posted 10-17-2002 09:10 AM               

I can't think of the top of my head about other treatises that might but I await to be proved wrong

posted 10-18-2002 04:51 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joerg Bellinghausen:
There is unfortunately not previous frame, but judging the whole situation, I'ld be inclined to think the throw was done right from the draw.

Jörg

---

---I agree with Jorg. The fighter has essentially thrown the hat and the dagger at almost the same time. The hand that threw the hat is down and the one that threw the dagger is up. This implies to me that the dagger was thrown as an "underhand" throw. The distance is also close enough that it was likely a "direct" throw, i.e....no rotation of the weapon in the air. This is the only plate from the historical manuals that I have come across so far that features throwing the dagger.

Keith
ARMA-D.C.

posted 10-18-2002 08:51 AM               

"Das blenden a(o?)b dem haupt
darby der wurff (later added in another handwriting: in leib)"

'darby' is a somewhat odd spelling of the word 'dabei', which means "in doing so".

So, this could be translated:

"The blinding towards the face
in doing so the throw"

So, this IS a simultaneous action.

posted 05-06-2003 02:24 PM               

What you should remember, Slasher, is that modern knives and daggers of past are as different as apples and oranges.

Daggers were primarily thrusting implements as opposed by most knives which are for cutting, not to mention have sharper and shorter edges. Thus it was more effective to apply the reverse grip for daggers than it is for knives.

posted 05-07-2003 07:08 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slasher:
A very good explanation about the reverse grip, and why current experts have found it should not be used, can be found here. This discussion is a very good example of what goes wrong if you use primary sources when youre unqualified.

---

Try those cut againt a modern motorcycle learther garment or against a properly made doublet (let alone an arming one, and iam not even mentioning a jack..) and you will see that this type of cut is not very effective unless you have an heavy blade (bu then it is hardly a slash any more.
If you have the occasion dress a bag with a military jacket and coat and you'll see that doing significant damage with slashing to the bag is quite hard.
hence a good cutter or good piercer are more adapted. and then the staying at a safe distance is more problematic.

You can still target the hand will you say. that become more problematic with the roundel guard and or gloves.

basically what you can do with a 15-20" bladed roundel dagger has nothing in common with what you can do with a 10" SAS dagger or even 14-15" bowie let alone a 6-10" tanto or other modern knives.

posted 05-07-2003 11:45 AM               

This is not a good article. It is based on the presumption that one will be fighting at long range, making little cuts at the other's extremities. This is not what mediaeval dagger fighting was about: one wanted to kill one's opponent as quickly as possible, then move on. No long, drawn-out duels that leave both fighters shredded but alive.

This guy actually believes it is a good idea to use the knife in a finger grip, instead of holding it tight. I have done some experiments on a cow [dead, but still spasming, in an abbattoir] and I can tell you with some confidence that if you want to do some serious damage, you'll grip as tightly as you can.

He is talking about accuracy of aim, as if you have the time and the opportunity in a dagger fight to aim at a square centimeter. When I spar, I aim for the torso instead of for the left chamber of his heart. There is no such accuracy if you are violently fighting.

posted 05-07-2003 11:35 PM               

Hi Slasher,

Have you seen the sources in question? They cannot be interpreted any other way. Given that the reverse grip method of fighting survived largely unaltered from at least 1410 (Fiore dei Liberi) until 1606 (Salvator Fabris). This is almost 200 years and most probably longer as Fiore was an old man when he wrote down his method and the dagger was worn with the rapier for many years after Fabris wrote his manual.

It is a reasonable assumption that chaps who actually used daggers in duels etc knew more about this method that we do.

Do you really think someone like Mr Thompson can compete with a method that lasted as long as it did by putting on some armour and hacking with a padded weapon at somebody in order to create a system?
Cheers,
Stu.

posted 05-08-2003 09:20 AM            

That IC can't aim while sparring does not say that he shouldn't be able to. He might be able to aim better if he used proper technique.

A dagger is a type of knife, and the fighting style is similar for all knives.

posted 05-08-2003 02:50 PM               

quote:

---

I have seen the sources, yes. I think they are very ambiguous. The article is a solid essay by an expert from the fighting knife industry.

---

There are some area within the historical manuals that are ambiguous. However, I don't think any other person here would say that the dagger sections are ambiguous, they are in fact the most clear. If they seem ambiguous to you then please ask some of the fine people on this forum for help.

quote:

---

That IC can't aim while sparring does not say that he shouldn't be able to. He might be able to aim better if he used proper technique.

---

He explained himself very clearly and he was describing proper technique for a Med & Renn dagger.

quote:

---

A dagger is a type of knife, and the fighting style is similar for all knives.

---

They answered this very clearly for you. A dagger may be considered a type of knive but all knives are not used the same! You are welcome to believe what you wish.

Do keep in mind that an "expert" is someone who knows more and more about less and less until they know absolutely everything about nothing!

posted 05-08-2003 06:34 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall Pleasant:

Do keep in mind that an "expert" is someone who knows more and more about less and less until they know absolutely everything about nothing!

---

posted 05-08-2003 06:44 PM               

Hi Slasher,

Mr Thompson is a knife maker which does not automatically qualify him to know how to fight with one. He shows only two versions of the reverse grip in his article. The ones he shows are designed for long daggers. The reverse grip one uses for a short cutting blade is held on the centreline with the forearm in a horizontal plane. Knife fighting is not about reach, it is about timing, distance control and economy of motion.

Anyway, what is it you find ambiguos about the manuals you have seen? Which manuals have you seen? Can we help you to understand?

I too used to think that reverse grip was a poor option. Then I realised that a small swaying of the body made far more of a difference to reach than the couple of inches difference made up by adopting a grip other than the sabre.

Attacks in Medieval fighting are made on the pass. ie intead of steping forward with the front foot and then bringing up the rear, the rear foot is brought past the front foot in a walking step. Now, MUCH more distance can be covered on a pass than on the longest lunge. As a result, the best way to fight when using passes is to choose a distance where the enemy must make a foot movement himself to hit you. Since you have to make a full pass in order to hit anyway then you might as well maximise the stopping power on a weapon that has very little by adopting the most powerful grip. Reverse grip.

If you like the forward grip method then you will probably like Manual del Baratero which is to be found here: http://geocities.com/mjruhala/
Cheers,
Stu.
Lets argue the specifics of this ambiguity and try and nut this out shall we?

posted 05-08-2003 10:02 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by I.C. Koets:
That is a great quote!

---

Got it from a poster on Murphy's Laws of Technology.

Ran Pleasant

posted 05-09-2003 11:13 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slasher:
They are ambiguous because the strangely contorted pictures are not clear about the technique. We also don't know if the writer was truthfull about his credentials. So both the techniques and the source are ambiguous.

---

A major source for WMA dagger is Fiore work from around 1410. Fiore's credentials are well know outside of this own writtings. In some towns in Italy they still have streets named after him. Practice with someone who knows Fiore techniques and you will quickly find out that those techniques really work! Given them a try - you might just like what you find.

posted 05-10-2003 11:39 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slasher:
They are ambiguous because the strangely contorted pictures are not clear about the technique. We also don't know if the writer was truthfull about his credentials. So both the techniques and the source are ambiguous.

---

Lets talk specifics Slasher. What do you find contorted? Link us to some manuals and lets talk specifics.

As a qualified Kalis Illustrisimo instructor and experienced historical fencer, I am saying that the medieval methods have merit and can be interpreted. You say the sources are unclear and for the most part you are right. I say I think I have interpreted something of value. Are you actually interested in what the historical fencers on this board have come up with or are you just here to troll?

Ran is right that we have references from sources other than the treatises that confirm the credentials of fight masters such as Fiore, Vadi, Talhoffer, Silver etc. Writing books in medieval times was not cheap. Producing books with pictures was even more difficult and expensive. Folks with enough money to sponsor a fighting treatise are not going to sponsor a chap who cannot teach useful fighting skills.

If you want to just sit at your keyboard and question the validity of what we do after doing no research yourself is up to you.

You could choose to ask questions about various folks interpretations of the manuals. You could even attempt to interpret some plates yourself for critique.

If you still really don't think that fighting treatise research has any merit then perhaps it would be best for you to remain silent on the subject as there is a majority here who believe the opposite.
Cheers,
Stu.
(Apologies for anything that didn't make sense. It is 2:40 in the morning here)

posted 05-13-2003 03:14 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stuart McDermid:
Lets talk specifics Slasher. What do you find contorted? Link us to some manuals and lets talk [b]specifics.

As a qualified Kalis Illustrisimo instructor and experienced historical fencer, I am saying that the medieval methods have merit and can be interpreted. You say the sources are unclear and for the most part you are right. I say I think I have interpreted something of value. Are you actually interested in what the historical fencers on this board have come up with or are you just here to troll?

Ran is right that we have references from sources other than the treatises that confirm the credentials of fight masters such as Fiore, Vadi, Talhoffer, Silver etc. Writing books in medieval times was not cheap. Producing books with pictures was even more difficult and expensive. Folks with enough money to sponsor a fighting treatise are not going to sponsor a chap who cannot teach useful fighting skills.

If you want to just sit at your keyboard and question the validity of what we do after doing no research yourself is up to you.

You could choose to ask questions about various folks interpretations of the manuals. You could even attempt to interpret some plates yourself for critique.

If you still really don't think that fighting treatise research has any merit then perhaps it would be best for you to remain silent on the subject as there is a majority here who believe the opposite.
Cheers,
Stu.
(Apologies for anything that didn't make sense. It is 2:40 in the morning here)

[This message has been edited by Stuart McDermid (edited 05-10-2003).][/B]

---

Amen to that
ps you always make sense..
i just need to be explained a long time...

posted 05-13-2003 05:20 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by willaume:
Amen to that
ps you always make sense..
i just need to be explained a long time...

---

Thanks Willaume,

Everyone,

If you have a high speed connection, check out the instructor who showed me that reverse grip is actually superior with a small knife. www.jenbjj.com/floro1.wmv

This next one has nothing to do with this thread but is good too.
http://www.jenbjj.com/floro_sefcik2.wmv
Cheers,
Stu.

posted 05-13-2003 08:46 AM            

On the other hand, I've found a European martial art that was actually handed down through the ages while I was web surfing. Does anyone have experience with Stav?

posted 05-13-2003 09:33 AM               

What we must rememeber, as other have pointed out, is that modern knife combat is designed for modern combat, and medieval knife comabt is designed for military purposes, the two while similar is like comparing apples and oranges.

The two images that you have supplied seem however to be dealing with techniques on horseback, neither with dagger, one I believe (considering I have never studied these manuscripts- my first thoughts could be wrong) deal with a weapon strip using the hilt of the sword, while the other is dealing with some sort of takedown. However, with both of these images you are only looking at the images and not at the system. Without a system to hang this information from you are left with a large bag of techniques.

For those of you who know me form these forums, you may think that this post is a little terse, believe me, I could have been down right rude about many points that could have been made. Just remeber that one of the greatest martial artists of the past hundred years said that it was vital to keep an open mind when looking at other systems, whilst looking for the similarities of practise, when our minds are closed and all we see are differences then we stagnate as martial artists.

As Fiore said,
"No one should think that in this book there are false or erroneous concepts because, eliminating the ambiguities, I have described in it only techniques that I have invented, or seen, or tried."