Are the guards in 'Doebringer' correct?

Open to public view.

Postby Bigfoot » 25 Oct 2007 16:55

Hello,

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!



Possibly it wasn't a mistake. Possibly it was done on purpose!
Bigfoot
Sergeant
 
Posts: 108
Joined: 21 Mar 2007 23:56

Postby Richard Strey » 25 Oct 2007 18:35

By several masters, who all explicitly state that they are now glossing (explaining) a previously secret art? I think not.
Richard Strey
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 177
Joined: 15 Oct 2007 10:19
Location: Cologne, Germany

Postby Bigfoot » 25 Oct 2007 23:18

Ever heard the expression:

Monkey see, monkey do!

????

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Last edited by Bigfoot on 26 Oct 2007 04:59, edited 1 time in total.
Bigfoot
Sergeant
 
Posts: 108
Joined: 21 Mar 2007 23:56

Postby Fab » 26 Oct 2007 04:21

We cannot know for sure.
User avatar
Fab
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 7915
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 14:54
Location: Under the Hat of Awesomeness.

Postby Bigfoot » 26 Oct 2007 04:59

Your absolutely right , Fab.
Bigfoot
Sergeant
 
Posts: 108
Joined: 21 Mar 2007 23:56

Postby Claus Sørensen » 26 Oct 2007 07:35

And like I said earlier people will not agree on this one! :wink:

but so long as both versions make martial sense, and work, then that's probably the most important thing (at least to me).


I agree, very much! :) But the problem here, is if people use the description from Ringeck, and other later manuals on how to break the guards with a speciffic strike, and use them directly on the names in Hs.3227a.

This would mean that one of the authors made not just a mistake, but interpretated the system different. And I don't believe this to be true.

Possibly it wasn't a mistake. Possibly it was done on purpose!


Believe what you will! I believe that xxx-number of fencingmasters can't be wrong. They did write in a time where it was a bit more crucial to get this right than today! And they "unlike" us "were" fencingmasters!

I can accept that the name "could have been" changed on purpose, but why? There is nothing but petty arguments like "it really looks more like a plow" to support this.
But I will never believe that more than the names are different, either by mistake or purpose! It would mean a change of the system/the art, something that also the author of Hs.3227a. says stay the same.

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

Postby admin » 26 Oct 2007 10:14

You know that in Italian systems the names of guards are sometimes more connected to what the guards do rather than what they look like? Look at some of the Bolognese versions of 'Iron Door' and 'Tail' guards - then look at what Germans call 'Iron Door' and what Fiore and Vadi call 'Iron Door'. In my opinion it is quite likely that some German guards varied in actual position between masters - for example look at the different forms Vom Tag can take or the low guards. Aside from which, we have to remember that Liechtenauer wasn't the only fencing line being taught in Germany - it was just the one that was obsessed with making books. We know there were other 'schools' and Maximillian's list of fencing techniques includes many things which are completely unidentified in the Liechtenauer sources.
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 » 26 Oct 2007 11:27

Hello again!

for example look at the different forms Vom Tag can take


Yes well the funny thing here, is that the general possibilities and the direct lines of attack are the same from these two variations of vom tag, and they are "often" mentioned together. They behave in the same way!

The difference between pflug and alber are much greater. It is two completely different guards with different possibilities and direct lines of attack. They do not behave in the same way!

There exits another german manual by "Hans Niedl" where the guards are named different! Ochs = Pflug, Pflug = Alber, Alber = Ochs, Vom Tag = Vom Tag with the right foot forward???

And as i've said earlier, it doesn't matter, only if you mix the speciffic information given in the manuals with eachother!

If you are told in e.g. Ringecks manual to act in a speciffic way against a guard that looks like xxxxx. Then you need to find a similar guard-description if you want to use this data and transfer it to another manual, not just look at the name!

Perhaps someone out there should begin to use Niedl's guardnames. It would then become a very interesting discussion! :wink:

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

Postby Jeffrey Hull » 27 Oct 2007 21:13

Claus Sørensen wrote: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!


I think that is most perceptive & valid statement that anyone has made in this discussion. 8)
Jeffrey Hull
 

Postby Bill Grandy » 27 Oct 2007 22:20

Claus really makes some very valid points here.

The thing that we should all keep in mind, though, is that none of use studies what Liechtenauer taught. We study what his students wrote down, and therefore we are students of his tradition, not of Liechtenauer himself. In that respect, as long as I am following the core principles of the system, it doesn't matter if Hs.3227a has the guards correctly named or not.

That said, I do agree with the camp that finds it hard to swallow that all of the members of the Gesellschaft Liechtenauers got the names wrong, and only this one manuscript, which isn't even a full fencing treatise, which only mentions the guards once, got it right. :)
[url=http://www.vafinc.com/programs/hist.htm]Virginia Academy of Fencing Historical Swordsmanship
--German Longsword & Italian Rapier in the DC Area--[/url]
Bill Grandy
Corporal
 
Posts: 44
Joined: 15 Oct 2007 04:34
Location: Alexandria, VA USA

Postby David Welch » 22 Nov 2007 00:22

Claus Sørensen wrote:I can accept that the name "could have been" changed on purpose, but why? There is nothing but petty arguments like "it really looks more like a plow" to support this.


We have a theory, but we can only support it with anecdotal evidence.

It goes like this: originally, the plow was called "plow" because your blade was pointed at the ground like a plow.

Fool, was called fool because you held your sword like a fool would hold his bauble. It was a phallic symbol, and you can imagine a fool running around holding his stick and humping stuff for early comedy. Even later Shakespeare joked about it with a fool "that runs lolling up and down to hide his bauble in a hole".

I personally like to think that when Doebringer had a scribe write the manuscript for him, he turned the info over to the Church, and someone came back and told them "look... you just can't have this guard of the giant metal pecker. I don't care how you do it, but get rid of this. Maybe... how about you just switch plow and fool?".

Complete conjecture, but it makes a good story and I like it.
User avatar
David Welch
Major
 
Posts: 847
Joined: 20 Mar 2006 18:44
Location: Tennessee, U.S.A

Postby Wolfgang Ritter » 22 Nov 2007 11:29

As being said earlier: we will never know, because our fencing may differ a lot from what Liechtenauer himself actually taught (as maybe did the fencing of the author of 3227a, Ringeck, von Danzig, Lew, Liegnitzer....).

Is there somebody around who actually has some definate knowledge about medieval agricultural techniques?
My point is, there seem to have been technically very different plows from a simple mesopotamic scratch plow to a greek or roman crooked plow and for example to a mouldboard plow - the latter being invented in the 15th century, if one can trust wikipedia.
As I understood it, the idea of the mouldboard (that's the german Streichblech?!?) is that the soil on the side of the cut was lifted up and flipped over by the mouldboard, falling beside the plough. That reminds a bit of the move of Stich absetzen (settung aside a thrust). Anyway the first references seem to date from the 15th ct, so maybe the new design was simply unknown to DÖbringer or whoever wrote 3227a and they were used to the "old-fashioned" plow?

Of course just a guess and pretty much anecdotal as evidence......

Regards
Wolfgang
Wolfgang Ritter
Captain
 
Posts: 677
Joined: 17 Mar 2006 12:23
Location: hovering in nirvana

Previous

Return to Johannes Liechtenauer Lineage

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest