Manuals the Essence?

[M Wallgren]

I have a question to those of you who have Studied Mayer, Codex Wallerstein, S. Ringeck and Talhoffer. Have you found any essence in the different manuals? What I looking for is something like a system of moves and directions from witch their technics come from.

For example if you can find manouvers in Ringen, dagger, messer and longsword that are conected and if the prefernce is to use them with sidesteps or in a "pendeling" way or in a more linear fashion?

[Jake_Norwood]

There is certainly a commonality of moves--especially of movement and principles. It's a broad area, though. Anything more specific?

Jake

[M Wallgren]

Hi Jake!

Well, when I started practise RMA little over a year ago I joined the studiegroup in Gimo, Sweden. Joachim Nilsson and the boys had just started their second turn on Ringeck, so I ust joined in. We went trough the technics and refered to Lindholms book. I got the impression that the fightingstyle in Ringeck is straight forward fast and effective. I found it is "Linear". You move much like in a line back and forward and in a few cases, sideways. Much like in Muso Shinden Ryo, Iaido, witch I´ve been training for a few years.

Then we had a Camp in Sweden with Bart, ARMA Poland. The seminars were on Codex Wallerstein. Here I found that the fighting had a much more circular pattern. You move diagonaly against your opponent creating a circular movement seeking "blossen"(sp?).

Then Joachim and I started our mad love with Hans Talhoffer;). Here I discovered an other pattern, Pendeling in all directions like a swing. But this is something J and I are still working on and thistread is a way to se if anybody else have found a patten like this in the manuals.

My theory is that most of the fencing after Lichtenauer have his Meisterhau in the rep. Though I find that they represent different "shools" or "styles" where linement, footwork and handwork differ.

But alas our time is so short and there is so much to learn and I don´t have time to train all the mauals and train my studygroup at the same time. So Joachim and I need help with this! All you Meyer, Wallerstein, Ringeck and other manualfans out there, HELP!

Thanks!

[James_Knowles]

Personally I've not found Ringeck to be so linear, or at least I find that traversing and dynamic footwork fits smoothly with Ringeck's material.

I would naturally suspect that this is the case since the manuals you mention are all of the German school. Given the tremendous amount of common technique, I would assume that the dynamic footwork crosses manuals also.

Maybe it's just how simple I can be, but I never cease to astonished at how the core principles of fighting transfer across weapons (or the lack thereof).

[M Wallgren]

Personally I've not found Ringeck to be so linear, or at least I find that traversing and dynamic footwork fits smoothly with Ringeck's material.

This could be on behalf of my (lack of)experience on R. And also that Lindholms version might be more "static" than other iterpitations. I didn´t want to make it sound like it is totaly stright-forward or totaly still, but comared with What we were shown by Bart on Wallerstein it was. But I will bend to superior knowlage on the subject;)

Maybe it's just how simple I can be, but I never cease to astonished at how the core principles of fighting transfer across weapons (or the lack thereof).

This is my experience to, and something Joachim and I are exploring in Talhoffer right now. Hopfully we can publish something on it within the year!

There is certainly a commonality of moves--especially of movement and principles. It's a broad area, though. Anything more specific?

Jake

I heared roumors that you are somwhat an wiseman on the Meyerfencing! One thing I want to put fokus on here in this tread is the differences between the manuals in the Lichtenauer tradition. I´m looking for sub-traditions so to speak! I my self is very unexperienced in Meyer, have read the longswordpart, but I find some likness to Talhoffer in the language area. The names of things. Do you find any technic simmilaritys that you only find in Talhoffer and Meyer?

[JeffGentry]

Hey M Walgren,(lol)

. Do you find any technic simmilaritys that you only find in Talhoffer and Meyer?

I don't have the Lindholm translation of Ringeck, i am working from another translation so i can't give you a page number.

If you look in the section of Ringeck on the Krumphau you will find Meyer's short strike there, it is the 5th piece of the of the Krump it begin's with "Do not krump a short strike".

I have found one or two other Meyer technique's in Ringeck, I just don't remember were and am too lazy to go searching right at the moment.


I don't have Talhoffer although i do remember seeing some unarmed technique's illustrated in Talhoffer that look like some in the Meyer woodcut's.


Hope this help's a little.

Jeff

[Jake_Norwood]

Hi Martin.

I don't have as much time as I'd like, so I'll answer what I can.

Re: Linear Ringeck
Ringeck, because he's Lichtenauer, is *not* linear. In the Doebringer version of Liechtenauer, it is repeatedly made clear *not* to attack moving straight in, but always moving to the side (as in Meyer's Triangle step). That's something that neither of the current Ringeck books make clear.

I heared roumors that you are somwhat an wiseman on the Meyerfencing!

Wiseman? I'm working on it. I know enough to get in trouble <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

One thing I want to put fokus on here in this tread is the differences between the manuals in the Lichtenauer tradition. I´m looking for sub-traditions so to speak!

Every master and manual has its own "flavor," so to speak, but you need more than one to make a tradition. There are differences in approach, priority, and presentation above all. Ultimately the techniques and principles are the same, though some will be stressed more than others. For example, Doebringer's version places a great deal of emphasis on the thrust--more than even Ringeck, I think. Meyer avoids the thrust (though he doesn't omit it, as some want to accuse him of), on account of the use of the longsword in schools being the primary focus of Meyer's longsword text.

I my self is very unexperienced in Meyer, have read the longswordpart, but I find some likness to Talhoffer in the language area. The names of things. Do you find any technic simmilaritys that you only find in Talhoffer and Meyer?

I remember that when I first really got into Meyer I was amazed at how much clearer Talhoffer became right off. Now I'm going to spend a few days looking at Talhoffer for good correlations. Two things, however, stick out to me.

The first is that Talhoffer always seems to be "up." Ochs, Hangen, and all the geschrenckt orts and stuff. Meyer does this, too, through the constant use of the zwerchauw and its variants. OTOH, as I read Doebringer I see the same thing, just less obvious for the lack of illustrations and "set plays."

Second, and more thrilling, is the "Wechselhau" in Talhoffer on Tafel 2 (next to the Sturzhau, another Meyer-common name). While I've seen a hundred conjectures on this, Meyer explains it superficially in his section on the cuts and in detail in the later plays. And it looks just like what Talhoffer is showing.

So yes, I think that there is a great deal in common there that we are still trying to understand.

Jake

[M Wallgren]

The first is that Talhoffer always seems to be "up." Ochs, Hangen, and all the geschrenckt orts and stuff. Meyer does this, too, through the constant use of the zwerchauw and its variants. OTOH, as I read Doebringer I see the same thing, just less obvious for the lack of illustrations and "set plays."

Second, and more thrilling, is the "Wechselhau" in Talhoffer on Tafel 2 (next to the Sturzhau, another Meyer-common name). While I've seen a hundred conjectures on this, Meyer explains it superficially in his section on the cuts and in detail in the later plays. And it looks just like what Talhoffer is showing.

So yes, I think that there is a great deal in common there that we are still trying to understand.

Jake

Thanks man!

I´m just out on a mad quest, searching for diversity in the german schools. This is to emephesise the broad spectrum and the advansed fighting system around in Europe under the late medival and renessans timnes. I have a video clip wuth two Polish guys doing Meyerfencing, Amazing to watch, and it looks very quite "Talhofferish"...