|
Post by randomnobody on Sept 4, 2008 3:41:57 GMT
I wasn't aware Hercules was known as a swordsman. Since we're in mythology, though, how 'bout that Achilles fellow? He looked pretty good in the movie Troy.
|
|
|
Post by YlliwCir on Sept 4, 2008 8:46:40 GMT
I think we should exclude gods and their offspring as they have an inherent advantage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2008 11:17:20 GMT
One of the most important and most active swordsman in Europe was Wilhelm Kreußler. He lived in the early 17th century and founded a dynasty of fencing masters who were leading German masters until 19th century. (1597 - 1819) Kreußler introduced Stoßfechten (thrusting) into German fencing which replaced the older system of Hiebfechten (blowing, cutting). It was Kreußler, not Lichtenauer, by the way. Wilhelm Kreußler was said to be "invincible".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2008 11:31:00 GMT
I have to say that anyone who can write the way he did had to be an accomplished swordsman, you can't write like that just from theory. Also as someone else said for the time period he lived he would have needed to be a damn good swordsman just to survive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2008 11:47:43 GMT
Kreußler introduced Stoßfechten (thrusting) into German fencing which replaced the older system of Hiebfechten (blowing, cutting). What do you mean by this? Thrusting is mentioned in the Liechtenauer manuals...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2008 17:12:03 GMT
Yes. Though it was introduced by Kreußler.
I know this one may be tough: don't overvalue Lichtenauer. There's a lot of John Clements behind all this hype. My personal point of view: quite a lot of those "old fencing books" have no relation to any actual combat. What they show is an old form of show-fencing. Kind of medieval and renaissance wrestling events (like those modern wrestling shows). "Fechter" (Fencer) at that time were no warriors, but carnies, jugglers or even beggars. Techniques we see in some of these old books are just for show. We know, that the so called "Fechtschul" was no fencing-school. These events were professional show events where professional artists (fencers) showed their tricks. And that's what some of these books show: tricks for carnies (fairground entertainers). No real combat techniques for using in the streets or at war. My POV, of course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2008 17:21:56 GMT
From Dobringer:
For you should strike or thrust in the shortest and nearest way possible. For in this righteous fencing do not make wide or ungainly parries or fence in large movements by which people restrict themselves. Many Masters of play fighting [Leychmeistere] say that they themselves have thought out a new art of fencing that they improve from day to day. But I would like to see one who could think up a fencing move or a strike which does not come from Liechtenauer’s art. Often they want to alter or give a new name to a technique, all out of their own heads and think up wide reaching fencing and parries and often make two or three strikes when one would be enough or stepping through and thrust, and for this they receive praise from the ignorant. With their bad parries and wide fencing they try to look dangerous with wide and long strikes that are slow and with these they perform strikes
that miss and create openings in themselves. They have no proper reach in their fencing and that belongs not to real fencing but only to school fencing and the exercises for their own sake. But real fencing goes straight and is simple in all things without holding back or being restricted just as if a string had been tied or as if they had been connected. When you strike or thrust at another in front of you, then no strikes or thrusts before or behind, nor besides or wide reaching movements or many strikes will help if you hold back and lose the chance. Instead you must strike straight and direct to the man, to the head or to the body whatever is the closest and quickest. This must be done with speed and rather with one strike than with four or six which will again leave you hanging and giving the opponent a chance to hit you.
It would appear clearly stated here that they are not playfighting in Liechtenauer's art, as clearly they deride it. Also they mention thrusting. This is clearly before the 17th century, being in 1389.
Later on however, Meyer and people from his time practiced Longsword for sport and show - I will admit that. Longsword became old-hat in those days as far as self defense was concerned, and their fights were "to the first bleeding head wound" and they were disallowed thrusts(with longsword anyway). Meyer taught his rappier for actual combat/civilian defense (though even that was a cut/thrust sword, and not the purely thrust oriented kind of fencing you see in Italy/France/Spain). This was right around 1600 AD.
I still wouldn't call them 'Carnies' though, because even in that day being able to prove that you were a 'Master of Longsword' by the Marxbruder automatically doubled your pay if you were a soldier.
Wasn't Kreußler a Smallswordsman?
|
|
|
Post by brotherbanzai on Sept 4, 2008 21:23:08 GMT
Hi giraut, I think you've received some misinformation about Liechtenauer. Thrusting is mentioned several times within the first few paragraphs of his merkeverse dating from the mid to late 1300s. The early works weren't illustrated at all, the first illustrations appear in 1452 and even those are only of the four primary guards. Ringeck was the fencing master to Albrecht, Duke of Bavaria, so I don't think those old guys were carnies putting on shows. You may be thinking of later people in the tradition. By Meyers time the use of the longsword was mostly sport.
I would agree with Alvin though that Liechtenauer is out since we have no written evidence of him being a fighter. Though it is suggested, since as a journeyman he would have traveled around studying with various masters and would have been "tested". But that still doesn't really have the same connotations as Musashi fighting duals. I could have an excellent firearms instructor who could clearly handle himself in a tight spot but it would be overreaching to assume he must have shot a lot of people.
Liechtenauer- definitely in if we're talking about swordsmen with great influence, out if we're talking purely fighters with a long line of bodies behind them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2008 22:18:00 GMT
So this thread is about how many people they've killed? or about people with renowned skill?
|
|
|
Post by alvin on Sept 4, 2008 22:28:24 GMT
So this thread is about how many people they've killed? or about people with renowned skill? I believe that the originator of this thread inquired about people that were both.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2008 22:49:04 GMT
I vote for Vlad the Impaler. His first tutor in knighthood was an elderly boyar who had fought against the Turks at the battle of Nicolopolis. As an adult he managed to subdue a hostile nobility in his own land plus an invading Turkish army three times greater then his own. His ferocity in combat and politics has made him into one of the greatest legends ever. He is the Legend of Dracula which if anything softens his image up from who he really was.
With regard to the 15th and 16th century masters... much thanks to them for leaving us some record of the details of dueling. As to who they were in they their time... well they were literate. That says a lot. Who was literate in the 15th century. Clergy and Merchants. Nobles start to become literate, but those are the one who are business minded.
|
|
|
Post by swordboy bringer of chaos on Sept 4, 2008 23:27:30 GMT
So this thread is about how many people they've killed? or about people with renowned skill? thats how samurai got known ........ fame through infamy
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2008 7:16:46 GMT
I'm sorry then. I completely misunderstood the objective of this thread. I was acting off of the assumption that it was for european swordsman of renown or high calibre.
You are right, Liechtenauer does not have a detailed record of everyone he killed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2008 10:00:05 GMT
Hi giraut, I think you've received some misinformation about Liechtenauer. Thrusting is mentioned several times .. Yes. Neverthelesse you might consider: thrusting as a technique wasn't 'invented' by Lichtenauer. If you have a look at early celtic sword some thousand years earlier, you will notice that many were made as thrusting swords. So thrusting is a very old technique. As my first maitre, a French master who learned fencing when it was still a duell-technique, said: 'the techniques we learn are hundreds or even thousands of years old. These are the survivor's techniques. That's why I mentioned Kreußler who fought lots of duells and killed his oppponents. We don't know the number. Lives were cheap, in those times. Wasn't Cyrano de Bergerac a great duellist, too?
|
|
|
Post by brotherbanzai on Sept 5, 2008 14:40:34 GMT
Hey giraut, I don't think anyone's suggesting Liechtenauer 'invented' thrusting, only that the technique has been in the German system since it was codified by him in the 1300's.
Oo, Cryano is another good one, I'd put him on the list.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2008 17:38:21 GMT
Hi giraut, I think you've received some misinformation about Liechtenauer. Thrusting is mentioned several times .. Yes. Neverthelesse you might consider: thrusting as a technique wasn't 'invented' by Lichtenauer. If you have a look at early celtic sword some thousand years earlier, you will notice that many were made as thrusting swords. So thrusting is a very old technique. Meaning it was around long before KreuBler, too. There's a lot of John Clements behind all this hype. My personal point of view: quite a lot of those "old fencing books" have no relation to any actual combat. What they show is an old form of show-fencing. Kind of medieval and renaissance wrestling events (like those modern wrestling shows). "Fechter" (Fencer) at that time were no warriors, but carnies, jugglers or even beggars. Techniques we see in some of these old books are just for show. We know, that the so called "Fechtschul" was no fencing-school. These events were professional show events where professional artists (fencers) showed their tricks. And that's what some of these books show: tricks for carnies (fairground entertainers). No real combat techniques for using in the streets or at war. My POV, of course. Evidence for this?
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Sept 5, 2008 17:42:14 GMT
Possibly, but not so cheap that murder wasn't still a horrendous crime that was punishable by death. I think that life was still very valueable in these times.
For the record I don't think lichtenauer is the "best" (or whatever) european swordsman just because he left some manuscripts. I think he is the bst because of the amount of influence he had on fighting style. I'm not sure everyone here is aware as to just how wide spread longsword fencing was. Even if he didn't invent the system, he still was able to teach it and master it to the point where it was still in existence several hundred years later. Lines of bodies means little compared to creating a fencing system used by all of europe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2008 18:14:01 GMT
Fiore, cause he was a friggin awesome guy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2008 20:04:14 GMT
... ('fechter = modern wrestler')... Evidence for this? Yes. Enough documents that show how a "Fechtschul" was "hold". It was a show. The actors were showmen, no warriors. Sorry. BTW: you know that Lichtenauer didn't write any books, don't you? They were written by others who claimed to have learned from L. But whatever, I don't want to discuss this too long, it's a tough topic and arguing may easily arise. So - let's try to be wise and discuss this later, if necessary, okay? Cyrano was a duellist who killed a lot of men. I know there were quite a lot of professional duellists especially in France who made a living from duels. Unfortunately I don't know any names. *sigh*
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Sept 5, 2008 20:13:17 GMT
That's sort of difficult. You make claims like this and then don't want to argue, yet your claims beg for some disagreement to emerge. Too much evidence points to the fact that these teachers actually have been in war - Fiore for example, had seen combat before writing his treatise. If you'd like to believe that just because something was written down means that it's false, go ahead, however you're going to have to convince a lot of us that you're not disagreeing for disagreement's sake. I see no reason to doubt the lethality and effectiveness of the old masters - adam's longsword video's clearly show their amazing versatility and combat usage.
|
|