Question about training manuals

[Scott Richards]

I have a question that I would appreciate being answered by anyone, but especially the more experienced members: When we look at and try to learn from a fight book, what, in essense, are we looking at? Are we reading a manual to help two combatants in personal conflict, are we reading a military training manual for use on the battlefield, or is it somewhere in between? Is it a little of both? Is this the difference between armored and un-armored techniques. I'm just curious what it really is, when all is said and done, I'm training with.

Thank you,
Scott

[Mike Cartier]

that depends on the manual
whether or not the work is intended for unarmed or armoured should be immediatly obvious.

The intention of the manaul as it applies to civilian or military use would also be pretty much obvious.

For example I work mosty from the Meyer manual and its most definatly for instructing civilians in the use of weapons of te time. However meyer was a master of arms under a great noble so he clearly worked in the military realm.

[Jake_Norwood]

Sometimes the manual will tell you. Meyer's intro speaks incessantly about military matters, even though the images are all civilians.

Jake

[Jeffrey Hull]

Excellent question.

Like MC said, it sort of depends upon the manual.

With Talhoffer, who was a military man, the master-of-arms of a German count, his stuff seems to be mostly personal dueling, whether judicial or otherwise, but with overlap of efficacy for battlefield fighting, and mixing of unarmoured and armoured, and foot and mounted, and so forth.

But really none of the big Renaissance manuals would be considered as *drill-books* for personal presention of arms or mass battlefield-movements, at least not in the sense of later Napoleonic or US Revolutionary & Civil War drill-books. Unless I am totally missing something significant there, that seems reasonably certain.

[Jaron Bernstein]

Actually, there are a number of drill books for military usage from that era (1550's and 1600's). If you want to learn how teach 500 people how to load their match lock muskets in unison, march in formation and the like. I think it was Maurice of Nasau who did one of the earliest such extant books. But those books, while interesting from a military history and reenactment standpoint, aren't really what we do. The manuals we use are more about personal individual skill at arms.

[Jeffrey Hull]

Jaron,

Thank you for correcting and clarifying. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

Still it would be interesting to read a book about military drilling and stuff in the middles. I now read two books, armies of the 100 years war and Landsknechte, and in both there are a nomber of sources mentioned, where pre-battlefield movement, garrison law, general tactics and alike are mentioned along with diaries, weapon and equipment lists, so my point is, collecting numerous such papers and writings and somehow integrating all this in a simple article, would be of course a gigantic amount of work, but it would be worth it. One could possibly 'read between the lines' for mass movements on the battlefield in the medieval times.

Then again, chivalric ethical codexes did not really need any tactics as such....


Szabolcs

[JeffGentry]

Hey Szabolcs

Sound's like you are volunteering to write an article for the ARMA site.

I'll be interested in reading that.


Jeff

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

Hey, I've been thinking all time about an article for ARMA. I have a few half-ready ideas (but will need a little help before finish for my poor-poor english):

- The above. A little about the battles and the lives in between in the middleies.
- A translation of a codex part which is not yet available in english. Mr. Clements suggested the codex speyer, of which only 2-3 parts are translated, I'm still searching for a part that is not all that long and has some great unexplored Values (like, why describe the Ox stance yet more time?).
- A writing about the manuals themselves... Like, how the **** could Sigmund Ringeck know Lichtenauer personally (Paulus Kal says so), when he wrote his codex 63 (!) years later than Hanko Döbringer, who again is said to have written that codex right after the death of the grandmaster, but even if he was still alive.... How old was he, then? Did the Masters in the middle ages all live more than 60 years? In an age where people died in their thirties?
- I have an article about the phsychology of the armour in hungarian for which I used 4 books from germany and austria. That I could translate.

So I will do an Article, very soon.

Szabolcs

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

Hey, I think I start translating Martin Hundfeldt's teachings for the short sword ( I hope it is needed?).

I need a wolunteer who would correct my wrong english when I'm finished (a week or so).

Szabolcs

[Richard Strey]

Martin also did stuff on the short sword? Where would that be found? I've read his stuff in Peter von Danzig, but never heard of stuff outside of that book.

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

Yessyess, codex speyer. I like that one. Mertin Siber, Magister Andreas, Master Lew (Luowen) have teachings there as well.
But hey, i'm done with the first going <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
10 more to go.... <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

Szab

[Jeffrey Hull]

RS &amp; SW:

Just some friendly advising about the proper English:

The Hundfeldt *kurz schwert* would be properly translated as *shortened-swording* or as is more popular *halfswording*.

This we all know as the grabbing of hilt with one hand and the grabbing of blade with the other to do various thrusting and binding movements, of course.

So that distinction prevents confusion with a name for a kind of weapon which of course in English is called *shortsword* or *short sword*, aka a single-handed sword with blade of about 18-24 inches length.

Good luck,

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

Hey thanxx <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

That, my friends, spared me a stupid question, like, "why is Master Hundfeldt halfswording whit a short sword?" <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

I had a bit of mindkick and quickly read through the Hundfeldt Armoured section in Danzig, BUT!!!!! they are different, thank God.

In Danzig, he is more on the basics, while in Speyer there are brakes and goings.

Again, thanks, this all makes sense now.

Szabolcs

[Richard Strey]

Uh... isn't Hundfeld doing dagger (degen) stuff in Peter von Danzig's book? And thanks, Jeff, for the clear-up. I know the commonly used English terms, but the talk was about "short sword", so i figured I'd ask. So, where -except Peter von Danzig's treatise- is Hundfeld's stuff found? And is it dagger (degen), kurzes schwert/schwert zu kampf, halfswording/armored fighting) or short sword (the real one, which I'd rule out)?
I appologize for asking stupid questions, my internet connection at home is down due to me moving and my fencing stuff is inside some box.

p.s.: SzabolcsWaldmann, are you sure your signature is correct? It reads "One is what one does himself," with "es sich machen" being a colloquial term for "jacking off."