222066 Bullies, 3785 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 81 to 90 of 512
Page 9 of 52 FirstFirst ... 56789 1011121319 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. kwan_dao is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    257

    Posted On:
    3/06/2010 1:46am


     Style: sambo, stuff

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimnir69 View Post
    I'll just pass on Kwan Dao's post here and skip straight to captainzorikh's post.

    There are actually manuals describing preparation for warfare, just as the various forms of jousting was a preparation and not just for "fun". Take a look at Wallhausen from 1614: http://www.hroarr.com/temp/wallhausen/
    Wallhausen is a good exemption from the rule. Yet if you are honest, how much training is done in HEMA/ARMA groups based on that book? I have yet to see that. Especially considering the massive use of firearms in that book. The groups I know of claim to study books like the Ringeck manuscript, other Liechtenauer sources, Talhoffer and the one or other italian fencing book.

    Yes, jousting could be considered battle preparation. It obviously does have benefits to compete in jousting before you go into battle with roughly the same equipment. But it is clearly a sportive event. With all the bells and whistles, like winning by points, spectators, referees, rules, blunted weapons to reduce fatal injuries, ...


    Which would exactly be my point. If you consider jousting a martial art, why not other forms of regulated "battle play"?
  2. JohnnyCache is offline
    JohnnyCache's Avatar

    All Out of Bubblegum

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    10,473

    Posted On:
    3/06/2010 1:54am

    supporting memberforum leader
     Style: MMA

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I think I already did a thread where I pointed out the difference between boffer games and WMA.

    "Martial Preparation" is a digression. The activity isn't relevant to what it's supposed to simulate. Two guys belly-to-belly headpecking is not what actual fights looked like.
    There's no choice but to confront you, to engage you, to erase you. I've gone to great lengths to expand my threshold of pain. I will use my mistakes against you. There's no other choice.
  3. blossfechter is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    38

    Posted On:
    3/06/2010 2:05am


     Style: German Longsword, HEMA

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    The reason the headpecking happens is because the shields provide infallible defense. You don't have to worry about getting your arm hacked through the shield, or any number of nasty things that can happen when a shield blocks real weapons.
  4. Grimnir69 is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    131

    Posted On:
    3/06/2010 3:16am


     Style: HEMA

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by kwan_dao View Post
    Wallhausen is a good exemption from the rule. Yet if you are honest, how much training is done in HEMA/ARMA groups based on that book? I have yet to see that. Especially considering the massive use of firearms in that book. The groups I know of claim to study books like the Ringeck manuscript, other Liechtenauer sources, Talhoffer and the one or other italian fencing book.

    Yes, jousting could be considered battle preparation. It obviously does have benefits to compete in jousting before you go into battle with roughly the same equipment. But it is clearly a sportive event. With all the bells and whistles, like winning by points, spectators, referees, rules, blunted weapons to reduce fatal injuries, ...


    Which would exactly be my point. If you consider jousting a martial art, why not other forms of regulated "battle play"?
    I have already expressed this quite clearly early on in this thread. One (out of three I mentioned) important distinction between martial arts and martial sports is that the former aims at preparing for killing and maiming and therefore includes techniques for that. The latter usually aims at winning competitions and therefore does not include techniques that are too dangerous. But as I said earlier, it is a combination of several differences, not one single.

    Regulated battle play can certainly be martial arts. It depends on what the goal of the play is and how it is done. And there were many forms of "jousting" and "feats of arms" where people got seriously hurt or killed and fought until they were stopped, with little consideration for modern chivalrous ideals. Then again, there were jousting done with less risk and more for entertainment. And yes, the way I see it, it would be martial sports, due to the purpose and intent and how it was performed.

    Also a tradition can contain both Martial Arts and Martial Sports and even Martial Sports can prepare you for actual combat. Ringeck is clearly intended for killing, as is Talhoffer. Mair and Meyer, on the other hand is for fun, but also for self-defense. Some techniques in their manuscripts are definitely serious, but some less so, and certain earlier techniques are actually forbidden. So, their manuscripts are ambiguous. Still, they are clearly within the same tradition.

    Yes, Wallhausen is an exemption, but you claimed that all sources in Hema were solely intended for duelling and that duelling is not "martial". First of all, if even killing someone is not martial, then what is? And if some aspects of Hema is not intended for the battlefield, then howcome we can see the stances and even halfswording in contemporary artwork portraying the battlefield? There are other things shown too, but these are certainly shown in various artwork. I strongly believe that many of the HEMA techniques were used on the battlefield and is part of a complex picture. Are you really suggesting that there was a completely different system in use on the battlefield that just wasn't recorded? It would seem odd since the nobility that were trained in Hema and paid for several of the early fechtbuchen also were the same people who went to battle.

    AND why are there so rare few examples of other medieval and renaissance literature on the subject you ask for? Can you give me some examples that describe what you ask for? As far as I know we only have the Ott, Liechtenauer, Fiore and Montante-traditions to study and very few others, who really describe very little actual techniques but rather strategies, like Wallhausen. I would love to see something completely different. So please give me something. :)

    Some things are missing in the fechtbuchen, that is true, but what is there is still important and the only real source we have to study.

    I would like to write more, but I don't have the time right now. So, later... :)
    Last edited by Grimnir69; 3/06/2010 3:53am at .
  5. blossfechter is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    38

    Posted On:
    3/06/2010 3:41am


     Style: German Longsword, HEMA

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimnir69 View Post
    Can you give me some examples that describe what you ask for?

    Don't hold your breath.
  6. Grimnir69 is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    131

    Posted On:
    3/06/2010 3:45am


     Style: HEMA

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I'm not, but I would truly love to see something new! That is why I gather stuff at the Hroarr.com-site. I have tons of material and lots that still needs publishing. :)
    Last edited by Grimnir69; 3/06/2010 3:56am at .
  7. blossfechter is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    38

    Posted On:
    3/06/2010 4:05am


     Style: German Longsword, HEMA

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I understand that, but you asked Kwan Dao a specific question. From my short time on the board, he doesn't really ever answer.
  8. GenericUnique is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    55

    Posted On:
    3/06/2010 7:19am


     Style: WMA Lichtenauer Longsword

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimnir69 View Post
    I have already expressed this quite clearly early on in this thread. One (out of three I mentioned) important distinction between martial arts and martial sports is that the former aims at preparing for killing and maiming and therefore includes techniques for that. The latter usually aims at winning competitions and therefore does not include techniques that are too dangerous. But as I said earlier, it is a combination of several differences, not one single.

    Yes, Wallhausen is an exemption, but you claimed that all sources in Hema were solely intended for duelling and that duelling is not "martial". First of all, if even killing someone is not martial, then what is?
    How can the dagger sections found in most period sources (most of the "Lichtenauer" fechtbuchs, the Codex Wallerstein, Fiore, etc, etc) be reconciled with an idea of a martial sport? Especially when it's unarmoured dagger. It's very hard to see any way to reconcile many of the techniques with a sporting application, since they lead to death or serious injury without opportunity to pull them mid-application. Which may still permit a claim that they were for lethal but rules-governed duels. That's true enough, especially for longsword blossfechten, which was at least partially for that exact scenario.

    The fechtbuchs do, however, contain clear indications that they were for wider application.

    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.

    Incidentally, especially in Meyer's longsword and everyone's unarmed sections, we can see the sport/lethal distinction. In friendly wrestling, we are told, it's rude to poke fingers in your opponent's eyes, knee his crotch, etc, etc. In friendly longsword, we don't stab each other in the face, etc, etc. In case you get in a matter of life or death, we'll go through the techniques to gouge, knee, break and pommel-smash. Just keep calm and controlled in the fechtschule...

    Quote Originally Posted by kwan_dao View Post
    They never talk about what to do when you come under fire from enemy archers while advancing with your battlegroup. They loose not a single word on strategies how to survive the specific dangers of a crowded battlefield. On how to combine the strengths of infantry and archers. Or how to put cavalry to use.
    How many modern martial arts books, or even military infantry training programs, talk about the need for close air support, how to use tanks and infantry efficiently together?

    The fechtbuchs are only a part of medieval literature, with a narrow focus. Other sources do survive (Machiavelli wrote one, for god's sake) discussing strategy and large scale tactics. The fechtbuchs are clearly aimed at an individual's personal skill at arms.

    Quote Originally Posted by kwan_dao View Post
    But then... why is there hardly ever a word on how to hit a target from horesback with a friggin lance? THE actual main weapon of knights in times of war? Why is there no advice on how to behave in the midst of a group of knights, attacking with lances in full gallopp? The most likely situation a knight would find himself in on a battlefield? How to avoid beeing singled out and taken down by infantry?
    More likely to be trained by knights in hunting and jousting. What there is is often advice on how to deal with the scenarios which hunting and jousting don't train for - getting grappled in the saddle.

    I also love all the cavalry charges visible in your SCA videos. Clearly shows the holes in the HEMA approach... not to mention the widespread acceptance of standardised archery rules in SCA battles. No wonder your "battles" look realistic, rather than larps.
  9. Grimnir69 is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    131

    Posted On:
    3/06/2010 7:30am


     Style: HEMA

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by GenericUnique View Post
    can the dagger sections found in most period sources (most of the "Lichtenauer" fechtbuchs, the Codex Wallerstein, Fiore, etc, etc) be reconciled with an idea of a martial sport? Especially when it's unarmoured dagger. It's very hard to see any way to reconcile many of the techniques with a sporting application, since they lead to death or serious injury without opportunity to pull them mid-application. Which may still permit a claim that they were for lethal but rules-governed duels. That's true enough, especially for longsword blossfechten, which was at least partially for that exact scenario.

    The fechtbuchs do, however, contain clear indications that they were for wider application.

    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.
    I completely agree, they can't be reconciled with martial sports. Later sources can, though. Meyer seems to like bitch slapping his opponent's with the flat of the blade, for instance. And thrusting is forbidden with the longsword, as is breaking of limbs etc. Renaissance fechtschulen are for bourgeoisie play and learning how to defend oneself. And of course for the pride and honour in belonging to a brotherhood like the Marxbruder or Federfechters. :)

    Earlier sources were clearly to prepare the nobilitity for single combat, in duelling, self defense or the battlefield.

    There are more examples beyond those listed, as becomes quite clear when you study the sources. For instance, it has been suggested in a recent paper by Claus Sørensen, that portions of Talhoffer's manuscripts prepare for "street fighting", ie self-defense against thugs.
    Last edited by Grimnir69; 3/06/2010 7:41am at .
  10. Grimnir69 is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Posts
    131

    Posted On:
    3/06/2010 9:38am


     Style: HEMA

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    While waiting, I can give a few examples of foot soldiers and cavalry, cavalry with lances against cavalry and other interesting descriptions: Talhoffer, Paulus Kal, Paulus Hector Mair, Fiore Dei Liberi.

    Jörg Wilhalm has some really interesting material with, for instance, images of unarmed rossfecthen against a knight in armour with a lance. Much of his material can be seen in Wallhausen's manuscript, but simplified and with firearms added.

    DiGrassi also has some interesting discussions on combinations and characteristics of polearms, as does Silver.

    Dom Diogo Gomes de Figuyredo's manuscript on Montante is particularly interesting since it describes techniques for the city guard's "great sword" and how to handle several opponents, even in narrow streets. I haven't read it myself yet, though.

    Later on, during the 17th century warfare begins to change and more focus is put on educating and drilling foot soldiers and then we begin to see manuals like Wallhausen, von Buren and others. These show simpler drills and less of the skills portrayed in the earlier manuscripts. That is left for civilian duelling, mainly with the rapier, although the longsword remains in practice in fechtschulen all the way up until the early 18th century.

    Admittedly, this is not battlefield strategies, but certainly techniques for meeting single opponent's with other arms and protection, something which most certainly happened to all who entered the battle field and not regularly in duelling.
    Last edited by Grimnir69; 3/06/2010 9:53am at .
Page 9 of 52 FirstFirst ... 56789 1011121319 ... 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.