Amazon review of Forgeng's Art of Combat

[Eric Chisler]

I highly recommend this book for anyone into Western Martial Arts. Earlier German authors on martial arts tend to be more cryptic in their descriptions even after translation. Meyer, on the other hand, gives explicit instructions and provides transitions from one section to the next. As a practitioner of medieval martial arts, this book provided a great deal of insight into many aspects of combat. Forgeng, as a translator of the book, gives clear explanations of his translations and includes some of the original German vocabulary for those that prefer the original language for definition purposes. I would be wary about using Meyer's longsword section for medieval Liechtenauer practioners. Meyer is teaching a form of play-fencing done with the longsword that is similar to modern day olympic fencing. That said, I would absolutely recommend that anyone pick this book up; whether or not you're a Historical European Martial Art practitioner or simply into Renaissance combat in general.

Are his comments on Meyer's longsword accurate?

-Eric

[Jaron Bernstein]

I disagree with the part about the longsword section being, "Meyer is teaching a form of play-fencing done with the longsword that is similar to modern day olympic fencing. "

I can quote you any number of things from his longsword chapter that are near identical to classic Lichtenauer tradition (Ringeck, Goliath, Danzig) techniques. In addition to a nice array of halfswordings, sword takings, high level throws and a definitely non-sporting neck break in the rapier chapter. Modern sport fencing it ain't. It is true that in Meyer's day the longsword was no longer the primary battlefield weapon, but what he describes is IMO more of a clear codification of earlier material than reinventing the wheel. The writer of that review may get his view from the comparative lack of thrusting in the longsword chapter. I wouldn't read too much into that (although there is some debate on the topic). Meyer's other chapters (dagger/wrestling, polearms, dusack and rappier) have plenty of explicitely described thrusts and are meant for earnest fighting. The chapters each reference and inform the others in both overtly stated ("see page x illustration y in the other chapter" or "this principle applies to all single handed weapons")and less obvious (such as a technique described in one chapter having a non-referenced woodcut in another chapter) ways.

[Will Adamson]

In addition to Jaron's accurate statement, I would add that IMHO the inclusion of the German terms as stated in the review is not really accurate. The terms are in the book, but not as full text alongside the translation, so I don't really see how it can be useful for an alternative translation. Having said that, the text is so long that putting both languages side by side would make for a large unweildy tome.

This book is well worth it, and is one of my favorites. It's one of those things that is as simple or as complex as you want to make it.

[Mike Cartier]

I live in this book

of course its Lichtenauer .
i dare say those "play fencers" play a might bit rougher than that fellow who did the review.

seems popular to disparage fechtschulen fencing as "Play"
its a combat sport.

next we will be hearing there is no thrusting in meyer.

Meyer is for my money the best of the manuals. the combination of highly detailed images and very well explained material is excellent.

i could easily spend the rest of my life in this book.

i would like to see another full translation though.

If you want to study meyer i think its best to work from as many translations as possible and even as many interpretations as possible.

[Eric Chisler]

What one book would you recommend most for a first book? I've been heavily leaning to Meyer... and it's my b-day on Friday, and I get one book. I must choose wisely.

-Eric

[Jaron Bernstein]

What one book would you recommend most for a first book? I've been heavily leaning to Meyer... and it's my b-day on Friday, and I get one book. I must choose wisely.

-Eric

You can get Dobringer for free from this site. That provides a theoretical foundation for looking at the Lichtenaeur method. I would then go with Meyer and Svard/Linholms' 2 Ringeck books. Meyer provides the clearest instruction IMO.

[Bill Welch]

I would say easily Meyer is the best place to start, easy to read ( compared to the rest of them) easy to understand, just plain great.

Yea you always here "Its fight school, its play there is no thrusting" Well I think thats about what we do, isn't it, when have you ever fought to the death?
And there is plenty of thrusting in the other books, dusack, rapier, Polearms, and dagger. He explains in the very first chapter of Rapier why there is not thrusting between Germans.

[Grant Hall]

Hey, is Forgeng's Art of Combat the only published translation or is there another (better) one?

Cheers & God Bless!

[John_Clements]

It's an excellent version of Meyer's 1570 work. A Must have.

But, no, none of the teachings Meyer presents in his method is not in the least bit sporting or playful. It's bizarre where this ignorant notion comes from.

JC

[Sam Nankivell]

It's an excellent version of Meyer's 1570 work. A Must have.

But, no, none of the teachings Meyer presents in his method is not in the least bit sporting or playful. It's bizarre where this ignorant notion comes from.

JC

I think it comes from the lack of thrusting in the longsword section. This seems artificial and therefore is thought of as "play".

Also, though I haven't read the translated manuscript myself, I heard that Meyer tells the reader in the introduction that his "art" is in decline. It would be good for a Meyer scholar to shed more light on this.

However, I think although the section on longsword may be a bit odd (though perfectly combat worthy IMO), the rest of the sections don't have anything that screams out "play" to me, apart from the illustrations depicting training weapons in a school-like setting. If it is indeed a manual for a "sport" version, than it seems quite a bit rougher than what we think of as sports .

Also, it could be that some aspects of what is taught in the book were no longer in use. Do we have any surviving longswords from around 1570 that weren't Federschwerts? If not, than it could be a good sign that the longsword section specifically was used for play (which could explain the lack of thrusts due to safety) or perhaps as a teaching tool, rather than for duels or battlefield combat, sort of like how a foil is seen as a teaching tool to learn the basics of modern and classical fencing (or, maybe the longsword was taught as a "historical" part of their martial art .)

[Mike Cartier]

there is no lack of thrusting in the longsword book, its right there if you look for it. Its not explicitly described in the longsword section aslthough all the tools for thrusting are still there and its used in the devices.
I htikn it was simply done like this to mirror the safety rules in the fechtschule. Of course i think senior students would include thrusting in thier play.

In addition meyer does not put all the info about a weapon in the book on that weapon, this is a unified martial art, not seperated by weapon. many handworks and techniques bleed over to other weapons and meyer makes reference ot this many times.

I will be realeasing a public article on our ARMA-SFL website in a month or so that directly engages this absurd notion that Meyer did not thrust and that the stuff he taught was somehowwatered down and not martial.

This notion of meyer not thrusting in his longsword is a the product of people reading Meyer in a shallow manner, that is not reading the whole book or only reading that paragraph that describes how the Germans did have thrusting in thier martial training and then as it evolved into fechtschulen era they under emphasized it for safety. but as i said before i am surte the advanced/senior students did bout with thrusting, controlled but there nevertheless.

BTW not only are we Meyer scholars at ARMA-SFL but we focus almosty exclusivly on Meyer as our martial source for our art and as such interprete everything in through the Meyer lense.
We train in all his weapons and love every minute of it. Its the finest manual out there IMHO

[Sam Nankivell]

there is no lack of thrusting in the longsword book, its right there if you look for it. Its not explicitly described in the longsword section aslthough all the tools for thrusting are still there and its used in the devices.
I htikn it was simply done like this to mirror the safety rules in the fechtschule. Of course i think senior students would include thrusting in thier play.

In addition meyer does not put all the info about a weapon in the book on that weapon, this is a unified martial art, not seperated by weapon. many handworks and techniques bleed over to other weapons and meyer makes reference ot this many times.

I will be realeasing a public article on our ARMA-SFL website in a month or so that directly engages this absurd notion that Meyer did not thrust and that the stuff he taught was somehowwatered down and not martial.

This notion of meyer not thrusting in his longsword is a the product of people reading Meyer in a shallow manner, that is not reading the whole book or only reading that paragraph that describes how the Germans did have thrusting in thier martial training and then as it evolved into fechtschulen era they under emphasized it for safety. but as i said before i am surte the advanced/senior students did bout with thrusting, controlled but there nevertheless.

BTW not only are we Meyer scholars at ARMA-SFL but we focus almosty exclusivly on Meyer as our martial source for our art and as such interprete everything in through the Meyer lense.
We train in all his weapons and love every minute of it. Its the finest manual out there IMHO

Thanks for the info, I myself am thinking of getting into Meyer. I always suspected there was more to Meyer than what was on the surface, since I have also heard talk about how Vadi had a "sporting" system as well (The person who told me this has now reversed his position). I am certainly looking forward to your article.