Lots of questions about Fechbücher

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

Greetings fellow Scholars of the sword,

I thing I have a bit of misunderstanding after reading Hanko and Meyer, Danzig, Paulus Kal and Sutor, and watching some ARMA videos.

1. What is the cut called, which goes like this:

It starts in an Ox (often showed after a zwerch), goes above your head, the point rotating backwards, and hitting from the left side with the false edge, at the finish you have to turn your body a bit and end in a Thwarted, Ox-like stance with both arms crossed? Is it the Sturzhau or the Schiller, or something completelly different?

2. Is the Schiller of Hanko the same as the Schielhau?

3. Here: http://www.dreynschlag.at/historisches_schwert_krumphau.php the Krumphau is something else than here: http://www.thearma.org/essays/mastercuts.html
No offense here, for I found evidence in codexes for both being right... *confusion, confusion*

4. Why does Hanko say, that the Pflug is the stance, witch is called Alber in all other codexes (like Danzig)? Interestingly, Hanko also speaks of an Alber, but does not say what it looks like. In my opinion, since Master Doebringer's codex is the oldest in the german scool, that should be taken as genuine... what do you think?

5. This is a strange one!
Danzig calls himself student of Lichtenauer, in 1452. Since in 1389 the Grandmaster must have been dead (Hanko would never write down his codex while the Master was alive, breaking his vow!), Danzig must have died at an age around 70 (almost unbelievable in THAT age!). Then, some call Master Lichtenauer "Johannes", but Paulus Kal, when he lists the stundents of the Grandmaster, talks of HANS Lichtenauer.
Now. The question is. Since Lichtenauer would not be listed as his own student (yay), there must also have been a second Lichtenauer, probably his son, called Hans? (I know it sounds like blasphemy). Could it be, that Danzig actually met the second Lichtenauer?

6. Who are Andres Juden, Justs von der Nyssen and Niclas Prewßen? They are listed by Hanko as "other masters". I first thought, they were students of the Grandmaster, but then again, Paulus Kal, who really WAS one, doues not even mention them. Still. Doebringer writes down their teachings in the SAME codex as the teachings of the Gandmaster. Strange, is it not?


okay, that's for today. Thanks for all the answers ahead,

Szabolcs

[M Wallgren]

Greetings fellow Scholars of the sword,

I thing I have a bit of misunderstanding after reading Hanko and Meyer, Danzig, Paulus Kal and Sutor, and watching some ARMA videos.

1. What is the cut called, which goes like this:

It starts in an Ox (often showed after a zwerch), goes above your head, the point rotating backwards, and hitting from the left side with the false edge, at the finish you have to turn your body a bit and end in a Thwarted, Ox-like stance with both arms crossed? Is it the Sturzhau or the Schiller, or something completelly different?

I would say that you described a sturzhau as ARMA Östersund and ARMA Gimo interpret it.

2. Is the Schiller of Hanko the same as the Schielhau?

I belive so.

3. Here: http://www.dreynschlag.at/historisches_schwert_krumphau.php the Krumphau is something else than here: http://www.thearma.org/essays/mastercuts.html
No offense here, for I found evidence in codexes for both being right... *confusion, confusion*

Welcome to the world of historical European Martial Arts <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

4. Why does Hanko say, that the Pflug is the stance, witch is called Alber in all other codexes (like Danzig)? Interestingly, Hanko also speaks of an Alber, but does not say what it looks like. In my opinion, since Master Doebringer's codex is the oldest in the german scool, that should be taken as genuine... what do you think?

That´s a good thought, but to makee it more simple I think we just stick to what the others say. And as HD say Master Liechtenauer didn´t care too much about the guards. Remember the five words <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

5. This is a strange one!
Danzig calls himself student of Lichtenauer, in 1452. Since in 1389 the Grandmaster must have been dead (Hanko would never write down his codex while the Master was alive, breaking his vow!), Danzig must have died at an age around 70 (almost unbelievable in THAT age!). Then, some call Master Lichtenauer "Johannes", but Paulus Kal, when he lists the stundents of the Grandmaster, talks of HANS Lichtenauer.
Now. The question is. Since Lichtenauer would not be listed as his own student (yay), there must also have been a second Lichtenauer, probably his son, called Hans? (I know it sounds like blasphemy). Could it be, that Danzig actually met the second Lichtenauer?

Very interessting!!! Got to look into this...

6. Who are Andres Juden, Justs von der Nyssen and Niclas Prewßen? They are listed by Hanko as "other masters". I first thought, they were students of the Grandmaster, but then again, Paulus Kal, who really WAS one, doues not even mention them. Still. Doebringer writes down their teachings in the SAME codex as the teachings of the Gandmaster. Strange, is it not?

Well again interessting!!! But it could be that they did not leave such mark after the had been conected to Liechtenauer by HD. Could be it was a result of later rivality between followers of the others. We know how easy it is, there are many sites who do not link to other Historical European Martial Arts Associations because of feuds and rivality.

Martin


okay, that's for today. Thanks for all the answers ahead,

Szabolcs

Order of the Sword Hungary

[Jake_Norwood]

. What is the cut called, which goes like this:

It starts in an Ox (often showed after a zwerch), goes above your head, the point rotating backwards, and hitting from the left side with the false edge, at the finish you have to turn your body a bit and end in a Thwarted, Ox-like stance with both arms crossed? Is it the Sturzhau or the Schiller, or something completelly different?

The more time I spend with it, the more convinced I am, too, that this is a sturzhau. Realise, however, that even the masters may not have agreed about a lot of this stuff.

2. Is the Schiller of Hanko the same as the Schielhau?

Again, although I once thought otherwise, I am more and more sure that they are.

3. Here: http://www.dreynschlag.at/historisches_schwert_krumphau.php the Krumphau is something else than here: http://www.thearma.org/essays/mastercuts.html
No offense here, for I found evidence in codexes for both being right... *confusion, confusion*

I'll be honest here. I wrote one of those and looking at the other, they don't seem all that different. The one in the ARMA article starts from Schrankhut; the other one comes from tag. Those are both "fair" places to start the krump. What difference stuck out to you?

4. Why does Hanko say, that the Pflug is the stance, witch is called Alber in all other codexes (like Danzig)? Interestingly, Hanko also speaks of an Alber, but does not say what it looks like. In my opinion, since Master Doebringer's codex is the oldest in the german scool, that should be taken as genuine... what do you think?

"One of these kids is doin' his own thing, one of these kids is not the same"

Oldest does not necessarily mean most reliable. In fact, it increases the likelihood of mistakes, etc. in transcription given the scarcity of surviving copies. I think it's probably an error in transcription, just based on the preponderance of other masters (many not so much later) that disagree with what Hanko's got there.

5. This is a strange one!
Danzig calls himself student of Lichtenauer, in 1452. Since in 1389 the Grandmaster must have been dead (Hanko would never write down his codex while the Master was alive, breaking his vow!), Danzig must have died at an age around 70 (almost unbelievable in THAT age!). Then, some call Master Lichtenauer "Johannes", but Paulus Kal, when he lists the stundents of the Grandmaster, talks of HANS Lichtenauer.
Now. The question is. Since Lichtenauer would not be listed as his own student (yay), there must also have been a second Lichtenauer, probably his son, called Hans? (I know it sounds like blasphemy). Could it be, that Danzig actually met the second Lichtenauer?

Now that is interesting. OTOH, "HANS" and "joHANeS" come from the same root name, IIRC, much like "John" and "Jonathan" do. So hard to say.

6. Who are Andres Juden, Justs von der Nyssen and Niclas Prewßen? They are listed by Hanko as "other masters". I first thought, they were students of the Grandmaster, but then again, Paulus Kal, who really WAS one, doues not even mention them. Still. Doebringer writes down their teachings in the SAME codex as the teachings of the Gandmaster. Strange, is it not?

Don't know.

Could Andreas Juden be Andreas Liegnitzer? There was a very, very large Jewish population in Leignitz at that time, IIRC, and Silesian Jews frequently took the "last name" of their city.

Jake

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

Well, thanks <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

The difference I see between the two krumps is the following. In the Dreynschlag homepage, the Krump rotates from right to left with the fales edge, hitting the hands. And, if I interpret the fotos on the ARMA page correct (not that easy, since they are not numbered, and show the endeffect), that Krump goes from right to left with the true edge, then comes back from left to right with the false edge, hitting the head, or, if the first action would be a full circle, the false edge would come up from the bottom to top (riverso fendente?). Like I said before, in one codex (cant say which one, I read too much the last days) says that with a Krump you can cut the hands, but Hanko describes the Krump the way ARMA does it. I guess, that's why it's called "Hook" (=Krump).
It makes a difference, for we need the five Meisterhauwen, and can only interpret on the codexes of old. "Medieval swordsmanship" by JC does not describe them.

As for Hans and JoHANnes: yeah, could be right. They maybe called the Master Hans. Then, only two questionmarks remain: why does Paulus Kal write about him being his own student (okay, in a way, we all are our own students and masters), and why writers of fechtbücher of almost 100 years state being a formal member of Lichtenauer. With Fiore it's okay, for he did his codex in 1410, but the others? Could they all live 80 years or more? That is not that common, even today. The Danzig Fechtbuch, with teachings of Lignitzer and other formal students, was written clearly 62 years after the Grandmasters death. Keeping in mind that one must have been at least 10 years old to be allowed the wielding of swords, and that one does not die the day after a fechtbuch is finished, then Danzig, Lignizer, Hundfeldt, must all have lived well over 70 years...
I guess, being a superior swordfighter makes you live longer <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
All those long hours of training in the sun.... those survived battles... That Beer at the end of the day and many vegetables (I heard they did not have flesh all week) are healthy after all <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

((With Talhoffer, it's okay, for between the two Fechtbücher 1443 and 1467 there are 24 Years, almost a quarter century. If one counts around 20 years for learning, Talhoffer must have been 45 when he did the last Fechtbuch for Graf Ebenhardt... And the Swiss Wassmannsdorf, being a cronicer, states that the Master tought in Zurich in 1482, which makes even Talhoffer 70 years old. When he actually died, nobody knows, so he may have lived even longer.....))

You could be right wit the other names, for Nyssen and Preußen are all places in Germany. Even Lichtenau <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> (I have to wisit that place sometime and make a Zornhau on a Hill.... <img src="/forum/images/icons/cool.gif" alt="" /> )

If it does not bother you, I will sure have some more questions, for I currently translate Meyer to Hungarian. An other Member of us already translated Hanko.

bye,

Szabolcs

[Jake_Norwood]

The difference I see between the two krumps is the following. In the Dreynschlag homepage, the Krump rotates from right to left with the fales edge, hitting the hands. And, if I interpret the fotos on the ARMA page correct (not that easy, since they are not numbered, and show the endeffect), that Krump goes from right to left with the true edge, then comes back from left to right with the false edge, hitting the head, or, if the first action would be a full circle, the false edge would come up from the bottom to top (riverso fendente?). Like I said before, in one codex (cant say which one, I read too much the last days) says that with a Krump you can cut the hands, but Hanko describes the Krump the way ARMA does it. I guess, that's why it's called "Hook" (=Krump).

The krump is shown with the long edge from the right in most manuals. Arguably Talhoffer uses the short edge form the right, but I can also argue a case that he doesn't. The krump targets the hands, the arm, the weapon, etc...even within a single manual. Thus, as far as the manuals go, these two examples really aren't all that different at all, except that they're performed under different circumstances (type of attack, delivery position) and by individuals with different preferences (long or short edge, extension), which are normal modifications withing a "single" cut.

Jake

[Jaron Bernstein]

On the theme of manuals, I was wondering about Italian manuals. It has always struck me as odd that we have this huge number of German longsword manuals, while there are only 2 (Fiori and Vadi) Italian ones that deal with comparable material. By my understanding, Italy was at least as literate in that time as German and certainly wasn't overly peaceful a place. So....where are the missing Italian manuals.

John C. made a very interesting comment at the 1.0 about the library of Urbino being snagged by the Vatican (if I recall correctly), so that may be one partial explanation but even so it just seems odd to have the same tools, in the same era, with similar literacy while NOT having more than 2 extant manuals.

Any have any info on this?

[Jake_Norwood]

Good question--one many of us have asked, I'm sure.

I think much of has to do with a German propensity for record keeping as well. They wrote *everything* down during WWII, for example, much of which damned them later. Perhaps also it comes from Germany's position as the "new" Holy Roman Empire at the time. I know that's a big issue in Meyer's introduction.

Also (however), Italy gave us Machiavelli and his Art of War, still in that time frame. Perhaps the nobles were more interested in higher echelons in Italy?

Got me...

Jake

[Jaron Bernstein]

"Also (however), Italy gave us Machiavelli and his Art of War, still in that time frame. Perhaps the nobles were more interested in higher echelons in Italy?"

I don't think so. First, there are a great many later Italian manual on rapier and cut/thrust sword. Secondly, Italians didn't just do grand strategy. The great fortress engineers were all Italian. Ever here of the trace italienne? This very tactical level fortress design was the first one effective against cannons, courtesy of the land of great food and beautiful women (IMO <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> on the food and women part).

I think that there just have to be Italian longsword manuals out there somewhere, or there were at the time and just didn't get preserved. But it just doesn't make sense to me that they weren't written at the time.

Has Dr. Anglo ever explored this question?

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

I think, there are still many manuals out there. I mean, 4 or 5 of the original Lichtenauer Inner Circle did their own codexes - there is mathematicly not a big chance that only they wrote such books, and, that all of them survived! I was doing Land Survey in a very old (1000 Years?) monastery (Pannonhalma), where they had an extensive bibliothek. There even was a place nobody was allowed to go into, for there was no money for the restauration of the codexes that lay inside and they wanted to preserve them, so looking into them was not an option. All from the years around 1500... Who knows what lies in such bookselfs around the world? Who knows, what was demolished, sold out, whatever during the last 600 years? If you ask me, it's almost a miracle that we have all those Fechtbücher available....
As for me, it's not a question of 'If's but of 'when's about italian Fechtbücher <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
Then again, somehow all those Fechtbuchs are of quite the same origin regarding the technics of the longsword - namely Lichtenauer. I mean, even Fiore writes he was travelling around the world for knowledge, and had most experiences in Germany. What I would like to see, is a manual, of some completelly different school. Not that i am not 100% convinced about Lichtenauer, but it would be great to actually see differences in approach and technical knowledge-base. We could only learn from such a Fechtbuch, if there ever was any....


Good-bye

Szab

[David_Knight]

Dare you disrespect the spirit of Grandmaster Lichtenauer with "lots of questions about Fechbücher"?!?

As in all legitimate martial disciplines, questioning is absolutely forbidden in ARMA, and nothing of value is taught to beginners. In fact, the living lineages in Asian systems prove that this is the way our ancestors taught their magical art in Europe. The hidden secrets of German swordsmanship will only be revealed to you after you have journeyed deep into the Black Forest and meditated upon Lichtenauer's verses while standing barefoot in the position of Die Waage atop a 10-foot pike for three years to attain the rank of 24th degree Übergroßmeister.

Seriously <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

You just saved the day <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
Muhahahahahaha <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
Übergrossmeister! And if you fail the test, you get an Übergrossmesser in your back? <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

No seriously, "I just found this on Schola Gladiathoria's Homepage: In his books Fiore tells us that at an early age he decided he wanted to learn more of martial skills, and so began training and ultimately fighting in the barriers ('in sbarra'). He tells us that he travelled to learn the art further, and that he learnt from Italian and German masters (in the Pisani-Dossi version two are named - Master Giovanni, called Suveno and Master Nicholai of Toblem, of the diocese of Metz). He says he travelled in different lands (regions) and studied under, and later taught, many people. "

Master Suveno Giovanni. Must have been somebody, if he tought Fiore, no? If he wrote a Fechtbuch we wil probably never know, but at least we have a name.... <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

byez

Szab

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

.....and also "As stated, the inventories of the Estense Library show that there were two copies of Fiore's treatise (Ms.84 and Ms.110) held there between 1436 and 1508 (and presumably before this, as the 1436 inventory was the earliest available to Novati). In addition to these two there is also an anonymous fighting treatise recorded at the same time. After the 1508 inventory these three manuscripts are not recorded in the collection again. Judging by the library records, including descriptions and folio (page) counts, we are unsure if Getty, Morgan or PD were amongst these two copies of Fior di Battaglia. "


I feel the urging need for a... story of the Fechtbücher, and masters. Who is who, who met whom, and what exactly are the connections! That way we could better understand the principles...


Bye,

Szab

[Shawn Camp]

I would have to agree a bit with Jake, though its just speculation. Having met both Germans and Italians and doing a bit of history study, its interesting to note that Germans have a tendency to record EVERYTHING with much detail, whereas Italians (or others from the Adriatic area) do not seem to record as much.

[Stacy Clifford]

It seems funny to keep calling Italian manuals by the German name "fechtbuch." Isn't there some Italian term for a "fight book?"

[Jaron Bernstein]

Hmmm...But how do you then explain the fact that there ARE a huge number of Italian rapier and C&amp;T manuals that do describe things in detail. I just don't see Italian masters saying, "well we don't need to write down this longsword stuff, but I want 10 books on the rapier." And...to make it even more fun...why there are so few German manuals for rapier and C&amp;T sword but a huge # of longsword ones. <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" />