| Author |
Message |
|
Justin White-Lowther
|
 Posted: Sat 28 May, 2005 10:31 pm Post subject: Re: Artist's interpretation? |
 |
|
| Mike West wrote: |
Does anyone ever suspect that any manual/master they are studying is a bunch of crock, or at least not as competant as moderns give him credit for?
|
Well, the problem is multifaceted. Here are three issues:
1) There are a lot of manuals/treatises out there, and people tend to devote their time to the ones they like. I would not have spent as much time as I have studying Silver if I didn't think his work had, in general, a "ring of truth". Unfortunately,
2) Until you study a manual or master in depth, you are not qualified to judge his work, so whether a source seems good or bad to the novice doesn't mean much. But it gets worse:
3) Even if you do study a manual in depth, you're still not very well qualified to judge the author's style, because he wrote for a different audience and a different context, and the manual is never a full encoding of the source style. For this reason, I'm slowly trying to get away from saying I work with "Silver's style", instead to say I work with "Silver's Brief Instructions style".
So, yes, probably everyone studying these sources has some they trust over others -- but though the people who understand this problem might be willing to name off their favorites, they're going to be very, very hesitant to say one source or another is "a bunch of crock", because they can't prove that.
For what it's worth, having studied Silver for a while now, I do believe that he erred in at least one respect: he overstated his case against the rapier. One of his major complaints against it, the lack of a proper hilt, was easily addressed by the development of more protective rapier guards. Furthermore, when he gives instructions on how to fight against a rapier with a shortsword, he's also indirectly giving instructions on how to fight using the rapier. In at least one particular situation, the rapier would have an advantage. So although I respect Silver's work, I don't take everything he said as absolute truth. It goes back to one of the themes that Bill started this thread with: the need to acknowledge the existence of different styles and preferences and to recognize that "different" doesn't always imply "one is better".
| Quote: | | Are moderns so hungry for knowledge of the past that they're willing to accept anything as legit, as long as it survived the centuries? |
I believe that we should give each historical source the benefit of the doubt except insofar as there's clear and convincing evidence not to, or insofar as the sources contradict one another. (Silver vs. rapierists, for example.) When we're discussing how weapons were used "back in the day", empirical accounts from that time are, in general, just a teensy bit more credible than opinions reasoned out by us moderns.
Last edited by Justin White-Lowther on Sat 28 May, 2005 11:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
  |
 |
|
Justin White-Lowther
|
| Posted: Sat 28 May, 2005 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthew Kelty wrote: | A lot of Swetnam's theories are valid, and he has some very clever feints that I've seen work, but he is not above criticism in all regards, and I spelled out some of his, in my opinion, sheer follies with what works on paper as opposed to what works in practice.
You should always scrutinize your sources, and make sure they stick up in their application, and just because someone says it is so, does not neccesarily make it so.
|
"Sheer follies" -- those are strong words. Have you actively studied Swetnam, having dedicated at least his minimum "20 days" to trying to put his words into practice, or, alternatively, consulted with someone who has (like Stephean Fick, or Stephen Hand) to see what they thought of your concerns? Some of your critiques might not apply under closer examination. For instance, Swetnam's call for a rapier or sword "four foot at the least" refers to overall weapon length, not blade length, and a back-weighted stance with the legs close together is by no means unique to Swetnam; it's a fundamental feature of Fabris as well. (Note that Tom Leoni's translation of Fabris has just gone to press; if you're unsure of how to put such a stance into practice, he might be another person to contact.)
(I apologize to the moderators for aggravating the topic drift into technique rather than the weapons themselves, but I thought these issues, once raised, need to be addressed.)
Last edited by Justin White-Lowther on Sun 29 May, 2005 12:19 am; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Kelly
|
| Posted: Sat 28 May, 2005 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin wrote: | | I apologize to the moderators for aggravating the topic drift into technique rather than the weapons themselves, but I thought these issues, once raised, need to be addressed. |
Raising them is fine, just be careful how you accomplish your goal. Your last post came off a bit sarcastic and confrontational, smiley face or not. 
"In valor there is hope.".................. Tacitus
|
|
 |
|
|
Justin White-Lowther
|
| Posted: Sun 29 May, 2005 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Patrick: Well, the post probably came off that way because that's how it was.  Point taken, and I've edited my post accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Kelty
|
| Posted: Sun 29 May, 2005 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
As for your objection to a back-weighted stance with the legs close together... well, be my guest to go on the HES forum at SFI and voice those same objections with regard to the stances of Fabris!
I would feel most welcome to, had Salvatore Fabris declared the proper postion to be with the heel of the front foot at the ball of the back foot, thighs touching, and all of the weight upon the rear leg. WTF?!!!
If, sir, you inquiring as to whether or not I have examined anything closely, the answer is a most definitive 'yes', as a matter of fact, I have studied a *LOT* of this very closely for quite a few years (13 or so), with quite a few mentors and fellow scholars along the way.
If you are inquiring as to whether or not I understand how to apply what I read contextually, I believe I have a fairly well rounded picture of the Renaissance Era, and European weaponsplay, and could perhaps have even read a bit more on the matter than the average Joe. Perhaps a quick glance at http://www.renaissancewarfare.com/bibliography.htm might give you an idea of the breadth of context I have to operate with, and mind you, this is only a slim portion of the period manuscripts I actually refer to, and certainly doesn't scratch the surface on the books I have acquired about the period.
With that said, I will apply the same scrutiny to my library as I am implying above, in it there are some gems, and there is a lot of crap, and one must use a discerning eye for separating the former from the latter.
I find it an interesting parallel in that the Question being asked of "whether we should *automatically* trust a Historic Document as being viable or relevant", and my personal feelings and examples of a thin trust with an old Author, is responded to with an angry, arrogant reply, citing two other people's sheer conviction as being evidence of fact.
I will also note that I have watched nominal swordfighters progress from being young men with sticks to being published authors, shrouding their nominal skill sets in lousy interpretations of Historical manuscripts.
I'll not bother dragging out the laundry, but I'll have you know that one of the "experts" closely connected to those whose opinions you value has stated quite emphatically in his classroom that the *ONLY* way you can ever hold a Halberd/Billhoook/Poleaxe is with the right hand near the head. This lesson was so strictly taught to a friend of mine, that when I cracked open my copy of Talhoffer to illustrate that the grip is constantly shifting, they were honestly speechless, and could only utter, "...but he said the Right hand is *ALWAYS* in front..."
Just because one teaches or writes does not make them infallible, merely convincing.
In closing, a Lizard turd that has been dropped into mud, and has over millions of years been transformed into a fossil is unique, interesting, important to note, and worthy of interest, but when all is said and done, it's still just a piece of $h...well, you know.
Just because it was written 500 years ago does not neccesarily mean it is good, and considering the general opinions of Mr. Swetnam were not good *in* the period (I've read his take on women, have you?), it's fair to say the man can and does make mistakes.
If you *truly* wish to fight with your feet and thighs touching, and all of your weight upon your rear leg, you are certainly more than welcome to, but the experience of many, many, manymanymanymanymany Martial Arts Practioners, Eastern and Western, over many hundreds of years, with hundreds of weapons forms, hundreds of postions, and hundreds of thousands of fights using them would tend to disagree with the thought that this is an advantageous way to fight, and would certainly not introduce the topic with this lesson.
|
|
  |
|
|
Patrick Kelly
|
| Posted: Sun 29 May, 2005 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Keep it calm and civil gentlemen.
This discussion can be had without any posturing. Make that happen.
"In valor there is hope.".................. Tacitus
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sam Barris
|
| Posted: Sun 29 May, 2005 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's a pity we're all so scattered around. We could settle a lot of these issues with duels. That would probably also enforce the "calm and civil" element. 
Pax,
Sam Barris
"Any nation that draws too great a distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools." —Thucydides
|
|
 |
|
|
Mike West
|
| Posted: Sun 29 May, 2005 8:09 am Post subject: A safe duel is the way to go. |
|
|
A safe duel between the practitioners of the various schools would answer many questions, especially the effectiveness various stances. If someone from a certain camp found themselves falling backwards when charged by an opponent, perhaps that could explain something. That said, it would be interesting to learn the various styles, as interpreted by adherents, but I would have to actually study under them, as I am not that interested in learning some of what I've seen in books.
All I can do is ask questions, and remain skeptical when I see the stance that Fabris advocated by people. All I can go by is what I've seen, and read on the internet. The next step would be to actually visit the person, and fence with them. If they constantly beat me, they would be on to something. If it was the other way, I might say they were wasting their time with their studies, but even then, there are other explanations. That person may not be that great of a fencer, and unable to fully utilize the style he advocates.
I would think it's more in line with one traditional American character to question what has come before, use what is best, and throw the rest out. Of course, what is best is determined by individual experience. When those people come together and actually fence, then we'll learn more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Kelty
|
| Posted: Sun 29 May, 2005 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Keep it calm and civil gentlemen.
This discussion can be had without any posturing. Make that happen. |
I have had a good nap, and am feeling much better now, thank you... 
I also see that Justin has reworked his post, so perhaps I now appear slightly over the top, and my apologies for that.
Mike and Sam, you're onto somethng there, and it's pretty close to desribing the growing pains Western Historical fighting has gone through in the last 30 years (or shall I say at least out here on the West Coast). Someone digs up Silver and Saviolo, someone else Capo Ferro, someone else Joachim Meyer and Jacob Sutor, and the swordplay "identity" they forge contains national, regional, personal, and all other manner of detritus, along with any inherent ability to win or lose a fight with a stick...
I take pretty much everything I see with a grain of salt as to whether it is as flawless as advertised, but will give it an honest listen, and work through the process of applying it, and at a certain point it will either not work "for me" (I'll leave this category as either skill, interpretation, tools, or predisposition), will work for me, or just not work (this last I reserve for those things that just seem to attempt to fly in the face of reason and experience, and seem to fail for others as well).
I've had my share of stick swinging over the last 13 years, and can safely say I've emerged on the winners side more often than not, but I've also had my tail handed to me, lots. I will say that I consider myself a fighter first, and an interpreter of Historical Fight Manuals second, and will even admit that perhaps this makes me less of an authority on purely historcal swordplay.
I also know what has worked for me repeatedly and consistently against others, many of whom are historical purists, many of whom are the cream of the crop of certain well-advertised teachers, has often flied in the face of this or that Master or method, and above all, no matter how cool the Guard of Wrath looks, you're gonna get nailed in the deltoid, tricep or head, unless you're faster than me.... 
At any rate, yes, Go America! Question authority! F$#% the Man! Stick it to Whit..., well, just read, learn, apply, and discard....
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Sun 29 May, 2005 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi James,
I think we've crossed wires here. What I was getting at is the situation where someone says they want a long hilt, longer blade, *because* they study German longsword - implying that you need that geometry for that particular style. If your answer is meant to simply imply that "this works better for me", then that's a perfectly honestly and intellectually sound answer to my mind.
All the best,
Christian
| James Nordstrom wrote: | | Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | Sure...but how is that requirement 'German'? Italian medieval fighting makes use of thrusts and levering the weapon too. |
You oringinal question was:
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | The next time you hear someone saying "I want a longer hilt for the German stuff", ask them why. |
My answer was:
| James Nordstrom wrote: | | Because of the differing leveraging it offers and the extra couple-three inches it offers on the thrust. |
Expanding the question to include Italian is a tad unfair  way to counter my answer. However, including the Italian school, my answer is still the same. My practice sword for both as well Kata Tapada escrima is the DelTin 2158.
Cheers |
Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar
Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship
Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Sun 29 May, 2005 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Greetings,
I'm not sure why this thread has grown so nasty. Bill and I were simply cautioning people about drawing too many conclusions about sword types from Medieval and Renaissance fighting treatises. How the thread devolved into allegations about incompetent interpreters (with no names mentioned) or indictments regarding historical masters - some of whom were teachers to kings and princes around Europe (Fabris) or who trained successful judicial duel combatants (Talhoffer) - is not clear to me.
But to cut to the chase...we have good reason to believe that at least some of the masters knew their stuff. Liechtenauer's art survived for 250 years, with a body of commentaries attached to it by various subsequent masters, a number of whom were in the employ of powerful magnates. It's a pretty big stretch to believe that all two dozen of them or so fooled successful leaders of warriors throughout the 14th-early 16th centuries. Further, for internal consistency, economy of movement, and combination of attack and defense in one action are all hallmarks of a successful and practical martial art. This art did not merely 'survive' the centuries - it flourished throughout them.
All the best,
Christian
Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar
Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship
Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Kelty
|
| Posted: Sun 29 May, 2005 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | we have good reason to believe that at least some of the masters knew their stuff. |
And I would not disagree with you. I was merely throwing some light (as I beleive was Mike's intent with his original question), that sometimes the blindness with which one follows *any* convinction, whether it be the ideal sword length, design, or proportion, master, or modern interpreter, it all needs to be tempered with practicality.
The Old Masters may describe their preferences for a particular design, whether textually or graphically, they may lay out their preferences for their perfect ward, or their perfect attack. But what works for one does not work for all, and just because it is old, doesn't automatically mean it is right. We've all witnessed the occasional contrary comments within one Author's work, and opposing opinions in comparison to other Authors contemporary with them.
I'm merly suggesting that the flaw of opinion is not uniqe, nor limited, but should be considered in all aspects when apporaching the study of someone's works.
And for the record, I never implied that Talhoffer or Fabris were in any way slouches, I actually hold them to be quite thorough and sound, as I do for DiGrassi, Capo Ferro and Lichtenauer. I certainly have my opinions on who the "lesser" Masters or Authors were, but I'm not making an indictment upon any Author in whole, or the whole of them at large, merely challenging the assumption that any one Author is 100% correct, 100% percent of the time, with 100% of his material, and that maxim applies to the modern interpreters as well as the old guys themselves.
At any rate, I, too, seek a peaceful conversation, I'm not attempting to raise anyone's hackles.
Sincerely,
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
|
Justin White-Lowther
|
| Posted: Sun 29 May, 2005 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthew Kelty wrote: |
If, sir, you inquiring as to whether or not I have examined anything closely, the answer is a most definitive 'yes'
|
Not at all. I apologize for the original tone of the post you're responding to; I hoped my edit would be done before you saw it. Oh, well. But even in that version, I didn't mean to question whether you've examined anything closely, only whether you'd examined Swetnam closely -- which, to me, means either spending a good chunk of time trying to make it work or else consulting someone who has. Time spent studying other systems is worth only so much; it's too easy to come to the table with a full cup.
| Quote: | | I find it an interesting parallel in that the Question being asked of "whether we should *automatically* trust a Historic Document as being viable or relevant", and my personal feelings and examples of a thin trust with an old Author, is responded to with an angry, arrogant reply, citing two other people's sheer conviction as being evidence of fact. |
Should we automatically trust the authors of a manual? Maybe not. Should we distrust them without making every reasonable effort to get where they're coming from? No, that's no good either. The names I mentioned weren't chosen for their conviction; Steaphen Fick won a 40-entrant rapier tournament at WMAW 2002. Does that prove that Swetnam is uniformly great? Indeed not, but I think it makes a fair case that his system was indeed viable. Saying otherwise does a disservice to people like Steaphen, and that's what upset me. (Though, as I say, it was an overreaction for which I apologize.)
| Quote: | | I'll not bother dragging out the laundry, but I'll have you know that one of the "experts" closely connected to those whose opinions you value |
Well, if you didn't mean to drag it out, you'll need to be subtler, because I'm 95% sure I know who you mean. But anyone who reads the HES forum on SFI regularly knows that I disagree with him and with Stephen Hand frequently, so I'm not suggesting that their opinions are infallible. I just think that before saying fundamental parts of a system don't work properly, it's important to be sure that there isn't anyone who has made them work.
| Quote: |
Just because it was written 500 years ago does not neccesarily mean it is good, and considering the general opinions of Mr. Swetnam were not good *in* the period (I've read his take on women, have you?), it's fair to say the man can and does make mistakes.
|
I haven't actually read his polemic, but I'm aware of its existence. (It's one reason I do not study Swetnam, in fact -- just a personal preference on my part.) There's a major difference between having rather, er, regressive ideas about social issues and being a fraud in one's own profession, though.
| Quote: | | If you *truly* wish to fight with your feet and thighs touching, and all of your weight upon your rear leg, you are certainly more than welcome to, but the experience of many, many, manymanymanymanymany Martial Arts Practioners, Eastern and Western, over many hundreds of years, with hundreds of weapons forms, hundreds of postions, and hundreds of thousands of fights using them would tend to disagree with the thought that this is an advantageous way to fight, and would certainly not introduce the topic with this lesson. |
Ah, but I don't wish to fight that way... I study Silver and Hope, remember? But the argument by popularity holds only so much weight. Similar reasoning might have led me to believe that Hope's New Method is not advantageous, but I would've been quite wrong to have thought that. Hope's posture has advantages and limitations, as do Silver's... as do Swetnam's, I suspect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike West
|
| Posted: Sun 29 May, 2005 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote]indictments regarding historical masters - some of whom were teachers to kings and princes around Europe (Fabris) or who trained successful judicial duel combatants (Talhoffer) - is not clear to me.
That's simply based on viewing things on the internet, rather than seeing them in real life, and also based on my own experience with fencing. I'm also quite skeptical about some of Fabris's stances, as to whether they can actually work with the stance that I use. I'll have to search out others with fencing styles different than my own to learn more. Perhaps his style of fencing was against others using the same style? A duel of honor between them?
I was also skeptical about the Talhoffer drawings showing a swordsman using the sword as a mace. Based on my experience, I don't see why anyone would do such a thing, unles in rare situations. Gripping a bare blade with ones bare hands, even when unsharpened, is very uncomfortable, and no matter how hard I've gripped, was never able to get a strong grip on the sword. I'd use the business end exclusively.
I'm going to have to do more research on each of the old fight masters to find out who they were. Perhaps I don't read close enough, but I often find little about the actual masters, and more on their writings, and ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike West
|
| Posted: Sun 29 May, 2005 6:10 pm Post subject: Historical Fencing Tournaments? |
|
|
|
Are their any annual historical fencing tournaments?
|
|
|
|
|
|
James Nordstrom
Location: Sacramento, CA Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Sun 29 May, 2005 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | I think we've crossed wires here. What I was getting at is the situation where someone says they want a long hilt, longer blade, *because* they study German longsword - implying that you need that geometry for that particular style. If your answer is meant to simply imply that "this works better for me", then that's a perfectly honestly and intellectually sound answer to my mind. |
Sounds good to me as well.
You want to have fun sometime...practice longsword techniques with sword and buckler.
The continuity of technique from 1.33 thru to Ringneck and beyond has confirmed for me that what they had going and put down on paper was the real deal, even if I lack the experience of hundreds of thousands of fights. 
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Wallgren
|
| Posted: Mon 30 May, 2005 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike West wrote: | I was also skeptical about the Talhoffer drawings showing a swordsman using the sword as a mace. Based on my experience, I don't see why anyone would do such a thing, unles in rare situations. Gripping a bare blade with ones bare hands, even when unsharpened, is very uncomfortable, and no matter how hard I've gripped, was never able to get a strong grip on the sword. I'd use the business end exclusively.
|
This is explained here...
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=3755
Please read this...
Martin
Swordsman, Archer and Dad
|
|
 |
|
|
Aaron Schnatterly
|
| Posted: Mon 30 May, 2005 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Martin Wallgren wrote: | | Mike West wrote: | I was also skeptical about the Talhoffer drawings showing a swordsman using the sword as a mace. Based on my experience, I don't see why anyone would do such a thing, unles in rare situations. Gripping a bare blade with ones bare hands, even when unsharpened, is very uncomfortable, and no matter how hard I've gripped, was never able to get a strong grip on the sword. I'd use the business end exclusively.
|
This is explained here...
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=3755
Please read this...
Martin |
It does take some getting used to, Mike! It still kind of weirds me out, but it isn't all that bad. It isn't a technique I would use often, but when appropriate, holy crap would it cause issues for your opponent. It does take a good bit of finger strength. I didn't grab the blade like a baseball bat, rather I pinched the blade between the fingertips and palm, leaving a slight gap between the edge and my fingers. I've tried this with the Regent as well...
Thanks for bringing this thread back up, Martin! Makes me want to go out and do this all over again (yeah, as if I needed much more motivation!) - have to wait until after Atlanta, though. Sometimes being a "responsible adult" really cramps my style!
-Aaron Schnatterly
_______________
Fortior Qui Se Vincit
(He is stronger who conquers himself.)
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Mon 30 May, 2005 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthew Kelty wrote: | | Quote: | | we have good reason to believe that at least some of the masters knew their stuff. |
And I would not disagree with you. I was merely throwing some light (as I beleive was Mike's intent with his original question), that sometimes the blindness with which one follows *any* convinction, whether it be the ideal sword length, design, or proportion, master, or modern interpreter, it all needs to be tempered with practicality. |
Hi Matthew,
I'm not sure how anyone alive today has anything to say about practicality with a sword. No one here has fought for real with a sword, or so much as witnessed anyone fighting in earnest with one. I don't believe anyone is qualified to judge that something in a period text *didn't* work.
Modern sporting combat experience tells us little about the efficacy of period techniques. For one thing it's often structured toward delivering a blow with a stcik hard enough to be acknowledged against light to heavy armour. That's a poor benchmark for evaluating whether techniques designed for unarmoured combat would work or not. There's no such thing as a blow that was "too light for this area's calibration" if you're fighting with sharp longswords and no armour. The sheer fear component isn't there either. In the SCA, a thrust might be 'too light' - in period, without armour, any thrust that connects with the torso is a likely death sentence from infection. These are simply two contexts that don't connect well.
We do need to also bear in mind that each master's work must be read in its cultural context. What scenario are they describing, for instance? Let's examine your earlier reference to an instructor teaching that you always hold a bill right hand leading. Well, what's the context? Is this master (and I don't know who it is) teaching dueling (unlikely, if he's talking about bills) or battlefield, formation fighting. If it's on the battlefield, then yes, if the rest of the army holds their bills that way, you *always* do too. If that's the case, then it's irrelevant that Talhoffer shows either hand leading - he's showing single combat, a very different environment indeed.
In short, we need to understand what the master intended the work for, before we conclude that a) "it doesn't work because I get hammered in the SCA when I do it" or b) "some masters disagree with him, so one of them must be wrong." It's all about context.
All the best,
Christian
Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar
Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship
Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Kelty
|
| Posted: Mon 30 May, 2005 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I don't believe anyone is qualified to judge that something in a period text *didn't* work. |
Your point is very vaild, and I hear you.
In the particular instance of Swetnam that I was referring to, it has less to do with how the strikes may or may not land, but more that the concept of basing your entire stance upon so small and "unequal" a footing is very unstable, and not very mobile to react and respond with, coupled with a further training that is very linear in it's excecution. Most every other author has a certain amount of teaching dedicated to avoidances, slips and passes along the "flanking" lines that Swetnam seems to completely gloss over.
If I were to further scrutinize his teachings, his almost "shotokan-esque" of parrying, while undoubtedly strong (parallel and simultaneous blocks), does limit the flexibility of a counter-attack, and again, runs contrary to many other Authors of the period, especially with his repeated preference for crossing the tips. A few Authors will mention this as "a" method, but his leaning is as the norm and preferred, and has, in my experiences, and in a few comments from some period Authors, has been prone to getting oneself tangled up in the assault.
I'm not saying the Swetnam is a buffoon, I actually found many of the techniques I had developed over the years fit in with his teachings, but I feel the universal acceptance of him as a Master (I do not believe he ever actually went through that process), and the blind-faith assumption that everything must be golden when it is in print needed to be tempered with some serious questions of technique that *can* be tested and tried.
Not that it matters, but I'm actually not an SCA combatant. I work in "a tempo" unarmoured steel on steel swordplay, as well as with period hilted Shinai forms (I can hear the groans now, but hear me out... A few of us (and I do mean precious few) on the California faire circuit have worked very hard to get them proportionlly, dimensionally, characteristically, and balance-wise fairly accurately built on Schiavona, Katzpalger, Reiterschwert and Rapier forms to enable a much faster and harder play than the unarmoured live steel work. Wasters fill in on the Longsword play.
Between the steel work and the stickwork we get a fairly good feel for the way the tools behave, and how the man can move when working with them. A certain amount of cutwork also give one a sense of how a blade must be used to be effective. Nothing feels worse in the hand than a "wrong" blow, and the combination of all the above does give one a fairly complete picture. As good as being back there 500 years ago, certainly not, but it's a fairly good picture nonetheless.
BTW, although not a member, several friends of mine are active with the Adrian Empire, and their combat *is* armoured Steel vs. Steel, so there are a few places out there to get a sense of what true Armoured combat feels like. Certainly, death isn't on the line, but it is pretty brutal, and about as close to the real thing as you can get. It was founded by many folks who were unhappy with the "unreality" of standard SCA combat as it is practiced most everywhere.
As to:
| Quote: | | Well, what's the context? Is this master (and I don't know who it is) teaching dueling (unlikely, if he's talking about bills) |
In this particular instance, (and this will test if Justin and I are eating from the same bowl of tripe...
it is in the context of single combat, it is taught with Billhooks (although his verbiage would suggest this to be true for Halberd and Partisans as well), and training consists *SOLELY* (I kid you not), of locking up the tips with the spikes, binding your opponents polearm to the ground, and then trying to disengage with a follow up cut or thrust. When one feints, then simply pulls the polearm back, let him overextend his attempted lock to the point of imbalance (these Bills are Boat Anchors, BTW), and then thrusts back, it leaves the "Master" looking a little perplexed....
It is these types, that to me, need to serve to remind the maxim I offered earlier, "Just because one teaches or writes does not make them infallible, merely convincing". Again, not an assault against all modern interpreters, but merely a caution to think and practice through things before accepting they are 100% true.
It sounds like Justin and I are far closer to a common ground than the first volleys would have us believe, and I'm glad we got through the rough patch. I'm curious if we're talking about the same person (PM if you'd like), and yes, I pointedly have *NOT* named names, in that I give him credit for trying, I just wouldn't waste my money on it...
I hope that clears things up a hair,
Matthew
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic