Are the guards in 'Doebringer' correct?

Open to public view.

Are the guards in 'Doebringer' correct?

Postby admin » 24 Oct 2007 11:26

Or are the later German guard allocations correct? For example, in Liechtenauer, should pflug be pointing at the ground?
http://www.antique-swords.co.uk/

I like swords more than you.
User avatar
admin
Emperor
 
Posts: 35093
Joined: 13 Mar 2006 17:28
Location: Guildford, Surrey, England.

Postby Hans Heim » 24 Oct 2007 12:17

I think sometimes, that the Huten in Doebringer are fitting more to the principles of the text.

Perhaps look at: "Alber versetzt" and with the "Alber" of Doebringer (which is the Pflug in the later material) you are in a perfect position for the Absetzen (and Lichtenauer likes the use of the Ort very much) and you are in a perfect position for the most important cut: the Zwerchhau.

If you look at the breaking of the Alber the Scheitelhau, you are saver with this cut if you use it against a Doebringer "Alber (the new Pflug), as you are if you use it against the new one.

And even in medieval times you are standing more often behind a Pflug as beside it (only look at the pictures).

BUT we are very far away from Lichtenauer, they (von Danzig, Kal, Ringeck) are very closer to him, could they all be wrong?

And:
- Doebringer is the only one with this different Huten,
- he is only the earliest manual, is he therefore the closest to Lichtenauer?,
- it is the most "principal and tactical" orientated material, the other books have this "only" shown by means of the techniques, but makes it this source therefor the most valuable?

To recap: I do not know a final answer to this question. :cry:

Servus,

Hans Heim
Hans Heim
Private
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 19 Oct 2007 12:55
Location: Munich

Postby Paul B » 24 Oct 2007 13:58

as far as I know, it is internally pretty consistent, so it could be called "steve" for all it matters.
.... or I could be completely wrong.

Paul Bennett SG6 - Bradford (Won/Lost/Played) 0/1/1
Carpentry and wooden weapons:
http://www.historicarts.co.uk
User avatar
Paul B
Got Wood
 
Posts: 3694
Joined: 30 Mar 2006 17:26
Location: Marple, cheshire

Postby Claus Sørensen » 24 Oct 2007 15:26

And old but still somewhat interesting discussion!

But please no more pictures of a medieval plow! :lol:

One little fact is that there are no mentioning of speciffic strikes breaking the guard in Hs. 3227a. No shielhau breaking "plfug", no krumhau breaking ochs. It is just mentioned that a unterhau/oberhau hurt the guards and likevise with "vorsetczen".

Therefore it really doesn't matter does it? It doesn't matter if the names changed on purpose or if there is a mistake in Hs.3227a.

It would have been very nice with at sentence like..... strike X breaks guaurd X in Hs.3227a. But it isn't there! :wink:

If something like this were mentioned in Hs. 3227a it would be interesting! But as it is right now it is just pure speculation. There is absolutely no way of proving that a mistake haven't been made in Hs.3227a. Until we find the original lichtenauer manuscript! :wink: Or another manuscript in the early group of manuals, that support this "naming".

I don't like the argument that "I can break" Hs.3227a's Pflug/alber with this speciffic strike since there are no mentioning of this in the manual!

But as we have seen in other discussions people don't agree on this one! I personally think/believe that the xxx-number of meisters that follow Hs.3228a aren't mistaking and that the mistake has been made in Hs.3227a.

We know for a fact that Ringeck and Kal were employed as fencingmeisters. We do not know this about the author of Hs.3227a????. Nor would/should Kal allow a mistake to be made in his dedicational work to his Duke.

It is simply too many meisters that agree on the naming of the guards.

Hs.3227a is a housebook and the possiblilty of a scribe-made-error here is greater than a personally-made manual by a verified fencingmaster. But then again it is just pure speculation.

Best wishes

Claus Sørensen
Laurentiusgildet Århus Denmark
Hemac-member
Claus Sørensen
Sergeant-Major
 
Posts: 241
Joined: 18 May 2007 09:38
Location: Århus - Denmark

Postby Harry » 24 Oct 2007 16:03

ui ui ui.... a wespnest this discussion could be(e) :D

if you are writing about breaking a guard, you have to declare WHEN the will be broken????

at the moment we are still discussing about the moment of breaking, so it is hard to bring this "technique - die 4 versatzungen" as "prove" that hs3227 is correct or not.

fact is... the so called döbringer is the oldest book
fact is... that ringeck, danzig, lew, kal, speyer etc. are all written by one person and the others just copied it. so it could be a mistake by the first writer and all others spread this mistake all over fencing history
fact is.... today we all ignore the guards of döbringer
MC-Stats (Won/Lost/Fought/Open: 2/2/4/4)

"Take away all his weapons and than kick him in the ass" - Free Translation from the Viennese Gladiatoria
User avatar
Harry
Colonel
 
Posts: 1317
Joined: 20 Mar 2006 13:47

Postby Claus Sørensen » 24 Oct 2007 16:29

Hello

so it could be a mistake by the first writer and all others spread this mistake all over fencing history


They copied the verses yes. And commented on them and some of them copied eachother!

But I still don't throw Kal in there with the others since it is pictorial with only short "headlines" over each picture . But let that rest! :)

I would really have liked to have seen names on the pictures of the four guards from Talhoffer 1443. Since it is close to Ringecks manual :(

But as i've said: different names does not change anything!

But the principles are another matter! And these would not change since the "art" is the same, no matter what name one uses!

But if the name of the guards in Hs.3227a are wrong, if later manuals "changed it by purpose or not, is really not something that we can prove! And It doesn't change anything but what people feel they should call the guards.

This discussion will eventually end as all the other Hs.3227a - discussions on this subject. We will have different opinions! :P

As i've said: I believe that there is a mistake in Hs.3227a. I really can't prove it, but then again there is no valid proff the the guard-names in Hs.3227 are correct! :)

if you are writing about breaking a guard, you have to declare WHEN the will be broken????


What I meant is that there is nothing in Hs.3227a, no text where a "speciffic" strike are mentioned breaking a speciffic "guard" like in Ringeck and VD.

But othervise you are right. Especially with the "when".

Claus
Last edited by Claus Sørensen on 25 Oct 2007 08:28, edited 10 times in total.
Laurentiusgildet Århus Denmark
Hemac-member
Claus Sørensen
Sergeant-Major
 
Posts: 241
Joined: 18 May 2007 09:38
Location: Århus - Denmark

Postby Matclarke » 24 Oct 2007 16:57

One thing I haven't seen mentioned on this:

Of the vier leger (4 main guards) we have 2 cutting guards (one from above, and one from below) and 2 point online guards (one in lower and one in an upper hanger).

Would it make more sense that the two point online guards have names that are likely the ones associated with each other - like ochs and pflug - two things used in ploughing?

The ochs being held near the head, similar to a horn coming out of an ox, and the pflug behind it pushed near the hip.

Pflug even comes after ochs in the merkeverse.
ochß pflug alber
vom tag sz dir nit vnmer
Matclarke
Colonel
 
Posts: 1460
Joined: 21 Jul 2006 17:51

Postby Paul B » 24 Oct 2007 20:26

What's in a name?
.... or I could be completely wrong.

Paul Bennett SG6 - Bradford (Won/Lost/Played) 0/1/1
Carpentry and wooden weapons:
http://www.historicarts.co.uk
User avatar
Paul B
Got Wood
 
Posts: 3694
Joined: 30 Mar 2006 17:26
Location: Marple, cheshire

Postby admin » 24 Oct 2007 23:53

Harry wrote:fact is.... today we all ignore the guards of döbringer


I may be wrong, but I think Dave Rawlings now calls the Liechtenauer guards by 'Doebringer's' definitions, rather than the later ones.
http://www.antique-swords.co.uk/

I like swords more than you.
User avatar
admin
Emperor
 
Posts: 35093
Joined: 13 Mar 2006 17:28
Location: Guildford, Surrey, England.

Postby Fab » 25 Oct 2007 01:25

admin wrote:
Harry wrote:fact is.... today we all ignore the guards of döbringer


I may be wrong, but I think Dave Rawlings now calls the Liechtenauer guards by 'Doebringer's' definitions, rather than the later ones.


Yep, he does....
User avatar
Fab
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 7915
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 14:54
Location: Under the Hat of Awesomeness.

Postby Harry » 25 Oct 2007 01:33

admin wrote:
Harry wrote:fact is.... today we all ignore the guards of döbringer


I may be wrong, but I think Dave Rawlings now calls the Liechtenauer guards by 'Doebringer's' definitions, rather than the later ones.


hehehe, dave is always unique! :)
MC-Stats (Won/Lost/Fought/Open: 2/2/4/4)

"Take away all his weapons and than kick him in the ass" - Free Translation from the Viennese Gladiatoria
User avatar
Harry
Colonel
 
Posts: 1317
Joined: 20 Mar 2006 13:47

Postby Claus Sørensen » 25 Oct 2007 08:40

Unique :wink:

Yes well I surpose that we all need to be "Unique" if we spend that many hours with our noses in the manuals, translating and interpretating!
And then testing it afterwards! :)

It is what makes it interesting! :lol:

Well he can call the guards and other terms what he likes, But leave the system and its principles alone! :)

Claus
Laurentiusgildet Århus Denmark
Hemac-member
Claus Sørensen
Sergeant-Major
 
Posts: 241
Joined: 18 May 2007 09:38
Location: Århus - Denmark

Postby Fab » 25 Oct 2007 10:48

Have you met Dave, Claus ? :wink:
User avatar
Fab
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 7915
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 14:54
Location: Under the Hat of Awesomeness.

Postby admin » 25 Oct 2007 10:56

I'm sure Dave will appear on this thread in due time. Dave will also be at Swordfish.
http://www.antique-swords.co.uk/

I like swords more than you.
User avatar
admin
Emperor
 
Posts: 35093
Joined: 13 Mar 2006 17:28
Location: Guildford, Surrey, England.

Postby Claus Sørensen » 25 Oct 2007 11:01

Have you met Dave, Claus ?


Nope, not in person, but sounds like something to look forward to! :)

At swordfish! :) I've signed on to his class on lichtenauer and zufechten!

Looking forward to meeting you, Dave R.!

Best wishes

Claus
Laurentiusgildet Århus Denmark
Hemac-member
Claus Sørensen
Sergeant-Major
 
Posts: 241
Joined: 18 May 2007 09:38
Location: Århus - Denmark

Postby Grumpy Kitten » 25 Oct 2007 11:29

Fab wrote:Have you met Dave, Claus ? :wink:


Fab... Have you got something you'd like to say about Dave?

There seems to be an awful lot of winking going on around here...
Grumpy Kitten
 

Postby admin » 25 Oct 2007 11:32

I think Fab was defending Dave..
http://www.antique-swords.co.uk/

I like swords more than you.
User avatar
admin
Emperor
 
Posts: 35093
Joined: 13 Mar 2006 17:28
Location: Guildford, Surrey, England.

Postby Fab » 25 Oct 2007 11:36

Was I ?

Yes, I was.

Oh, dear....
User avatar
Fab
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 7915
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 14:54
Location: Under the Hat of Awesomeness.

Postby admin » 25 Oct 2007 11:42

As Dave is not here - I think the point is that Dave has very good reasons to use Doebringers's guards, and whilst the principles stay the same, I think it does have some interesting implications for understanding Liechtenauer's system. I also think it's better to understand a system and be individual than to follow the herd and not fully understand a system. My version of Fiore may be different from someone else's, but so long as both versions make martial sense, and work, then that's probably the most important thing (at least to me).
http://www.antique-swords.co.uk/

I like swords more than you.
User avatar
admin
Emperor
 
Posts: 35093
Joined: 13 Mar 2006 17:28
Location: Guildford, Surrey, England.

Postby Claus Sørensen » 25 Oct 2007 12:17

Hello!

I think it does have some interesting implications for understanding Liechtenauer's system.


In my oppinion it doesn't!

Hans wrote:
If you look at the breaking of the Alber the Scheitelhau, you are saver with this cut if you use it against a Doebringer "Alber (the new Pflug), as you are if you use it against the new one.


If you believe this, then one must also assume that "more" than just a name changed between Hs.3227a and Ringeck.

In Ringeck the guards are described by name, It is described how one should stand in them. And it is described which strike "breaks" them.

This would mean that Ringeck's "mistake" happened on more levels. Firstly he got the name of the guard wrong. Secondly he advices a strike against a guard that really "isn't" the right/safest one.

And this is what makes me believe that "nothing" but the name changed between the manual! A fencing master like Ringeck would not make such a crucial mistake!

It would also mean that the "meisters"( I am not talking about scribes her, but fencingmasters), that followed Ringeck, allowed a mistake/change of principle to pass on.

I simply don't believe it! It is just a change of names, nothing more!

But one really can't debate that it is wrong to use the names in Hs.3227a. But perhaps one should say 14th century fencing here! Not 15th century!

Claus
Laurentiusgildet Århus Denmark
Hemac-member
Claus Sørensen
Sergeant-Major
 
Posts: 241
Joined: 18 May 2007 09:38
Location: Århus - Denmark

Next

Return to Johannes Liechtenauer Lineage

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest