Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2008 20:16:52 GMT
I didn't talk about Fiore. As I said: difficult topic.
|
|
|
Post by alvin on Sept 5, 2008 20:20:34 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. This statement borders on the incredulous. It would be laughable had it not been for your previous postings in this thread in which you attempted to make Liechtenauer fit into the class of swordsman posed by this thread’s original question - into which he doesn't fit. Your insulting responses and immature use of “ just because there’s no evidence “, “ there must be evidence “, “ it follows logical suit, “ he must have been “, and other “ what if “ types of “reasonings” show that you were fully aware of the intent of this thread. As I have stated before, apparently Liechtenauer did leave a legacy of a particular type of swordplay and had many followers. I have researched the “Liechtenauer story " and have found no real proof that he existed as a person. The German peoples are well known for maintaining records. Why then are there only references to Liechtenauer’s apparent period of birth in the early to mid 1300’s, possibly in Lichtenau, Mittelfranken ? Why is basically everything relating to his life found in Hanko Dobringer’s writing and other second- and third-hand writings ? The use of the word apparently is quite popular in this body of literature concerning his birth, life and teachings. The cleric/priest Hanko Dobringer claims to have known Liechtenauer and to have passed on some of Liechtenauer's teachings in the his 1389 Nürnberger Handschrift GNM 3227a, in which Dobringer describes Liechtenauer’s fencing style, along with other fencing forms, magic formulas, alchemical recipes, a treatise on fireworks, miscellaneous Latin recipes, treatment of gems, preparation of a miraculous potion, recipes for dental hygiene, various alchemical recipes, food recipes, nonsense recipes, etc. etc. etc. And apparently – there’s that word again – there is no detailed record of Liechtenauer having killed anyone, much less everyone he killed. I am not saying, and have never said, that Liechtenauer did not exist, nor denied his apparent contribution to WMA but, I am curious as to any real, firsthand proof that this man existed – where’s the beef ? I would like to pose this question to the more knowledgeable, mature members of our Forum. Members who do not have an obvious, almost religious, bias towards this man and his fencing style. Members such as giraut, brotherbanzai, tsafa and others who have knowledge. I note that tsafa is a member in good standing with the New York Historical Fencing Association, a group that studies Liechenauer under the leadership of Christian Henry Tobler, a very respected name in WMA.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2008 20:37:06 GMT
I don't understand why you're working so hard to debase liechtenauer - I've done nothing but suggest he was a prolific western swordsman, and you seem dead bent on proving he wasn't.
First - there are other types of evidence that the literal records kept by a society.
Second - There *must* be a lot of records which were kept that have either been lost or destroyed or something. I'm not saying there's definitely a record of bodies behind Liechtenauer, only that there *could* be.
Third - Liechtenauer was either an amazing swordsman, or an amazing charlatan. Considering the success of his line of teaching, the references made to him from just about everybody else who came later, and so forth, it is, to me at least, proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was a swordsman, as his techniques were actually used by people on the field of battle. Nobility comissioned works from people teaching his methods, and so on, and so forth.
I do not understand why this is so hard to grasp - i don't think i'm being fanatical at all, in fact, it seems highly logical to me.
I mean really, there's plenty of actual evidence backing up Liechtenauer as a swordsman - there just isn't a list of actual duels he fought - there very well may be, there might not be. Frankly, I don't think it's important at this point.
Your description of the Dobringer text seems to have the intent of discrediting it for it's strange contents - but those were beliefs at the time - that was their culture. We cannot hold it to the standards of professional or academic papers today.
I'm really, truly, completely, and sincerely am SORRY for coming across as incredulous, insulting or immature. That's as honest and true as I can put it. It was *never* my intention to be that way, and whether or not you think I am, doesn't make a difference. I *personally* am having a hard time understanding your sheer derision of the German School of Swordsmanship.
That's what I was going off of (and I think I presented good arguments - even if not the best worded). I don't mind disagreement, but if refusal to acknowledge that Liechtenauer fits into that category based on the assumption that he wasn't a good swordsman because we don't have a record of dead-men is silly.
So you know what? you win. I'm sorry. Have your victory. If you can't analyze what evidence we do have about Liechtenauer in an objective way, then there's no point in continuing. If the only thing that matters to you about establishing the skill of a fighter is how many people he killed, then I guess I'm out of luck.
Donald McBone is clearly the best swordsman the world has ever seen.
Happy now?
|
|
|
Post by alvin on Sept 5, 2008 20:43:15 GMT
Adam, from some of your statements above and in the rest of this thread, I must conclude that you don't have a clue as to what I have said. You can, of course, misrepresent my words, but it only reflects, in my opinion, on your lack of maturity.
Said only with true love for you.
|
|
|
Post by brotherbanzai on Sept 5, 2008 23:04:35 GMT
Hey giraut, I can't seem to think of Cyrano without picturing Gerard Depardieu Hey Sam, do you study Fiore? I don't really know much about him since I opted for the German system rather than the Italian. It's been my understanding that the two are very similar. Alvin, It's my understanding that we have next to nothing along the lines of info about Liechtenauer as a man. There has been no record yet found of him other than the mentions in the fechtbucher written by those who came after him. Just got off the phone with one of my training partners who studied for years with Christian Tobler and is still good friends with him (I've only had the opportunity to train with Christian on one occasion) and he confirms this. Christian has done an awful lot of research over the years and hasn't found anything more than that.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Sept 6, 2008 0:10:12 GMT
I see both adam's and alvin's point. I'll just say that there is more to greatness than winning duels
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2008 0:16:38 GMT
Hey Sam, do you study Fiore? I don't really know much about him since I opted for the German system rather than the Italian. It's been my understanding that the two are very similar. No I do not, though if I had the time to study swordsmanship over swordmaking I certainly would study Fiore's, the way he comes across in his attitude towards the art is second to none (in so little as I have read among the fighting books). In short, Fiore's got STYLE, and a no shet talking attitude.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2008 0:45:01 GMT
Hi everybody, This is a interesting thread, I love History. It's true that it seems eastern swordsmen are more popularly known. Many names spring to mind as to whom was a prolific western swordsman: Was Alexander the Great mentioned? -Egill Skallagrimsson (his saga, while exagerating the facts for literary reasons, mentions many battles and a few duel if I remember right) There are other famous norse swordsmen cited in sagas... -Mademoiselle de Maupin (opera singer and lady duellist -quite a few actually- she fought dressed as a man, romantic kidnapper, assassin, an interesting character) -The Chevalier de Saint-George (composer and master fencer, founder of the American Hussars during the French Revolution, his music's being re-discovered) -The Chevalier d'Andrieux (72 rapier duels at 30 yrs old (!!!)) -The count of Bouteville (more than 20 rapier duels at 28 yrs old, decapitated after duelling the same day as Louis XIII prohibited duels ) -The (Haitian-born) Maître d'Armes Jean-Louis (in a duel between 30 duellists of 2 regiments, Jean Louis mortally wounded his first opponent, then went on and killed the second and the third, one after the other, and gave the 12 others 27 sword wounds.) And there are many more contenders...but this list's long enough... But to whom is the most prolific...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2008 5:43:35 GMT
Reflingar, that is quit a list. I am very impressed. Karma +1.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2008 11:19:51 GMT
Reflingar: thanks for mentioning Jean-Louis. FYI: In Masters Academy I've learned that he was inventor of the foil. My teacher was very certain, that foil wasn't a 'training substitute for epee', but a deadly weapon which needed a certain, very lethal, fencing style - the foil fencing. In Europe we have one problem when it comes to tell about fencers who have killed many opponents: they were either soldiers (like Jean-Louis) in which case sword wasn't the primary weapon anymore and in which case their deeds usually weren't recorded, or they killed in duels. Now - duels were part of society but strictly forbidden. Everyone who was envolved in a duel, be it as combatant or second or judge (which was in many cases a fencing master) was thrown into prison. Imprisonment lastet some weeks or months and , what is important, it was NOT documented. So we have no documents of honourable men having been imprisoned because of duels. In 17th century some 4000 french nobles were killed during duels, but we don't know their opponents. We only know of "VIP-duels" like English Prime Minister William Pitt against George Tierney in 1798 (which was a pistol duel) and many others. This makes it so very difficult to find names of "effectiv" duellists who may have killed many.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2008 16:44:16 GMT
Thanks for the karma Tsafa!
Giraut: you're welcome.
Interesting about Jean Louis inventing the foil, never heard about it...
There's an interesting book on the history of duels by a guy called Monestier (was it Martin, I'm not sure). It's in french thought (a problem for non-french readers...obviously, I'll try and find references in English) and more on the sensationalistic side but still quite interesting.
I think many duellists in fact had their career witnessed and documented by courts gazettes and in the biographies of witnesses for example....even in official documents: arrest warrants and the like. Like in Bouteville example. But it's true that it is a matter less well documented than others. A witness or court "journalist" retelling a duel might exaggerate and distort his story for sure...
By the way, I would had to the list Bussy d'Amboise, that fought many duels including one that takes it's roots in an argument about the color of a dress (or was it of a window drape?): one said it is this colour, this other said it's another colour, next thing you know they fought until first blood. A very futile reason for risking death...almost absurdly comic, no?
Anyway, I'll still investigate as to whom could qualify as the most prolific western swordsman...I'm forgetting someone, I'm sure...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2008 19:39:31 GMT
There's a very interesting German book about the history of duels: 'DAS DUELL, Zweikampf um die Ehre' by Dietmar Kuegler. Just now at eBay: -clic-.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2008 22:28:14 GMT
I would like to know more about this woman. She sounds very intriguing.
|
|
|
Post by alvin on Sept 6, 2008 22:39:36 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2008 13:51:31 GMT
Interesting link for infos on La Maupin, Alvin!
We would add to the list (if not already mentioned):
William Marshal: was he only good with the lance on a horse or also "prolific" with the sword? Raised to the legendary status as a knight however...
Donald McBane: Scottish soldier, fencer, duellist, gambler and pimp. (ref. found in The Deadliest Men by Kirchner)
Antoine Charles Louis Lasalle: hussar in Napoleon's army, rose to the rank of general, reckless, always charging in front of his men, died at 34 during a charge, had declared: "A hussar which is not dead by the time he is 30 is a blackguard". Lots of sabre fights to his account. Quite detailed article on Wikipedia.
But William Marshal is an interesting contender, no?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2008 17:17:10 GMT
Yes. Enough documents that show how a "Fechtschul" was "hold". What would these documents be? Any titles or authors you could name would be appreciated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2008 20:03:13 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2008 15:50:16 GMT
Thanks.
I have Mr. Amberger's wonderful book. I can't read German so I didn't read the other links. A few issues I have here are:
He's talking about a public display in the late sixteenth century. German fechtbuchs go as far back as the late fourteenth century. Fiore studied under German masters and he published in the early fifteenth century. Tallhoffer, Ringeck, and the Codex Wallerstein are all from the fifteenth century. There's a pretty big gap in time there. Just because fight demonstrations were put on in the late sixteenth century does not mean the teachings from the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were also meant solely for display.
Also, the existence of swordplay demonstrations alone does not mean that swordplay was meant solely for display. There are plenty of target shooting matches today that bear little or no resemblance to combat, yet does that mean that methods of using guns are meant only for display?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2008 16:10:02 GMT
Even in the asian arts, many schools do public demonstrations where they tend to 'flash up' their techniques to woo the crowd - this does not make their art any less martial, it just means they're doing the flashy stuff for a demo, as I'm sure they realized, just as we now do, that actual effective fighting isn't usually pretty to most people.
In any case, the english account above doesn't seem to imply that there wasn't a very advanced and sophisticated fighting system - in fact to be taken the way it's presented requires us to assume there is a sophisticated and developed method to their art. It's clear that the 'fechschule' in question is a public demo and a tournament of sorts between the Federfechter and the Marxbruder. It also seems to imply that they study together in a 'guild' or 'dojo' of sorts when not competing.
I also second the comments that the year given in the account is 1607 - quite a bit after many of the manuals were written - Dobringer is from 1389, Talhoffer and Fiore both in the 1400s. Not saying this means anything concrete, but, for example, look at how much the culture of us here in the USA has changed in the last 200 years...
(it's a lot, for those who don't know)
Just my .02.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2008 17:54:46 GMT
on a lighter note......can't believe that no one had mentioned Conner or Duncan Macleod.. Seriously though...the more I read and study longsword...I find myself drawing from both German and Italian styles. billiam
|
|