posted 05-13-2003 06:50 PM               

I should point out also Slasher that not every source we have is in Medieval Italian or German, and not all lack text. The Codex Wallerstein for example has concise instructions that accompany every plate.

Some of the sources are in English that with a little practice can be read off the page.

The later you go in time, the more like modern fencing fencing becomes and the better the manuals are in terms of their ease of interpretation. By working backwards through time starting with modern methods and noting the differences in weapon makeup we can reconstruct long dead systems.

Even if our interpretations are totally wrong, I know that mine allow me to easily defeat those who haven't practised them when sparring. That is good enough for me.

posted 05-14-2003 10:13 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slasher:
The masters might have their credentials, they might not, but I still doubt it. There will always have been people that followed them but that is no guarantee that their credentials are OK. You, as a Kalis instructor, know a lot of technique, and sooner or later youre going to see a picture that resembles a real technique, but that doesn't mean it is really what you think it is. I have looked through some pictures on aemma.org from Thalhoffer, and from Solothurner Fechtbuch, and I see alot of random positions, with no order. There is no rhyme or reason, only pictures, with very little text. I think it could as well have been for entertainment, like professional wrestling now.
Look here, om the left:

This is so overstylized, that it is nothing more than a nice picture, but it doesn't teach anything! Would it be right if we just stared long enough to start seeing a familiar technique? Of course not. We should see these books for what they are.

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?

---

Hello,
Well yes you are quite right. And they were crap at drawing as well. :-)

That is why most of the people here are studying manual with text (Ringeck, jewden law, dobringer)
Or with text and picture (Vadi, fiore, meyer,lichtanauer 1443 edition)

Isn't nature wonderful?

Since I happen to fight from horse back with lance, sword and informally wrestle.

The first is picture is very likely to be a lock of the wrist with the handle (this is performed on foot and mentioned in Ringeck)
This is probably the middle of the technique
The next bit will be to rotate your wrist upward twating him in the face and or making him lose his sword
You can use is trapped handle to make him fall (or make him loose his grip) all that will depend on the speed of the crossing
I have done it myself it works a treat on foot and on horse.

The other one i do not know. I need to try. Without knowing the system behind it. I would say that the unarmored guy is the winner.

The armoured guy tried to grab him by the throat (like a close line type of thing)
The GG pass his arm above (probably before full contact from the opposition) reach to the opposite side and turns his horse outward.
That should unbalance the armored guy.
(I will try to try Saturday)

That being said what rob says it spot on; those manuscripts are part of a given system and are not a random collection of technique nor a self-enjoyment manuscript for people with a very wicked leather metal fetish.

Philippe

posted 07-09-2003 09:05 AM               

Stav -ho ho, not seen it any HEMA events yet. My mate went to one of his classes in England, contradicted one of his assertions and then got him to try it on him and my mate proved his point, rather embarrasingly for the Stav guy. My mate left and told us "what a load of crap" so until I see this Stav guy personally at an event I would not hang too much on the system or the person. Like to meet him and see his stuff though.

Secondly these two technical pictures are similar to techniques shown and explained in Liberi's mounted section, though I think on the cloths line one he does something different.

Also looking at Fiore (as I am most familier with it) you have to see it as a complete system. Isolating knife from other parts is wrong. Foot work, targets, techniques, methods, are all part of a whole and one point may enlighten you as to how to do a part which is not explaind at that juncture. So it is IMHO a complete and viable system created by a real guy who knew what he was about, and who was a genius at getting it on paper, and probably a genius at the fight.

I personally do not try to learn techniques per se, I try to look for patterns in body positions and movements, "energy" or pressure, and then apply a technical answer to what is there. This results IMHO quicker learning and quicker adaptability.

This thread has been very good and I agree with lots I have read, especially Rob and Stu, to name a few.

Hope I made sence,

posted 07-17-2003 11:23 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slasher:
And Willuan, you say you _recognize_ certain techniques. That means that you know the techniques and you project them on the pictures. If that is what you need to see any meaning in the pictures you can't learn anything new from these pictures.

---

hello maty
Willuan that would be me wouldn't it?

to answer you question.
yeap i kind of recongnised the technique.
the first one as i said is used on foot with all the development i propose.
and uncle sigmud said that you can do all the fencing and wrestling from horse back as well.
so no i did not learn alot on that one. provided that this it is the actual technique i am talking about.

the second one as i mentionened as well i much more of a gues. I haven't seen that one anywhre before. all that was extrapolated from the the uncommon hand possition of the guy in black. (you see i am not only a pretty face)
and I learned that i can work as i said.

more seriously, i mentioned as well that without any supporting text it is guess work and my explanation are as good as any one else (as long as they works). My point was not really to prove that it was Ringeck technique. Colin has a very valid point with fiore and he may very well be more correct that me.
my point was to demonstrate that it was very unlikely to be a marvel or semic prodution of the german middle age.

Willuan.