Wolfgang Ritter wrote:CaptainAbrecan wrote:Wolfgang Ritter wrote:He takes illustrations, finds similarities and therefore links different systems together. That's scientificely invalid, if not to say blatantly ignorant - but sadly not umcommon.
Absolutely.
Unless said person believes there was a pan-european martial art. I have noticed that HEMA is prejudiced against people who believe so. Damn shame about that latter lot, but some citizens are shallow and superficial. Can't very well do without them, I suppose.
Hmm, I'm not sure I understand you.
"Pan-european martial art" what does that mean, a generic european fighting systrem, compared to what? Asian, arabic or INdian systems?
I have to confess that I oppose that, I find the similarities of - for example - Fiore and Lichtenauer (being developed in Europe at slightly the same timeframe, originally directed at a homogenous group of practitioners, covering the same weaponry) not enough to state a pan-european system. SImply as there are vital differences between both;
You seem to believe in a pan-european system, what is it, that makes it pan-european?
CaptainAbrecan wrote:...I don't spend a lot of time in italian stuff. ...
CaptainAbrecan wrote:I think that there are two best practices, one of which is fabricated by me![]()
1. The original styles have to be reconstructed, in a completely historically accurate manner.
2. Take the experience from all of the styles, all of them, and use what works best to most martially effective.
Limiting the things into groups is a lot like limiting yourself. If you think about it from the perspective of having a goal to actually go kill people with this stuff, then silly things like system divisions create no advantage. I don't expect anyone else to come even within the same universe of having a goal like #2, so I try to not judge them when they get hung up on anything except what you can realistically use to take the life of another human being.
Sean M wrote:CaptainAbrecan wrote:I think that there are two best practices, one of which is fabricated by me![]()
1. The original styles have to be reconstructed, in a completely historically accurate manner.
2. Take the experience from all of the styles, all of them, and use what works best to most martially effective.
Limiting the things into groups is a lot like limiting yourself. If you think about it from the perspective of having a goal to actually go kill people with this stuff, then silly things like system divisions create no advantage. I don't expect anyone else to come even within the same universe of having a goal like #2, so I try to not judge them when they get hung up on anything except what you can realistically use to take the life of another human being.
I think a very large fraction of arguments in martial arts come down to people having different focuses (tradition, sport, self defense, duelling, historical curiosity, a violent job). Its just a thought, but I think your #2 is risky for people without a lot of experience of the kind of violence they are preparing for. And that focusing on a subset of the infinite ways to defeat someone (a style, in other words) can make very practical sense.
makes me sort of cringe....we have a vested interest in trying to learn fiore with a german tempo, because it comes to us naturally.
Andrew Shultz wrote:At this point no one has experience in the kind of violence we're training for (at least in longsword, the wrestling and dagger portions are not the same).
CaptainAbrecan wrote:I don't do any of my own research, out of time restrictions and several language barriers. I rely on the people who have the goal of understanding the art historically.
For example, we started with this by trying to deconstuct a Gesselschaft video, and I don't need to elaborate on how immensely that failed
Things progress reasonably well as we take in more resources that people publish. I have a 32gb flash stick full to the brim with manuals, videos, articles, worthwhile forum posts in pdf form as reference, reviews, guild contacts, reference images from museums, books, podcasts and marketplace links. I need to get a 64 at the rate we are going.
I think I should change course and take a look at Guy Windsors stuff. I downloaded a lot of PDF's he published while I was at work yesterday, and they focus on Fiore. I might start with "A Swordsman's Introduction to Fior di Battaglia".
Thearos wrote:I think (and again I'm hope I'm not offending the author by posting this) I meant this page:
http://www.thehaca.com/essays/LeignitzerSandB.htm
Which uses Liegnitzer, Lichtenauer and I.33 a bit interchangeably
Wolfgang Ritter wrote:Regarding the importance and/or influence of Lichtenauer:
He may be reference for a lot of the surviving manuscripts.
But that's exactly the problem: the surviving manuscripts or surviving data-records.
We are talking about a period of something like at least 300 years were we know that fencing schools and fenciong systematisations existed. We have no real evidence if not other contemporary masters were more prominent than Lichtenauer and his strange posse of 16 Interpreters......take Fiore or the italian masters in genreal: why do we have ONLY Fiore for quite an amount of time? Was there nothing else but his works until Vadi made his effort?
Waht about Spain, Portugal? AFAIK the oldest known manuals date to the 16th century (IIRC there is something about riding from around the 1440ies, but I don't think it contains actual fencing techniques). Were all the contemporaary portuguese or spanish fencing teachers either Lichtenauer or Fiore?
Lichtenauer - besides Talhofer - may now be the best known master's name, but we can't prove that around the active time of Lichtenauer or shortly after his death - we are talking about the 14th century, probably the second half - the majority of fencers in the Holy Roman Empire praised someoine else.
Wolfgang Ritter wrote:Some are a bit more tricky to find, for example L. himself doesn't mention the Wechsel, same with the Aufstreichen. But both are mentioned to some extant in Ringeck - who happens to have the 6 s&b plays word by word; he just names himself the author whereas it can be doubted...anyway he explains both in his lngsword teachings, this can be transferred to the s&b peices to make them work rather closely fitting into the Lichtenauer system.
Michael Chidester wrote:Wolfgang Ritter wrote:Some are a bit more tricky to find, for example L. himself doesn't mention the Wechsel, same with the Aufstreichen. But both are mentioned to some extant in Ringeck - who happens to have the 6 s&b plays word by word; he just names himself the author whereas it can be doubted...anyway he explains both in his lngsword teachings, this can be transferred to the s&b peices to make them work rather closely fitting into the Lichtenauer system.
Ringeck is only mentioned once in the Dresden manuscript, in the third person at the beginning of the Bloszfechten section. Attaching his name to the material further on is a modern error, not a period one.
10v
Hie hept sich an die vßlegu~g der zedel
in der geschriben stett die Ritterlich kunst des langes schwerts Die gedicht vnd gemacht hat Johannes lichtenawer der ain grosser maiste~ in der kunst gewesen ist dem gott genedig sÿ der hatt die zedel laußen schrÿbe~ mitt verborgen vñ verdeckte~ worten Daru~b dz die kunst nitt gemain solt werde~ Vnd die selbige~ v°borgneñ vñ verdeckte wort hatt maister
11r
Sigmund ain ringeck der zÿt des hochgeborne~ fürsten vñ herreñ herñ aulbrecht pfalczgrauen bÿ Rin vñ herczog in baÿern schirmaiste~ Glosieret vñ außgelegt alß hie in disem biechlin her nach geschrÿben stät dz sÿ ain ÿede~ fechter wol verömen vnd vestan mag der da ande~st fechten kan ~
Return to Johannes Liechtenauer Lineage
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest