Page 1 of 2

PostPosted: 27 Aug 2007 21:59
by bigdummy
Uh, I was confused by this part

"Plough: The point of the sword on or toward the floor between you and the opponent, or to the side. iron doors and the like fit in this category.

Ox: Think like the horns of an ox, hands up and back by the cheek or ear, point at the face of the opponent, not with the arms extended out, rather be ready to thrust.

Fool: The point toward the face of the opponent, your hands close to your hip, think of the stick and bladder of a fool and hold it on the right side, not in the center."

Don't you have Pflug and Alber confused here?


BD

PostPosted: 27 Aug 2007 22:07
by admin
See Doebringer ;).

PostPosted: 27 Aug 2007 22:16
by David Rawlings
bigdummy wrote:Uh, I was confused by this part

"Plough: The point of the sword on or toward the floor between you and the opponent, or to the side. iron doors and the like fit in this category.

Ox: Think like the horns of an ox, hands up and back by the cheek or ear, point at the face of the opponent, not with the arms extended out, rather be ready to thrust.

Fool: The point toward the face of the opponent, your hands close to your hip, think of the stick and bladder of a fool and hold it on the right side, not in the center."

Don't you have Pflug and Alber confused here?


BD

Absolutely not :D do you?

As Matt said Matey, I think I even explain why we chose that form.

PostPosted: 27 Aug 2007 22:34
by bigdummy
I'm aware that different names were used in different fechtbuchs and by different masters but there seems to be a consensus among Lichtenauer tradition people I've worked with and whose books I've read to do it the other way around.

But I guess I'm making a big mistake right at the very idea of a consensus on anything in the HEMA community or any part of it.


BD

PostPosted: 27 Aug 2007 22:58
by David Rawlings
bigdummy wrote:I'm aware that different names were used in different fechtbuchs and by different masters but there seems to be a consensus among Lichtenauer tradition people I've worked with and whose books I've read to do it the other way around.

But I guess I'm making a big mistake right at the very idea of a consensus on anything in the HEMA community or any part of it.


BD

No it's a valid point, Doebringer is the earliest source we have to work from, I personally favor his description as I think it works better and more and is more accurate to the mental picture of how you'd hold each position, most sources after him change the position, so you have two choices, one use the first and closest source, or use every one that comes after that.
One thing that I felt needed to be answered is. does the tradition of calling plough the fool, come from 1, a later but clearer understanding of what mr L meant than Doebringer, or 2, are they all repeating a mistake made by the first manual or school of thought after Doebringer.

but the point is, the earliest says plough is the low guard.
the latter say(in greater numbers) that plough is the middle point at the face guard.
I like the earliest, we have no real proof as to who is right.

PostPosted: 27 Aug 2007 23:01
by David Rawlings
and yes, the consensus of those authors and instructors counts for shite.
There are two versions, make your own choice.

PostPosted: 28 Aug 2007 00:49
by bigdummy
Well I like the point at the ground version of fool / alber because I think the guard is a very deceptive one, especially for amateurs or those unfamiliar with HEMA. It looks vulnerable, but it's actually very protective and useful both for offense and defense even though it's essentially a defensive guard.

I used to think pflug being point toward the enemies face made no sense from just picturing a plow in my head, but then after thinking of it, the handles of a plow

Image

in many cases bend back at exactly the angle the pflug does. I think this is what they meant.

What do you feel makes what I would call a pflug a 'fools' guard? Do you feel that in some way it fools the opponent? From my own ignorant perspective I think pflug while strong is one of the most obvious guards. You can see the opponents point and it's the easiest of the basic guards to read their range.


But to be honest the reason I mentioned consensus is that I'm simply not yet any kind of HEMA scholar beyond the very basic level and I'm not well informed enough on the Masters to really judge what they meant or why. Plus as much as I like to argue, I grow weary of some of the heated debates in the community. Edge vs. flat anyone? Leave me out of it.

So I've relied on other peoples interpretations of those basic concepts which do seem to find some general agreement and leave the bleeding edge of the research for the more accomplished students such as yourself and Matt and Fab. For now I'm still concentrating on sussing out the basics and putting them to the test in the most realistic conditions I can devise. So far what i find out is: HEMA works.

BD

PostPosted: 28 Aug 2007 01:26
by David Rawlings
because, fool (Mr d's) breaks cuts and thrust with ease, as can the low guard but not as swiftly, I see few tricks that would justify the use o the term for low alber but for mid alber you have a position from which can come nearly all strikes despite it's mainly thrusting appearance.
also you have images like this http://www.3owls.org/sca/costume/images/fool2.jpg
which is contemporary to mr D which shows the main tool of the fool, ie the stick with the bladder. This is what I believe mr L was using in his mnenomic.
like i say, there are two ways o looking at it, and I know the vulnerabilities o both arguments.
I'm on the whole not impressed by the idea that it's called fool purely because it's tricksy though, any experienced fencer would know the vulnerabilities in attacking a low ward, which are really the reverse o hitting a high ward.
Ie low ward, you can only attack above, thus making you more predictable.
high ward, you can only attack below, thus making you more predictable.
low alber is not in the slightest deceptive...what the heck is deceptive about it?
nothing, good, i win, bring me cake!



Teasing, you hold it how you like, I don't like the later justifications, you do, that's good:)

PostPosted: 28 Aug 2007 01:30
by David Rawlings
And good luck, have your own opinion about it all, read the manuals, they ain't that complicated, and it helps break down the dungeon master "it's my book, therefor I'm right" mentality that's rife amongst the elite, it's all basics, with little swings away from the basics, so all power to you.(I still want cake tho)

PostPosted: 28 Aug 2007 06:46
by bigdummy
corporal heidi wrote:And good luck, have your own opinion about it all, read the manuals, they ain't that complicated, and it helps break down the dungeon master "it's my book, therefor I'm right" mentality that's rife amongst the elite, it's all basics, with little swings away from the basics, so all power to you.(I still want cake tho)


yeah some of them can even be kind of condescending too....

PostPosted: 28 Aug 2007 07:14
by Grumpy Kitten
bigdummy wrote:
corporal heidi wrote:And good luck, have your own opinion about it all, read the manuals, they ain't that complicated, and it helps break down the dungeon master "it's my book, therefor I'm right" mentality that's rife amongst the elite, it's all basics, with little swings away from the basics, so all power to you.(I still want cake tho)


yeah some of them can even be kind of condescending too....


Are you implying that Dave is being condescending?

PostPosted: 28 Aug 2007 07:20
by Pili-pala
Grumpy Kitten wrote:
bigdummy wrote:
corporal heidi wrote:And good luck, have your own opinion about it all, read the manuals, they ain't that complicated, and it helps break down the dungeon master "it's my book, therefor I'm right" mentality that's rife amongst the elite, it's all basics, with little swings away from the basics, so all power to you.(I still want cake tho)


yeah some of them can even be kind of condescending too....


Are you implying that Dave is being condescending?


Or are you inferring it :p?

PostPosted: 28 Aug 2007 10:36
by Pili-pala
Ignore me - I'm a twat - it should be 'an'.

PostPosted: 28 Aug 2007 10:38
by David Rawlings
bigdummy wrote:
corporal heidi wrote:And good luck, have your own opinion about it all, read the manuals, they ain't that complicated, and it helps break down the dungeon master "it's my book, therefor I'm right" mentality that's rife amongst the elite, it's all basics, with little swings away from the basics, so all power to you.(I still want cake tho)


yeah some of them can even be kind of condescending too....



and you can be an arse a lot o the time but i don't hold it against you:D
I was havin a go at certain people not you and saying go for it, supporting you're standpoint, and your differing opinion to mine you can of course take that support and* if you wish, but it was offered in good spirit and I'd hope you'd take it as such.

*posted on in pub :D

PostPosted: 28 Aug 2007 13:11
by bigdummy
Pili-pala wrote:Ignore me - I'm a twat - it should be 'an'.


Eh? What should be 'an'?

PostPosted: 28 Aug 2007 13:12
by Pili-pala
bigdummy wrote:
Pili-pala wrote:Ignore me - I'm a twat - it should be 'an'.


Eh? What should be 'an'?


(was from new website thread - grammar point that I was wrong on)

PostPosted: 28 Aug 2007 14:18
by bigdummy
Grumpy Kitten wrote:Are you implying that Dave is being condescending?


Not with you around, I may be a dummy but I'm no fool....

PostPosted: 28 Aug 2007 14:23
by bigdummy
corporal heidi wrote:and you can be an arse a lot o the time but i don't hold it against you:D
I was havin a go at certain people not you and saying go for it, supporting you're standpoint, and your differing opinion to mine you can of course take that support and* if you wish, but it was offered in good spirit and I'd hope you'd take it as such.

*posted on in pub :D


No worries, when I mentioned this initially I actually genuinely thought there was a typo on your website. Seen stuff like that happen before.

I remember reading that Doebringer did those guards opposite (in Sydney Anglo IIRC) but I didn't realize there was a position that was what Lichtenauer meant initially and / or representative of the tradition in general. In this I scent the makings of a proper HEMA controversy of the type I try religiously to avoid.

In other words, if I'd had any idea it was anything other than a simple mistake I wouldn't have brought it up. I know it's all simple but I'm not in any position to argue such things, my own personal impressions are just that and about as valid at this point as my opinions on interstellar travel. I've only ever read Ringeck and Lichtenauer in direct translation, I'm still trying to get my footwork right.

BD

PostPosted: 28 Aug 2007 14:34
by J Marwood
If I can offer a potential clarification...

I think BD was saying that the 'rule-book' claiming elites are the condescending ones, not Dave, who is anything but.

Dave's point is a very valid one though - the naming of the posta and the mental images they are meant to conjure up are just tools or models. A map, rather than the terrain. If they don't work for you than change them.

Just my tuppence worth.

PostPosted: 28 Aug 2007 14:37
by Grumpy Kitten
bigdummy wrote:
Grumpy Kitten wrote:Are you implying that Dave is being condescending?


Not with you around, I may be a dummy but I'm no fool....


:wink: fair enough