayed sequences - "I'm sitting on a bench drinking with a stick to hand (??? I'm sure it made sense to a medieval NE Italian!) when a thug with a dagger tries to stick me." "I'm walking along with one hand on my dagger when I spot that guy who tried to shank me in the tavern last week. He's got a longsword, but I can get within arm's reach before he can draw it..."

    Talhoffer has a section on using a crossbow from horseback against pursuers. I'm pretty sure even the Swabians wouldn't use that as a duelling scenario.

    "Dobringer" discusses tactics when set upon by six less skilled opponents, with a suggestion you'll be in an alley or narrow street.

    Clearly the sources were not entirely focussed on a duelling scenario.
    Have you seen the Montante stuff? "How to protect a Lady who comes and throws herself at your feet, when she is being assaulted by a crowd of unruly (and poorly armed) peasants, while in a narrow alley." :P

    It's actually really cool.

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
  4. Grimnir69 is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    131

    Posted On:
    3/08/2010 9:32am


     Style: HEMA

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by lklawson View Post
    Oh, I'm not so sure about that. I've heard it argued that I.33 shows specific ways to end fights without killing the opponent. Part of the suggestion is that the Master is shown as a monk and it is speculated that, perhaps, said monk was a Master-at-Arms or Professional Instructor for local Lords. It would be very bad form, and bad for your health, if you killed the Lord's son, particularly if he was strutting around, had a belly-full of wine, or was just trying to impress his friends.

    Whether true or not, there is the argument made. <shrug>

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
    Hm, well that depends on how you define chivalry, doesn't it? Quite a few of the halfswording and wrestling techniques appear, in my eyes, to aim for submission rather than killing, perhaps so you can capture a valuable hostage on the battlefield. (I love the halfsword technique where you trap your opponent on the ground with both swords in a cross pinning him down... )

    In serious combat, I doubt that people had concerns for what was "fair". In display fighting, on the other hand, I am quite convinced that there even was a tendency to fight at a disadvantage to humiliate your opponent, just as Jacque Lalaing repeatedly chose to fight with parts of his body unprotected.
  5. lklawson is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Dayton, OH
    Posts
    964

    Posted On:
    3/08/2010 9:35am


     Style: Bowie

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimnir69 View Post
    Ona argument regarding the historical validity of SCA that I have heard from SCA fighters is that many medieval soldiers had no formal weapons training, and especially no Liecthenauer or Fiore schooling, and therefore SCA fighting could be considered as a realistic portrayal when looking at larger groups in melee fighting. It's a bit of an odd argument, in my opinion. But at the same time it has some merit, since large portions of the martial history of Europe is unclear. I don't realy think SCA fits that gap though, for various reasons. At least not in general terms.
    Except that they'd have been given a Bill or other Pole-Arm, not a sword/flail/etc., or would have been an Archer (and the English ones WERE highly trained - by law).

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
  6. lklawson is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Dayton, OH
    Posts
    964

    Posted On:
    3/08/2010 9:50am


     Style: Bowie

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyCache View Post
    This whole "It's not a fitting honor doo-eul if you do x" thing is kind of bogus. Yeah, maybe it's against the spirit of the occasion to doff your sword and shield like a hockey player shedding pads, tackle the SCA opponent, and armbar them hilariously, but it SHOULDN'T be to half sword, to grab the blade, to strike with the shield, to kick, punch, or grapple above the waist, etc.
    Sure. But it's historically accurate bogosity.

    Our ancestors were, quite often, a particular kind of frigg'n crazy. Ever engage in a duel where each of you eat a "pill," one of which was poison? Ever engage in a duel in which you both strip to your underwear and enter a completely darkened room with two knives in the middle of the floor? Did you ever have to duel and kill your childhood best friend just because he joined a different Regiment in the Amy? Our ancestors did.

    Trust me, the bogosity of social conventions from the days of yore busts the top off of the bogometer.

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
  7. lklawson is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Dayton, OH
    Posts
    964

    Posted On:
    3/08/2010 10:01am


     Style: Bowie

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimnir69 View Post
    In display fighting, on the other hand, I am quite convinced that there even was a tendency to fight at a disadvantage to humiliate your opponent, just as Jacque Lalaing repeatedly chose to fight with parts of his body unprotected.
    In the Spanish tradition, cutting your opponent's cheek is a huge insult to him and gains you a great deal of reputation. A man with a scar on his cheek was assumed to have been in a duel and lost where his opponent was so much superior to him that he could wound him at will in a specified area without risk to himself.

    Strangely enough, nearly the opposite is true a century or two later in Germany, where the schmiss (a scar on the cheek - the result of mensur dueling) was a symbol of bravery and chicks dug it. :P

    Again, our ancestors were a special kind of crazy. :)

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
  8. Grimnir69 is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    131

    Posted On:
    3/08/2010 10:06am


     Style: HEMA

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Hehe, weren't there even a duel mentioned with the duellist's hands tied behind their backs and daggers strapped onto helmets? Or is that just a myth? I know that around my region there used to quite a lot of interesting ways to show your "manhood"...
  9. captainzorikh is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    185

    Posted On:
    3/08/2010 10:14am


     Style: grappling, swordfighting

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by lklawson View Post
    Sure. But it's historically accurate bogosity.

    Our ancestors were, quite often, a particular kind of frigg'n crazy. Ever engage in a duel where each of you eat a "pill," one of which was poison? Ever engage in a duel in which you both strip to your underwear and enter a completely darkened room with two knives in the middle of the floor? Did you ever have to duel and kill your childhood best friend just because he joined a different Regiment in the Amy? Our ancestors did.

    Trust me, the bogosity of social conventions from the days of yore busts the top off of the bogometer.

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
    On that note you remind me that before the 20th century, death was a much bigger part of life than it is now, and in many cultures the warrior tradition and martial values reflected that.

    When you have beaten 50/50 odds to make it to age 20, and it's just as likely that you will die by disease or bad medical treatment or bandits within the next year or so as anything else, then as a figthter, as a warrior, you may be more inclined to try to die well than to try to live long.

    So to a knight, fighting the good fight for the honor of one's lady and glory of one's king, engaged in battle with one's peers, accepting the same rule restrictions and limitations as one's opponent, facing impossible odds, tilting at windmills, charging the gates of Jerusalem single-handed armed only with a fruit knife, shows courage, valor, and honor, and that's the kind of stuff that gets you to heaven and makes you a good example to your peers and followers. Tackling a guy off his horse and stabbing him in the eyeslits to take his money is just not cool, baby.

    Smart and effective, maybe, but not cool.

    YouTube- Things Not To Do in SCA Heavy Fighting
  10. Grimnir69 is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    131

    Posted On:
    3/08/2010 10:35am


     Style: HEMA

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Well, you also have to take personal vendettas, social hierarchy, religion, gender and a lot of other things into account. Once again, just look at the advice for robbing peasants in Codex Wallerstein. I think our ancestors had a pretty pragmatic view on things, judging by contemporary descriptions in literature.

    There are still many 19th century myths regarding chivalry, warfare, religion and sexuality in medieval and renaissance Europe. And some even argue that the idea of chivalry was consciously introduced to strengthen the knighthood against the cleric influence of power and in that sense was a bit of myth perpetuated even at the time. Just another aspect of the whole power struggle between the crown and the church. :)

    In fact, and only loosely related to the topic at hand, I have even seen discussions on the whole concept of the honourable samurai was invented in the 20th century, alongside of Kendo, Naginata Do, Judo etc. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110006178651/en
    Last edited by Grimnir69; 3/08/2010 11:11am at .
Page 12 of 52 FirstFirst ... 289101112 1314151622 ... LastLast

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.