What Fightbook do you use?? and Why?

Open to public view.

Postby David Welch » 28 Nov 2007 01:02

Anders Linnard wrote:But it also posed a problem, since there are a lot of differences in the manuscript. Now it is just fine print if you want to call it smaller differences or not, they are there none the less. My main greavance is simply with the filling of gaps with material from another source and to some extent to construct a unified theory regarding specifics within the German tradition.


I don't believe it, and I think it is all cause by focusing on one manuscript.

I think the masters were trying to get the same general points across and all these much valued differences are nothing more that they just used different examples to do so.

That is why we have people that will say "this can't be X because this master says this is X and another master says that is X" when X is the concept the master is trying to get us to see, and what is being argued about is nothing but examples of it.

I have yet to see anything that looks like a basic, foundational difference in anything, and that includes the so called differences in the so called "schools" of Italian and German fencing. Most of what I hear are is stuff like "well... it can't be the same because the Italians and the Germans drew their wrath guards different." You would think there were bigger differences in what we do than there is between Western swordsmanship and Kendo. :wink:
User avatar
David Welch
Major
 
Posts: 847
Joined: 20 Mar 2006 18:44
Location: Tennessee, U.S.A

Postby Fab » 28 Nov 2007 03:45

IMO here is much more difference, say between Ringeck/VD and Meyer , than Ringeck/VD and Fiore/Vadi.

Meyer is a good source to keep an eye 150 years later on VD/Ringeck/Speyer/whatever. But it cannot compare with them on an equality basis. As if you triend to explain the history of automotive using early XXIst century examples when speaking about pre-WWI cars. In a way.


Because times had changed. So Much. As I said elsewhere (sort of) "you need to be European to know what I mean" and at the same time you do not : all you need is to be aware of the history of fencing at these times, these very different times. Which is linked to the history of Euopean societies. in a deep, deep way.


Besides, Fiore, vadi, Ringeck, VD, Meyer, were just ones among many, many others. They're not (at first hand) representative of what the sum of their period historical Euopean fighting was like (in what I mean it needs a lot of work hard work, to fill the gaps and guess at this in-print we have of HESF).

My 4 am drunken (not that much) eurocents.
User avatar
Fab
Field Marshal
 
Posts: 7915
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 14:54
Location: Under the Hat of Awesomeness.

Postby Anders Linnard » 28 Nov 2007 12:56

David Welch wrote:I have yet to see anything that looks like a basic, foundational difference in anything, and that includes the so called differences in the so called "schools" of Italian and German fencing. Most of what I hear are is stuff like "well... it can't be the same because the Italians and the Germans drew their wrath guards different." You would think there were bigger differences in what we do than there is between Western swordsmanship and Kendo. :wink:


Depends of course how you define fundamental differences. But let's put it this way. Do you think there is a point in distinguishing between anything in the different schools? Is it completely arbitrary if you study Ringeck or Fiore? Or are you talking about the fact that we are all humans, built the same way. Seriously, I understand what you are saying, but you are painting this in far too few colours. There are a lot of shades and nuances that have a merit of their own. I find it equally interesting to look at the differences as I do looking at the similarities. Maybe I am reading you wrong because I can't say that I completely understand your examples and I am not really familiar with those types of arguments.

/Anders
User avatar
Anders Linnard
General
 
Posts: 3410
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 21:06
Location: Gothenburg

Postby Bill » 28 Nov 2007 18:31

Anders wrote
"It is not a discussion wheather there are general principles that connect the masters. It is a question of what the end result of _mixing_ manuscripts results in. In my initial post, I might have misunderstood the intention of previous posters, but I pointed to the risk of creating "one" tradition, where there is "one" german way. My opposition towards that is solely, as I have tried to explain, that you end up filling gaps because you want to create a single martial art. And that is just fine, as long as you are aware that you are doing that. "

Yes I think it is a discussion of whether or not there is a common thread of principle that runs threw German fencing, because just by the fact that the Masters use the Liect verses I would think ties them all together and causes a common thread. If we were talking about comparing "Mongolian" knife fighting and "North African" mounted Rhino fighting I could see the problem. A lot of us seem to see more in common between the Masters then we see differences. If you would not mind could you illustrate one of the differences, that would cause you to question the validity of this approach?

So why did you choose Ringeck? It surely is too far removed from the original tradition to be of any use. Do you believe in a Liechtenauer tradition? Because if you take what you have said, in order to study the Liechtenauer art, you should only study MS3227a and nothing else.

To me the differences are what show a fluid and non-linear "Tradition" it is. Different Masters have different opinions on some techniques simply because they feel like it opens them up to new possibilities or possibly just because they may not have thought of "doing it the other way". Because one Master says the Krump is done with the short edge, and one says it is done with the long edge, does that mean one was wrong and one is right, or are both right?
I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. ukn

What hurts.....Teaches German poverb

Bill
User avatar
Bill
Captain
 
Posts: 730
Joined: 20 Nov 2007 07:24
Location: Knoxville, TN.

Postby Andreas Engström » 28 Nov 2007 22:25

Bill wrote:Yes I think it is a discussion of whether or not there is a common thread of principle that runs threw German fencing, because just by the fact that the Masters use the Liect verses I would think ties them all together and causes a common thread.
Has anyone questioned that? I haven't seen anyone in this whole discussion questioning that. Anders certainly hasn't. You're preaching to the choir.
Bill wrote:If we were talking about comparing "Mongolian" knife fighting and "North African" mounted Rhino fighting I could see the problem. A lot of us seem to see more in common between the Masters then we see differences. If you would not mind could you illustrate one of the differences, that would cause you to question the validity of this approach?
Meyer hardly ever thrusts. Ringeck/Von Dantzig thrust all the time. Just to mention one of the most glaringly obvious things.

Ringeck and Von Dantzig, on the other hand, are extremely similar. They certainly have more similarities than differences. But surely that doesn't mean that the differences are completely uninteresting?Or that it isn't a good idea to try to be aware of them?
Bill wrote:So why did you choose Ringeck? It surely is too far removed from the original tradition to be of any use. Do you believe in a Liechtenauer tradition? Because if you take what you have said, in order to study the Liechtenauer art, you should only study MS3227a and nothing else.
Did you see Anders (or anyone else) say anything whatsoever about manuscripts being somehow better because they're older? Because I sure didn't. Methinks you're building a strawman.
Bill wrote:To me the differences are what show a fluid and non-linear "Tradition" it is. Different Masters have different opinions on some techniques simply because they feel like it opens them up to new possibilities or possibly just because they may not have thought of "doing it the other way". Because one Master says the Krump is done with the short edge, and one says it is done with the long edge, does that mean one was wrong and one is right, or are both right?
They both did their interpretation of the system. One may be slightly "better" than another. Or not. That's not the point. The point is to be careful with mixing and matching (not to never do it, just to be careful) because one way of doing a certain thing may well only make sense within the context of that master's interpretation. If Meyer tells you to do a cut in a certain situation, that may well be completely at odds with what would make sense to do in the same situation within Ringeck's interpretation.

In your case with master A telling you to do the krump with the false edge and master B with the true edge, the interesting question isn't who is "right". The interesting question is "Should one then perhaps be quite careful when trying to use master A:s descriptions of his krump-techniques to try to make sense of master B's krump-techniques?"

-Engström
User avatar
Andreas Engström
Brigadier
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: 22 Mar 2006 13:40
Location: Göteborg, Sweden

Postby David Welch » 28 Nov 2007 23:39

Andreas Engström wrote:[Meyer hardly ever thrusts. Ringeck/Von Dantzig thrust all the time. Just to mention one of the most glaringly obvious things.


:?

Meyer thrusts a lot. He just teaches in building blocks. Guards, the strikes, then deflections, then fighting in kreig. His thrusts are in the next section on rapier (cut and thrust), so he doesn't have to teach the same materials twice. He regularly states in his book that he intends for you to learn a technique in one discipline from another part of the book, so it is not special that he does it here. Also, he never says Germans don't thrust. He says Germans don't thrust other Germans, as it is considered bad form, they are only allowed to thrust outlanders. I believe at least one of the English masters says basically the same thing about them. Does that mean the English don't thrust also?

Back to the sword fighting. Different professional boxing coaches teach slightly different things. All professional boxers box slightly different as suits their strong and weak points. All professional boxers box using the basics of boxing. Nobody says "did you see him box? It was completely different from the other boxers. He must be from the Don King school." Hair... maybe. Boxing ... no. Sword fighting masters... same thing.

:lol:
User avatar
David Welch
Major
 
Posts: 847
Joined: 20 Mar 2006 18:44
Location: Tennessee, U.S.A

Postby Harry » 29 Nov 2007 00:12

for the training I use ringeck, because for longsword it is all I need

for dagger I use lignitzer
for wrestling: ott
for langes messer: leckküchner
for polearms: jeu de la hache and the gladiatoria
for halfswording: gladiatoria

this manuals combined with years of experience and lots and lots of errors, mistakes and replacements are far enough for a whole life.
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 Wolfgang Ritter » 29 Nov 2007 10:35

Hi David,
are you sure about the thrusting in Meyer?
I started with Meyer because his book seemed the closest to a modern instruction book I could think of and was at that time easier to read for me compared to Peter von Danzig, Ringeck, Hans von Speyer not to mention 3227a (the ones I work with nowadays with a focus on von Danzig and von Speyer; just to keep my posting at least a bit in the subject of this thread).
Anyway, it's been quite a while since I worked with it, but from what I remember, I have a different view:
Meyer seems to be rather complete in his teachings about the long sword so I don't know if the idea that the thrusts are taught in his rappier section and therefore are not mentioned in long sword is really intended. I never worked with the rapier but AFAIK he teaches stances, guards and cuts for rapier, doesn't he? If he does so, why should he then teach stances, guards and cuts for the long sword as well, but solely leaves out the thrusting?

I'm also unsure about your interpretation of
Also, he never says Germans don't thrust. He says Germans don't thrust other Germans, as it is considered bad form, they are only allowed to thrust outlanders.

From what I remember it's more about the different circumstances of practising fencing for preparation for a serious fight - or duel situation - and a more "sporting" purpose in his days of 1570.
Again, I worked with the long sword, dussack and staff sections, but never with his rapier sechtions, so I surely am missing something, not to mention that it's been a while since I read it.
So I may be wrong, therefore it would be nice, if you could quote the original sentences you were referring to?

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

Postby Oli » 29 Nov 2007 11:55

Wolfgang Ritter wrote:I'm also unsure about your interpretation of
Also, he never says Germans don't thrust. He says Germans don't thrust other Germans, as it is considered bad form, they are only allowed to thrust outlanders.



me too. i think it should read Germans don't trust Germans.
but imho nobody should trust Germans. if you look away for just a second they'll start invading small eastern european countries.

8)
I am the REAL Fabrice Cognot!
User avatar
Oli
Sergeant-Major
 
Posts: 233
Joined: 11 May 2006 09:32
Location: Vienna, Autriche

Postby Anders Linnard » 29 Nov 2007 11:56

Bill,
as Andreas pointed out I am not saying that there isn't a connection between the masters. That would be silly. That is however not the same thing as saying that they are all the same. The boxing example is both irrelevant and relevant. Boxing is a much more limited sport. But if you look back over the last 250 years of boxing, a time frame that roughly corresponds to the Liechtenauer tradition, you will see some clear differences in approaches, rules, focuses and so on.

/Anders
User avatar
Anders Linnard
General
 
Posts: 3410
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 21:06
Location: Gothenburg

Postby Wolfgang Ritter » 30 Nov 2007 09:35

Oli wrote:if you look away for just a second they'll start invading small eastern european countries.

8)

And who will be standing aside the road cheering and waving flags? :wink:
Wolfgang Ritter
Captain
 
Posts: 677
Joined: 17 Mar 2006 12:23
Location: hovering in nirvana

Postby Oli » 30 Nov 2007 12:56

Wolfgang Ritter wrote:
Oli wrote:if you look away for just a second they'll start invading small eastern european countries.

8)

And who will be standing aside the road cheering and waving flags? :wink:


nobody here but us victims ... 8)
I am the REAL Fabrice Cognot!
User avatar
Oli
Sergeant-Major
 
Posts: 233
Joined: 11 May 2006 09:32
Location: Vienna, Autriche

Postby Bill » 30 Nov 2007 15:53

Hello Andreas,
I agree that they are not the same, but I do not think that they are so different at least in the "German tradition" that you can not use one Masters work to discover, or "Hash out" something that is confusing in another Masters work, because of bad writing, odd poems, or what ever.
To me all the Masters opinions (and that is what they are. Now they are colored with their individual learning experiences and Teachers they learned from.) on the Liec verses all have something to add to each other.
But that is just MY opinion, and you know what they say about opinions.

Hello Wolfgang,
In the very first paragraph of the rapier section of Meyer1570 (Forgeng, Great book by the way.), He explains that the Germans did not permit the use of the thrust against each other in sport, in combat with each other both civilian and military.
Meyer also states in a couple of places in the Longsword part (just of the top of my head) that he would explain Stolen or broken stepping in the rapier section, and the proper use of the Iron gate because the true use of it (thrusting) is unknown with inexperienced fencers. I think.

Cheers
I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. ukn

What hurts.....Teaches German poverb

Bill
User avatar
Bill
Captain
 
Posts: 730
Joined: 20 Nov 2007 07:24
Location: Knoxville, TN.

Postby Anders Linnard » 30 Nov 2007 17:14

Bill wrote:Hello Andreas,
I agree that they are not the same, but I do not think that they are so different at least in the "German tradition" that you can not use one Masters work to discover, or "Hash out" something that is confusing in another Masters work, because of bad writing, odd poems, or what ever.
To me all the Masters opinions (and that is what they are. Now they are colored with their individual learning experiences and Teachers they learned from.) on the Liec verses all have something to add to each other.
But that is just MY opinion, and you know what they say about opinions.

Hello Wolfgang,
In the very first paragraph of the rapier section of Meyer1570 (Forgeng, Great book by the way.), He explains that the Germans did not permit the use of the thrust against each other in sport, in combat with each other both civilian and military.
Meyer also states in a couple of places in the Longsword part (just of the top of my head) that he would explain Stolen or broken stepping in the rapier section, and the proper use of the Iron gate because the true use of it (thrusting) is unknown with inexperienced fencers. I think.

Cheers


What you're saying is basically that there are differences as well as similarities. Aren't they worth exploring as well, instead of just mashing everything together? I agree that Meyer might give you clues to stuff, but as was noted before by Claus, it is important to be critical to the source. My concern was mainly over migrating content freely between authors to create a single Liechtenauer fencing style. Not that you should never read, use or refer to other manuscripts. Any content written in another manuscript does not constitute proof that is what the other author means. Especially not in cases where they clearly contradict eachother. I have even heard that such contradictions should be considered typos. I see them as evidence of a living tradition, rather than a dead one (of course there probably are typos, but that's another story).

/Anders
User avatar
Anders Linnard
General
 
Posts: 3410
Joined: 14 Mar 2006 21:06
Location: Gothenburg

Postby MugginsToadwort » 30 Nov 2007 17:56

The thrusts in Meyer are implicit in Meyer's section on winding, right at the end of the longsword book. I agree that Meyer is different to Ringeck/VD in the same way an orange is different to a lemon- but that's closer than either is to an apple. I like Meyer, but I still teach thrusts in the classical places Ringeck would use them- as well as Meyer's short edge cuts in close.
James Roberts
Medieval Armed Combat Society

Overqualified, overemployed, and looking to hit someone with a sword several times
User avatar
MugginsToadwort
Major
 
Posts: 892
Joined: 07 Apr 2006 12:30
Location: Pretoria, South Africa

Postby AdamR » 30 Nov 2007 21:28

...and Meyer's love of thrusts is visible in his description of the 'Key' guard - but it is a changed art - and of less value for me in trying to discover the truth I'm after. But that's the point here - there is no 'right' way - just the way we choose. I have changed tack several times until I have found one I feel will get me where I want to be.

What we should avoid is trying to make converts out of other practitioners - to 'our' way of thinking - or trying to decry 'their' method because it differs. I suggest the original aim of this thread is cold - a new thread should be started if people want to argue similarities/differences of particular masters.
User avatar
AdamR
Corporal
 
Posts: 30
Joined: 28 May 2007 20:43

Postby Bill » 01 Dec 2007 04:03

AdamR wrote:...and Meyer's love of thrusts is visible in his description of the 'Key' guard - but it is a changed art - and of less value for me in trying to discover the truth I'm after. But that's the point here - there is no 'right' way - just the way we choose. I have changed tack several times until I have found one I feel will get me where I want to be.

What we should avoid is trying to make converts out of other practitioners - to 'our' way of thinking - or trying to decry 'their' method because it differs. I suggest the original aim of this thread is cold - a new thread should be started if people want to argue similarities/differences of particular masters.


AMEN!!!!
I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. ukn

What hurts.....Teaches German poverb

Bill
User avatar
Bill
Captain
 
Posts: 730
Joined: 20 Nov 2007 07:24
Location: Knoxville, TN.

Previous

Return to Johannes Liechtenauer Lineage

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest