Simplified long sword fighting... and why.

[philippewillaume]

Hello
Yes I think we definably are, the differences are probably a more a matter of how we call things.

I was bout to say the system should be simple as well (for the very same reason) but I realized that this is only a pre-requiste from Ringeck and not necessarily for the other way to interprets the manual (s)

Since I work from a limited number of techniques, I needed a simple way to find out which one would be applicable at given a relatively generic position action from my opponent (Ringeck tells us to pay not to much attention to what he is doing). As well ineed to find a way to expended from on technique to another or change my mind very late in the strike (again not be so dependant of what he is doing)
On the top of that what ever I am doing I need to be protected (either by absetzen or relative body blade position.
I believe as well the idea behind Ringeck is that is works the pre-build bloks so you do not have to worry so much bouat what he can do nor what to chose because you have a extended and intricate knowledge of the tactical use for a given technique.

So basically, for me that what Ringeck systems means is reducing what (I think) you call difficulty, but I can see where you are coming from..


phil

[david welch]

I do believe that you do not need anything else that what there is in the manual (in my case Ringeck)

This is just IMO.

I would just like to point out to you that you are really not studying Ringeck... and there is no such thing as a "Ringeck system".

What you are studying is the teachings of Liechtenauer from a second hand source.

Deciding to study from only one fight book is the same as if after 10 of us trained under John Clements, you could randomly pick just one student to learn from under the assumptions that:
1) He didn't teach any other student anything different, and
2) He taught that one student everything he knows.

There are many references to "Liechtenauer says.." that were either his students or were semi-contemporary where they could have been his students, and even insights as late as Meyer where he talks about what Liechtenauer taught enough to realize Meyer, to say the least, was familiar of his teachings.

I don't understand why someone would not want to use all of Liechtenauer's work... and not using a source that contains the text "Liechtenauer taught" is intentionally ignoring part of it.

[Randall Pleasant]

David

I fully agree with you. Consider the following verse of Master Liechtenauer:

"Make the schill to the head above, you will hurt the hands.".

For this verse Ringeck describes the Schielhau being used to attack the adversary's hands as a counter to an Oberhau (Lindholm pages 96-97, Tobler page 69). On the other hand, for this verse Goliath describes the Schielhau being used to attack the adversary's hands as a counter to Long Point (Verso 36). If we study from only one manual it would be very easy to think that this verse describes a specific technique that should only be used within a specific context. But by studying both Ringeck and Goliath, as well as the other writings on Liechtenauer's method of fighting, we see that Master Liechtenauer's verse describes a principle that can be used in different contexts.

[JeffGentry]

Hey Gent's

I realy think that it is not so much a discussion of technique as it is semantic's, what "techniques" do we have for attacking/defending? 1)a cut, 2)a thrust, 3)a schnitt(IMO) all else are principles that are generic to fighting in general, i.e. absetzen(setting aside) you can set aside a sword blow or a punch, winding(turning) you can wind against a sword or in wrestling you can wind against his arm with your's.

It seem's the complexity is more about what is a "principle" and what is a "technique", I have used this "drill" as a demo on a couple of occasion's: I have a "student" stand in front of me and i assume a gaurd and as soon as i settle into the gaurd they tell me the vier versetzen to break it without hesitation or having to "think", the point is if you can not say it without hesitation in a calm relaxed situation which of the vier versetzen to use how can you do it in a fight with out hesitation when the oppertunity present's itself for only a small amount of time, the technique is easily taught it is simply a cut, the principal is also easily taught vier versetzen.

Executing it when your head bounce's off a rock just take's time.


Just MO

Jeff

[philippewillaume]

Hello david
Would not calling it lichtanauer style according to one student, makes it that student style?
It is quite clear that Ringeck was a fencing master on his own right (or he is telling us porkies in the manuscript), as it is quite clear that Meyer was one as well. So they are not random students writing essays.
Yes what they do is their vision/understanding of what lichty meant but this is non-the less theirs version of it.)

Aikido is a very good example, O sensei is dead since 65 and you have legion of version of aikido not all relevant to each other. Iwama aikido is different from the hombu. It is still aikido but this is a different tack on the beast. There is similitude and there are differences.

Meyer is more than 150 years after ringeck, and there was a few changes in 150 years.
And there are some difference between VD, lew and speyer and Dobringer.

If you want to go back to Lichtanauser proper then you need ringeck, VD,. Lew, speyer and Dobringer (and probably Meyer and Tahlhoffer as Corroborary sources).
But nothing prevents you to use one of those as your principal source (and use the other secondary).
According to the way you do your study you will interpret those differences differently.
You see the all the glossators (VD, ringeck, lew, speyer ) give their take on what they understood the verses meant. It is not reasonable to believe that the tradition was passed un-impinged through centuries. But that being said they all talk about the same thing.
So I am not to sure what are the loss you (David) and Ran are talking about?

I mean all the primary glossator are mentioning the 17 pieces. They have sometime different version of it. But I though we all agree that each technique describe was there to illustrate a principle/concept?
In fact I think the concept are very similar, however the choice of the exemple used by each author is probably important in respect to their vision of the tactical application of the said concept/principle. (I.e. some glossa will be different or will cover different topic for example see the Zwerch in ringeck and in VD lew and speyer). But they all talk about the 17 pieces.
In fact that how I check the concept/principle I understood from ringeck is correct as it has to be the underlaying priciple/concept for the techniques described by VD speyer and lew. I say I follow ringeck because when there is difference in the actual technique I follow Ringeck and not the other
For example ringeck do not tell to strike the sword with the zorn but VD says so. So I do my zornh aiming at the guy (so I may or may not hit his sword as opposed to hit the sword always.)

As other exemple of what I am trying to say we can use the verse Randal used:
Aber ain stuck vß dem schillhaw.
Schill zu° dem oberen haupt, hende wilt dü bedebren.
Glosa.
Merck, wen er dir oben will jn hawen, so schill mit dem gesicht, alß dü jn vff das haupt wylt schlagen. Vnd haw mit der kurtzen schnyden gen sinen haw, vnd schlag jn an siner schwertz klingen mit dem ort vff die hend.

Yet another piece of the Shiel
Shiel to the top of the head, the hands you will inherit (bedebren=bederbenen=to benefit of the usufruct)
Glose
Mark; when he wants to strike you high, then Shiel with the glance as if you were to strike his head. And strike with the short edge towards his strike, and strikes at his blade with the point at/to the hand.

But you see Ringeck adds

Yet another piece of the Shiel
sheil at the point and take him in the throat in the challenge (anfechten)/ or without fear (furcht)
mark, the sheil breaks the long point and it is done so: when he stands towards you with extended arms and the point against the face or the chest. So stand with the left foot forward and sheil with the face/look at the point and act as if you were going to strike his point and strike strongly with the short edged at his blade and thrust you point to his throat along his blade as you step with the right foot

As far as I can tell Speyer, lew, and von dantzig and the Goliath have the same verses; same structure only slightly different glossa but the jest is the same in all cases.
I take that ‘s what Randal meant instead of hitting the hand with the Sheil when breaking the long point.
But what I am trying to demonstrate is that it is in all the manuals.

[david welch]

Well, saying:

If you want to go back to Lichtanauser proper then you need ringeck, VD,. Lew, speyer and Dobringer (and probably Meyer and Tahlhoffer as Corroborary sources).
But nothing prevents you to use one of those as your principal source (and use the other secondary).

And:

In fact that how I check the concept/principle I understood from ringeck is correct as it has to be the underlaying priciple/concept for the techniques described by VD speyer and lew. I say I follow ringeck because when there is difference in the actual technique I follow Ringeck and not the other

Is a lot different from saying you only need to study one fight book:

I do believe that you do not need anything else that what there is in the manual (in my case Ringeck)

But still, like in my earlier example, why would you want to have one of the ten train you in what we thought John Clements was teaching... when you could learn directly from him?

So I am not to sure what are the loss you (David) and Ran are talking about?

Ok. Lets keep using the glancer as an example.

If you only used one book, you could be lead to believe that the glancer was only a strike to the head. Or to the hands. Or to be used low to break plow. All the masters show us some type of example of how to use the glancer in some way or the other.

Personally, at one time I thought several of the masters taught different glancers, and that there was several versions of this strike.

But by reading through several fight books... and sparring it out, now I believe that the glancer is nothing but a long edge oberhaw that you change into a short edge right before you hit, and if you do in just as you bind it displaces well.

The other stuff is nothing but examples on how the masters thought it was useful, and like all strikes you can do different stuff with it by cutting to hengen with it (cut their hands), cutting to long point with it (cutting their head) or cutting to plow with it (breaking their plow) or whatever...

But however you use it, and whatever guard you cut to, the glancing strike is still just a long edge oberhaw that you turn over to the short edge Indes.

That is the kind of loss of overall concept I think can happen by only using one book.

[scott adair]

David,

Excellent post! I cannot tell you how this topic has weighed heavily on my mind in the study of other arts and WMA's.

Things have been pretty well worked over but I have a few things to comment on:

Jeanry Said:
"My advice, and it might be bad advice so take it with a pinch of salt, I guess would be to try not to really bother getting too far ahead of your physical skill level with your scholarly training. Learn the basics, add on layers of complexity when you are ready for them."

This has been the approach I have taken. When a question arises from drills or sparing then I try to pursue an answer. For the most part Martin and I try to work counters using crown and hanging and then work through the master cuts.

I remember reading about a Fillipino instructor who knew many styles but advocated the cinco terros or 5 strike style for combat. He said in a real fight that's all you need. He was bad mouthed by some but I see some truth in what he advocated.


Scott Adair

[Logan Weed]

Hmm. When runny do you ever think of which stride to take? What foot position is required to avoid an object in your path? No. You just do it thinking only of the general angle and position to be used. Now you may decide to study your running technique in the hopes of improving it but once these adjustments to your instict have been made it's entirely automatic in application.

Fighting I would say is exactly the same. So why worry too much about studying too many techniques? They're not techniques in application, only angle and position. If you decide to attack diagonally downward from the left all you have to worry about is loading the appropriate algorithm. More techniques studied in training means more algorithms to possibly apply in combat. More variations on timing, distance, angle, and power. Now if the human mind had some sort of trouble efficiently sorting through its library of algorithms then we might have a lag problem but that certainly doesn't seem to be the case.

I think the only thing you need to worry about is allocating enough time to sufficiently learn techniques before focusing on another.

[philippewillaume]

Hello david
I am not trying to say that my method is the best. if you look at the all the post i have written. I believe that no method is really better than other and we eventually chose the one that suit our way of thinking. And I can understand that what I am saying is alien to you but I am trying to explain why your approach and my approach are not mutually exclusive.

So I see your point about the one-manual/several manual. However I want to point out the use the other manuscript is purely intellectual IE if I were to use what that author said would the underlying of my principle still be true.
I practically do the piece as Ringeck (and ringeck only) set them up and execute them.

If you do not mind I will not use the example with the shiel because in different manuscript (VD, Lew, Ringeck, Von Speyer and Dobringer) I really do not see what is one manuscript and is one other.
The all have:
1) against the buffalo, breaking the ox or a thrust from bellow
2) shiel against the short srtike
3) shiel against the lang ort (IE I aim going to get you point, hihi no I am not, have that in the throat)
4) shiel at the point and twat the hands
5) in lew and Vspeyer you have the double feller agains which is quite odd since we do not do a schiel in it once but free strike and we are told that we can do it from the Zwerch as well…) and in any case the other mention it in the zwerch so in any case we have it.
I keep the goliath separated, as it is almost a verbatim copy of VD but the picture seems to be more from the 1500 than the 1400. In any case you find all the point described above.
I did not take in considartion Talhoffer as he branched out as is 1459 manuscript indicated and Meyer is 150 years after so he is not as directly relevant as the 5 others

The only difference is as the do the same movement Ringeck end up more to the left hand hit the right shoulder instead of the head an that on the point 1) only.
But they all work the same way, it is not two different techniques it is just a different choice of target (and probably entry philosophy) but they are doing the same thing. (well what I would call the same thing or at least the same cut) and it the same throughout the manuscripts. That probably why I think as well that you analogies with John is not really relevant you see the situation is not the same. As you said there is little point to see one of John student at the present (unless you like the way that student does John stuff)
But Ringeck, VD, LEW, Von speyer were not student of lichtanauer, as far as I can tell they were fencing master of their own right 50-to 100 years later.
What they did was their stuff it was based on lichty but quite clearly the old geezer has bought it when they wrote and they added a few bits here and then.
The same as students that are being taught by John now will do in 50 years. It will be based on john stuff but it will have evolved into their “own” stuff. That is the way martial arts are.


I really cannot understand why you believe that there is more technique in the sum of the manuals that in each manual taken separately. It is the same sing they just have slightly different way to go about it.

For example Ringeck use the shrankhut to hit people in the body or the head. VD/lew do them at the hand.
You are telling me why not use both. My answer is because it is not in the manual. So my interpretation caters for that and build up a situation where this is not going to be relevant.
i.e. you will have something better to do or you do not let that situation develop.
If I expend on that
Ringeck gives 3 option hit him, do a abzetzen with the krump, or do a verkerer and then branch on the striechen.

What the point of hitting him in the hand?, both Vd and ringeck hit rely on the a void by stepping.
So I can always step in a way that will make me hit the body instead of the head.
If I can not void I have solutions that will enable me to stay on th esame side or go accros the sword on my left should I need it. And give me either a kill or leave me in a better follow up position than what I will get if I miss his hands.

Or one could say but I am student of lichtanauer therefore I cannot use either because the schranckhut is not part of the lichtanauer tradition stricto sensus. Ie dobringer and ringeck clearly mark the technique outside lichtanauer tradition (but stuff that is good to know no the less) ands it is not.
On a practical level, It can be argued that the same effect could be obtain from the 4 main guards any way so you do not need a schranhut. Unless you are fighting against several peasant (as uncle Dobringer would say and if you want to recognized the fact that even though being outside lichty verses they are good to use.)

And another take one it would be to say well it is in all the original glossator manuscript, they all through it was good, and from VD onwards the integrated it (as with the rest of the outside the manual bits) to manual verses, hence it clearly fits the principles so lets use them both.

And it is all very fine by me, on a practical level is one approach is not really better that another.

[Ray_McCullough]

I ve always heard in the martial arts , your never better than your basics. I f you have the basics , you have the foundation of the art. When you have mastered the basics, which is always a work in process, to a point that you dont think about them , you react instinctually. Then the "advanced techniques" are not so complicated becsuse you understand when and why to use them (or when not to use them). The "advanced techniques " were not really complicated, But without a good knowledge of the basics of movement they seemed impossible ( especially when applying them to a sparring session).

I guess if you want to simplify fighting (any fighting) you stress the importance of learning and understanding the basics. Then everything else will be simple.

My two sense (from someone who knows nothing)

[david welch]

Philippe,

I just want you to know I am not saying you are "wrong" in your approach. I personally don't like it, I think it invites errors, and I just like the ARMA Method better:

http://www.thearma.org/methods.htm
Since no one historical fencing manuscript or book alone provides a complete and full style of fighting on its own, ARMA has chosen a more or less “holistic” approach to study of the historical fencing manuals.

From the beginning we proceeded on the assumption that the material and information at present known was only a small portion of what would eventually become available. We therefore consciously endeavored to have our practice and teaching curriculum make room for future advancements in the subject. In this way, as new information and translations become available they can with small effort be fitted into our curriculum. Rather than limiting ourselves to examination of one or two specific source works – certainly a valid approach that allows for a deeper study of each particular title –we instead used contrast and comparison of a range of texts to supplement and augment one another.

But that doesn't make you wrong. This is all just my opinion.

However..

Or one could say but I am student of lichtanauer therefore I cannot use either because the schranckhut is not part of the lichtanauer tradition stricto sensus. Ie dobringer and ringeck clearly mark the technique outside lichtanauer tradition (but stuff that is good to know no the less) ands it is not.

Is the very point I have been argueing against. There is no "stricto sensus" interpretation of Liechtenauer. There are examples. But that's all they are.

Doebringer said:
"But I would like to see one who could think up a fencing move or a strike which does not come from Liechtenauer’s art."

If you can come up with a guard, or strike from any of the masters that isn't basically a cut, a thrust or a slice, uberhaw or unterhaw, with the long edge or the short edge, to one of the four openings , I would like to see it.

[Bill Welch]

Phillippe, My view is very close to my brothers (imagine that, we train together), at the very beginning of our training we used mostly Meyer, and thought man this is hard. Then started comparing some of the other texts to Meyer, to complement our study, because some things are written with a bit more clarity(sp?).

But only IMHO because every manual is written for a different group or person so the text is textually different from the writers perspective to his student(s). And by examining the bits you get a bigger picture of the whole, kind of like looking at a picture in a microscope you see one dot very clearly, but if you back up you see the whole picture. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

Saying that you should not do something in a given situation is like saying you should not plug up the microwave to cook your noodles because the package did not say to do it <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Mike Cartier]

there are pitfalls to every approach.

[Bill Welch]

Hey Mike, dont get me wrong I think that you should do what works for you.
And you are correct, no matter what you do there is good and bad. <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" />

[philippewillaume]

Hello bill mike Dave (&amp; all the others)

Well you know, we do what we do as we do it because ultimately we think it is the best way to go about it.

That being said I fully understand you way of thinking and the rational behind it.
And I cannot really fault it as such. So as mike said it does not really make any of us right or wrong.

I am not even sure the approach differs that much, we just draw different conclusions.
I mean the concept I get out of Ringeck still have to satisfy VD, lew and Speyer and to a certain extend Dobringer.
And at the end it has to be usable in sparing. (I.E it should reduce the possibility of a double kill or a finger of the dead strike)

So you probably working toward the same idea but as opposed to me, When we face an interpretation problem you can use techniques from different manuals and I have to think more as to what differentiate and when to use a given techniques (my pool of technique is smaller).
In any case I think that it is valuable to have that type of discussion (and more technical one as well) because it make me think of what I am doing and gives me another perspective.

phil