Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 1:53:49 GMT
Okay then, let's talk about masters. This modern italian master. What gives him the authority to say what was the primary basis of medieval/renaissance fencing? You've basically outlined that there is no way for us to know with a surety that our interpretations are correct, and no one is above that, especially someone who is a master of modern fencing(read: epee, foil, or saber). Second - if strength is the primary basis of the fighting methods that I'm studying, then it is safe to assume that it is far better to focus on strength rather than skill, as strength plays a bigger role therein. Were this the case, then my skill must be prodigious beyond reckoning for my victories over those who are so much stronger than I when strength is key, and not skill. Either that, or we can go with someone who ACTUALLY lived and practiced and used this stuff. Enter Hanko Dobringer, Codex HS.3227a, from 1389. In the first paragraph, the codex mentions 'art' 5 times, and strength zero times. In fact, strength is only mentioned a few times in the manual positively and mainly in a strong vs. weak situation. Thereafter there are abundant references to speed, skillfulness, art, agility, quickness, reach, measure, timing, bravery, intent, movement(the very heart and crown of fencing). Quote: "...Make without limit and end, that which is skillful." Quote:"Weak against strong, hard against soft, and vice versa. Because when it is strong against strong, the stronger one will always win. That is why Liechtenauer's swordsmanship is a true art that the weaker wins more easily by use of his art than the stronger by using his strength. Otherwise what use would the art be?" Anyone else wanna say that medieval/renaissance swordsmanship is strength based?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 2:14:29 GMT
Tsafa - I highly recommend taking an Aikido or Tai Chi seminar. Xing Yi or BaguaZhang would do also. Any internal art really.
In fact, I'll compile some pictures of Aikido technique and compare them side by side with pictures from different manuals of both Italian and German Origin. I have a mere 3 years of experience in Aikido, but I train 3-5 times a week there - so I'm sure my opinion regarding that carries some weight.
My conclusion from that, and also studying the manuals, and training in iai and practicing tameshigiri, and also wrestling in highschool and moderate cross training with judoka, jujutsu practitioners and escrima fighters, is that strength is a boon to the unskilled, and a beneficial but in the end unnecessary tool to the skilled in a martial struggle.
The fact of the matter is that Strength Based fighting is much quicker and easier to learn because of the way our minds work, the way we're brought up to think. Skillful fighting - tactics and technique to overcome strength - TRUE ART(as in martial ART) - takes much longer to develop but is, frankly, superior brute fighting.
Police Officers very rarely have any martial training outside of the very basic takedowns and controls taught to them at the academy - of course they're going to resort to strength based brute tactics in a riot situation.
going back to skill and technique being merely an appropriate application of brute force(as described by mr. Tsafa) - well that's just inaccurate. With timing and relaxation, very little effort can effect surprisingly powerful results. I would not classify that as 'brute force', but rather as 'sophisticated force'. Internal coordinated power will always have more effect than muscled brute power.
There are, literally, thousands of anecdotes from across the globe regarding martial arts masters to support that claim.
I would really implore you to find a local Aikido dojo. You don't need to get on the mat and pay for lessons or fight any of them, just politely ask to *lightly* experience some of techniques in a casual manner. You'd be surprised at how little strength does to help you. The most you can do is contract your limb or tense your body which will do one of two things: 1) Make the lock/fall that much harder and more painful, or 2) Prevent the technique from being applied but leave you open and less responsive to another technique.
And why is Aikido relevant to this discussion on european martial arts? well as I alluded to earlier - I'm going to compare depictions from both, side by side, to illustrate the remarkable similarities betwixt techniques of the two.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Feb 11, 2008 2:41:57 GMT
What? Adam actually agrees with john clements?
I should be smote just for forgetting that most basic principle of the manuscripts. Karma to you Adam, it's most well deserved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 4:22:05 GMT
Anyone else wanna say that medieval/renaissance swordsmanship is strength based? Depends. You must have a certain strength and endurance to hold the sword, swing it properly, etc. In a 1on1 fight, I would agree that skill matters far more than strength. But the fact remains that ir two people, equally skilled yet one having more strength than the other face off, the one with more strength has an advantage. Why? He has more at his disposal. Strength plays a part in the overall equation, along with skill, natural reaction time, reach and all sorts of other variables. To discount one in favor of others seems to indicate a lack of experience in bringing that skill to bear. Everyone has their preferred methods, yet to ignore basic advantages that some have seems to be counter-intuitive. In a melee, I would disagree entirely. There is far more of a general scrum/football mentality than a single disorganized mass (contrary to popular Hollywood belief). The rules seem to be "The stronger guy wins the shoving contest" along with "The first side to regroup soonest wins" and "It doesn't matter if you win your personal shoving contest, if none of your buddies do". If you have me vs a guy on horseback, then (assuming I am suicidal enough to stay there) the guy on horseback wins. Why? He has more mass than I do. No matter how much skill I have, there is very little I can do to stop the horse and rider from going over/around/through me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 5:19:32 GMT
Here is my analysis of how skill, strength and chance balance. This is my quote:
Adam, you raise many good points. First, what makes a master, a true master either today or historically. Is it the ability to write or draw? Is it military experience? Dueling experience? Theory? ...... I really don't know. My approuch is to study as many of them as I can and then see where I can apply that knowledge.
When I fight people I have been taught to sit down with them after and talk about the fight. The purpose is to gain their insight into my strengths or weaknesses. Sometimes the information gained is something I already knew or I can't use it. Many times I gain a very interesting insight. In practice your opponent can teach you better then anyone what your strengths and weaknesses are. My goal is to walk away from each fight with some new information I can use to fight better. If my opponent can do this for me, then I can consider him a master regardless of who he is.
Back to the strength issue. Adam as you know, I do rapier fencing. Rapier is among the least strength based of any sword art I know. You mentioned a number of Asian sword arts as an example of strength not being required. I can believe it, I see it in rapier. However, even though it is not advantageous for me to use my strength directly against my opponent, I use strength indirectly. My rapier is 48" long and allows me a good deal of extra range. Most people do not have the strength to fence with such a rapier and move it fluidly. My strength allows me to use a longer weapon and finesse it better.
In fighting with a longsword, I do not depend on strength. I do not train in such a manor that depends on it. However, it is an option I hold in reserve to use when I think it will benefit me. I believe in any martial art you want to keep as many of your options open and close off as many as possible to your opponent. So I don't always fight with strength, but it is an option for me.
BTW Adam, I can buy into the phrase "sophisticated force". I can agree it is better then "brutal force". I would consider brutal force as just shield-bashing someone. I would describe sophisticated force as striking with a sword over an opponents shield with enough force to give them a concussion (with a Norman helmet).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 6:46:30 GMT
Adam, as somebody who has done akido and had a ex who's parents taught akido, I can tell you that you still need strength. Not a huge amount porpotionately...but there can be sets up where the other guys just THAT much stronger then you(my ex had somebody dead to rights and he just used his strength to stay standing and force her down instead in a sparring match). I haven't had that happen when I did akido (because really you do need only small porpotionate amount in akido...which is why I like it so much)...but in jujitsu, I had somebody dead to rights in an arm bar and his reply was to stand up with me attached to his arm with me being able to do very little to him because he was just that much stronger then me. So yes, to say strength doesn't matter at all doesn't quite sit well with me. If you skilled enough, you can beat somebody stronger then you. If your strong enough however, you can also beat somebody more skilled then you. Yes enough brute force can win...hell even musashi proves this. Yes he does use tactics and dirty tricks a lot...but sometimes he just beats people down because he is stronger and bigger then others of his area and time. No finesse, no art...just die. (and I doubt many would not consider him a master of the sword). I mean even think about his famous duel with kojiro. He got an boat orr that he whittled down so it had more reach then kojiro's sword and just beat him down.
Yes hand to hand combat is brutal...there is no way around that. Even akido is brutal if you use it in a fight (I have...I broke a person's wrist and another's forearm using it). You have to realize that as much art you think is in it...these arts developed to kill others and keep you alive. There is noway around this brutality. Yes I know many dojo teach it's for self defense and to be gentle and what not...but that isn't what martial arts is. Martial arts is a tool...like a gun. HOW you use it, doesn't change what the tool is designed to do.
|
|
Razor
Member
Review Points: 55
Today is tomorrow but not yet yesterday
Posts: 501
|
Post by Razor on Feb 11, 2008 9:07:54 GMT
From what I see there as been a lot of discussion like this on the other forums. They say they don't want to turn a thread into "who is better" again. And I have seen comment like this "SCA primary focus is re-enactment & roleplaying (titles,kingdoms,etc.) and their fighting is not historical. I have no problem calling SCA a martial art but I wouldn't call it HEMA. I have seen SCA a couple of times and had some friends that used to be members,they weren't into the fighting, they just like to dress up and party for the weekend once a month. I would of went with them but I'm self employed and Saturday is a very busy day and it's hard for me to take it off. To me SCA looks more like stick fighting then it does sword fighting and that is because they use a baton/stick to simulate a sword. When people use round batons/sticks to simulate sword they tend to start using the baton more like a baton and less like a sword. Britain had the same problem with the singlestick and the singlestick was still used in training for the broadsword but also became it's own sport. Tsafa video show it, he is using his rattan sword and his real sword like a baton, he is hacking, chopping with his swords he is not cutting with them. He is also leaving his hand and arm an open target. The correct way to cut with a sword is to lead with the point of the sword ( it threatens the opponent, he has to deal with the threat and it helps to keep your hand/arm less of a target.) and not to chop like an ax or slice like a knife but to do both. Getting slightly more back on track, does anyone have a link, or can paraphrase from a book, what exactly the context is for Lichtenaur's specialized dueling shields? I am interested in this, as it may provide a possible link. The fact that I disagree with the centergrip usage of the shield being a totally different issue. Here is two free play videos of dueling shields and long sword. uk.youtube.com/watch?v=z9VG4ClQcJkuk.youtube.com/watch?v=KkFx8JdBodkAnd here is the SFI thread it came from. forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=84956The books "Spada" and "Spada II" also talks about shied use.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 11:15:31 GMT
I agree with razor, the one issue with what you are doing is that you don't consider the sword a sword and you also don't consider that a sword is used differently. I have seen a lot of those moves in different versions of stick fighting that I have seen and experienced. I can see the benefits of what you are doing but it isn't very accurate to the way a sword is actually used.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 13:13:02 GMT
Yet, swords in this age did not cut! How could they? They were facing the most contemporary armour of the day, which resisted cuts! Since we know that swords must have been used, and pretty popular, how did they use them then? The swords of that age were not thrusting swords. They were brutal hackers (as evidenced by their shape). If they were so thrusty, and based on the cut, then how is that possible against a mailled opponent? And if they would have switched, why does that not show anywhere? Swords are the most dominant form of weapon in all iconographic art for the period. So they must have been useful for something. Tsafa and I both maintain it is possible to beat on someone with a sword using percussive force through maille. Which is what the SCA essentially replicates. The arm does become a target, yet it is able to be blocked using the shield (not sure exactly if Tsafa showed this). The hand is a relatively difficult thing to hit, all things considered. It usually the fastest moving part of the arm. Bloodwraith, what is your experience with Western swords? I know you have mentioned several Eastern arts, but curious as to your relative experience with them, as they do take a significantly different technique, both to cut, and hit someone through maille.
One of the reasons I do not consider grappling an option is that we have exactly 0 extant daggers and recorded usage of daggers being used as sidearms in the 11th-13th century. We see brokeback saexs used by the Anglo-Saxons, yet not by the invading Normans, and then the resurgence of daggers on the battlefield in the 13th century. Where did they go for 200 years if everyone was grappling? Why do we have no finds, no iconographic evidence, no real record of them at all?
Razor, I had seen those Youtube videos, yet they really dont answer anything. They are using specialized shields, in what looks to be a completely unarmoured context, and still doesnt answer what the end goal was. Assuming it was only unarmoured combat, then it doesnt really have much relevance to what the SCA portrays, as everyone (going back to the first post again) is assumed to be wearing a maille hauberk . Spada and Spada II are both based on extrapolation as well as what we are doing, so holding them up as "following in a certain tradition" seems a stretch at best. I don't really have either, so I cant make judgements about what they drew from as material. Yet most of the sword/shield extrapolation is fundamentally flawed once you consider two very important aspects:
1. Most of the source material deals with unarmoured combat. 1a. If the above is false, then they are dealing with source material which assumes armour that is much more protective than the contemporary armour of the age. 2. Most of the source material was from an age where swords were designed to thrust much better than their earlier counterparts.
Again, I am not trying to hold up the SCA as the epitome of combat. Just saying that when people lose their pre-conceived notions about what we are doing (evident by the continual "Thrust more" and "Draw cuts") then the SCA can be seen as a contributing area of interest, instead of the bastard stepchild who lets the brutes beat on each other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 13:40:42 GMT
Oswyn: Re-enactment with a group called the New Varangian Guard, also much cutting practice with european weapons, favouring swords. Also more freestyle combat experience with swords, knives, and rattan simulators.
Also I don't consider the SCA to be brutes beating on each other, there is much skill involved but you can't deny that there is also a lot of brutes hammering on each other. I am not of the same opinion as olthers, I think that all combat teaches us something we can learn from. Am I saying that I think it could be more historically accurate, of course but then so can anything. None of us have anything close to the realities of what it is like to be in a real battle or fighting for our lives on a medieval battlefield. Sure we can thrust more and draw cuts and do whatever lichtenauer or one of those fancy blokes has in their manuals but it is our interpretation of their drawing and texts and things. We could be completely off, I remember writing up a martial arts manual once and giving it to a friend to read and he couldn't make much sense out of it, not because it was badly written but because it was how he intepreted it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 14:21:56 GMT
Sure, just interested in knowing where we all were coming from. New VG? Is that a LH group around the original, or just an interesting name?
I pretty much agree with your comments. One of the reasons the SCA has so many safety regulations in place is that we allow so many people to do this, with so little formalized training beforehand. I have been to a couple of "backyard" practices, where the rules have been a bit more lax, and it has been "interesting".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 15:01:44 GMT
The New Varangian Guard is a South Australian Group and are offshoot of another group called Miklagard. The Varangian Guard were the bodyguards of the Emperor of Constantinople (modern day Istanbul) from 800-1300 AD and our group focuses on the allies and enemies of Constantinople, which is also cool because it fits in with my religion. I had to quit it recently though, hopefully situations will right themselves so I can get back to it, as it is now I am down to just doing my ninjutsu which I also love doing. I have a wide range of experience and just to let you know I am not just talking out my a**e.
I think that the SCA is a very good thing for new people to learn at, but in my own case and opinion after I had done the fun beating around stuff I would want to move onto more accurate portrayals of battle and swordsmanship. I would much rather be going at half speed with real steel against real armour than walloping the other guy with a rattan simulator, I get enough of that from my friend who is a very experienced kendoka and frequently leaves me heavily bruised because my style is different to his.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 15:17:15 GMT
Sorry if I came across as saying you were. Just nice to compare experiences, as we all have different ones. I believe most of the VG left at about 1100's, but not totally sure. Most of the guys I know use the VG as an excuse to pair Norse timing with lamellar and bazubands (both popular in a time where solid limb defense is hard to hide).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 16:45:08 GMT
Razor...the tip of the sword is only a credible threat is 1) you are unarmored and 2) if your sword actually had a sharp tip. While many swords after the 1300 hundreds did have a tip, many before did not. Since the SCA is focused on before, what you think they should do with a sword just does not apply. Take a type X swords and try to do a tip cut and see if that is something somebody in chain would consider a threat or something to be ignored. I do agree that the "boxer" or "chicken" stance favored in the east does leave your arms more open then needed.
You can't take a manual or style from a sword used hundreds of years before or after a period and expect to be able to apply that directly. Yes some fundamentals are the same, but at some point thing just stop working. Try to do fiore with a khopesh and tell me how well that goes. Or try to do victorian rapier combat using a 15th centuray longsword. You MUST keep era in mind instead of well my WMA uses this style with this type of sword so it must work on ALL swords in ALL time periods. That's just foolish.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 17:24:20 GMT
Actually, spatulate tips can cut better then most people think. On light targets anyways. Also, thrusting tips on swords were common enough from the 11th century to the 13th. XI's and XVII's both have quite serviceable points.
Also, I would like to figure this out once and for all. What percentage of soldiers in an "average" 11th century battle wore maile?
I really don't think that it was the majority. Thus swords, were being used more against unarmoured or lightly armoured targets then armoured ones. That by itself makes the SCA inaccurate. The SCA seems more like a grand meele tournament then an actual battle. No cavalry, all armoured, blunt weapons. Maybe that's what we should be comparing it to, instead of actual warfare.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 17:47:58 GMT
Last I checked there wasn't too much plate at all in the years of 1000-1200. That's still pretty darn early and sword types like Type X, XI, and XII were most popular. Yes people wore mail - but there was plenty that mail did not cover that was exposed for cutting. And, IIRC, the spear was the infantry weapon of choice.
While I've seen that happen, a perfectly applied technique cannot be resisted with strength at all. Being human beings, none of us(excepting a fluke) can ever consistently and in a sparring situation pull off techniques perfectly and so some strength comes into it. If a person resists a technique due to massive strength, and you stay with them and allow them to move/position themselves back into a centered state then this is not aiki - this is struggling. Better to blend - because if they're using strength to resist something in one direction, then they cannot use strength in another. This is the same principle as being weak/strong at the sword.
I still disagree that Martial Arts are for fighting. Most people don't realize this, but to have a study be for fighting is the very antithesis to a true martial art.
Martial Arts, even those of hundreds or thousands of years ago used on the battlefield had a single purpose : Ending Conflict. Whether it was a macro-conflict of two lords, nobles, or shoguns, or whatever; or a micro-conflict between one man and another - martial arts are the study of how to end this conflict quickly and in your favor.
Men being what they are, a lot of conflict leads to physical fighting. In this case martial arts can be an understanding of kinesthetics and anatomy and the applied knowledge thereof to give you a greater chance of a positive resolution to the conflict.
But this is not fighting physically is like trying to win an argument by simply yelling insults at a person - all it does is cause more conflict, and eventually, they may become overwhelmed and just leave, leading you to believe that you won the conflict. However this is not the case.
A true victory in true martial arts is one where you have victory over your own shortcomings, where you win regardless of size or speed differences. If I win because I'm faster or stronger than someone that's not a real win because if they were faster or stronger I wouldn't have won. If I win through good timing and technique it doesn't matter how fast or strong they are - this is a real victory.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 17:57:58 GMT
Tsafa: Yes, analysis afterwards is always very good. When I have students in class spar I always ask them "How was it for you" "How did you feel you did" "How did you feel your opponent did?" Etc. It helps us internalize and learn from the experience of the match.
I also disagree that between two equally skilled people the stronger will win, as size plays a key role, and there are advantages to being smaller than an opponent in a physical conflict. If they're equally skilled and their skill is not good, then yes probably the stronger will win. But if they're equally skilled and that skill level is very high, then it is impossible to say who would win, as being highly skilled means playing your strengths and your opponent's weaknesses. And being strong is only one such 'strength' among many.
I remember a Boxer named Ali that ended up beating opponents with more experience who were much stronger by use of his speed - evasion and quickness, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 18:29:48 GMT
That is my point, Adam. Strength is a relative thing after a certain skill level. The same is true in the SCA. Just because I can hit a guy into next Tuesday, doesn't mean that gains me any advantages. It is being "strong enough", rather than strong. I think we are thinking of the same thing, just approaching it from different sides. The only point where strength comes into play in SCA strikes (after the initial "strong enough" phase), is how some people develop speed. Some manage to get more of a flick, and others rely on the power of their bodies to speed the sword.
I am curious what you think maille doesnt cover. There is every indication that by the middle of the 11th century there were hauberks covering to the elbow and knee, and by the end of the 12th century, full mufflers were integrated. Chausses were a later development, yet for infantry the leg was not nearly as important as the head (aka. hit them in the leg (Ow!) vs the head (Boink! Out Cold). Of course I am simplifying things, but I would still think that the head and other vital areas are much higher on the threat list than the lower leg.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 18:30:11 GMT
DI, I don't think anyone is saying that SCA wars are even remotely realistic since if you pull calvary out of it, well thats just a huge chunk of warfare that is unaccounted for. You could get a SMALL sense...but to claim that is what REAL war was like is laughable. I would also say this is true of ANY re-enactment or ability to recreate since really there is no safe way to massive calvary charges that isn't choreographed.
As for everyone in maille...it's just a standard so everyone has something the same. Even if they are wearing plate, for a SCA tourney you are assumes to be in maille. If you wear bare min. the same applies. Note that at local fighter practices, we do change things up for those of use who are more scholarly inclined. And even if your local group isn't, if you suggest it, I'm sure the martals would be more then willing to try it out for the sake of learning more (assuming what you suggest is safe). You'd be surprised how many SCA fighter are actually into learning more and becoming better if given the opertunity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 19:08:34 GMT
To quote a passage on medieval armor of the 12th century:
"The hauberk was the chief part of the Medieval Armor of the period. It reached to the knees. The skirt sometimes opened in front, sometimes at the sides. The sleeves usually terminated at the elbow, but occasionally extended to the wrist. Sometimes the hauberk reached as high as the neck only, but more generally it was continued so as to form a coif, leaving only the face of the knight exposed."
Which means more often than not the legs are exposed, as are the forearms and face. Sometimes even the whole neck and head. Occasionally the forearms are protected by the mail. The hauberks were also split either at the sides or in the front, which could lead to access to the fleshier legs underneath in some situations(particularly with the then-equivalent attack to what I call an 'unterhau').
And while chainmail is very tough stuff, eventually they did go on to develop plate, which means it had to be lacking against the swords of the era.
As I understand it, more mail over the simpler padded/leather armor led to the development of swords that had a better thrusting potential(i.e. type xii and xiv over x and xi), though the cut was still very useful for exploiting against those of lesser armor or even in the failings of the coif/hauberk described above. The thrusting potential and the more acute tip of the xii would be essential to pierce through the rings of those in the later 1200's who had coifs that terminated in gloves for the hands and thus protected virtually the entire upper body.
With the Type XII and XIV swords doing their work, armor even more resistant to cuts that also gave thrust protection was needed, and so plate began to be developed. It wasn't until the 1400's that nigh-invulnerability from these swords(types X through XIV) was attained. However, as the armor developed, so did the swords, and we see things like the type XV, XVI, and XVII. Also I would imagine it was around this time that half-swording became far more common against a man in plate armor, as the precision and added strength was necessary to get the point through or between the plates, whereas with mail even a moderate single handed thrust with a Type XIV blade would penetrate mail easily enough.
|
|