Get a load of this guy

[Gene Tausk]

Szabo:

"Secondly, apart from teaching how to align the blade, and what force to use, and how to hold fast to it etc. does it teach anything colesly related to fencing itself? "


Ummmmmmm.......are not those skills "closely related" to fencing? You listed three that I would respectfully consider vitally important to fencing:

1. How to align the blade
2. What force to use
3. How to hold fast to it (the sword)

If test cutting assists in learning these principles (and I believe it does), I think then we can agree on the value of test cutting for historical fencing studies.

[Sal Bertucci]

It also can teach distance, and even timing. (with a little creativity)

Also, in listening to this being discussed I've noticed that most people tend to confer a problem to the training method which is really a problem with the practitioner. Any training methodology has problems. If the only thing you do is spar with certain rules, you will develop bad habits. If the only thing you do is floryish, you will develop bad habits. Finally, if the only thing you do is test cut, you're going to develop bad habits.

For this conversation, if someone is over emphasizing their cuts, that doesn't mean that test cutting is invalid. That only means that the person is doing a crappy job of test cutting and needs to be corrected. Having said that, knowing that these are common flaws allows us to spot them before they become heavily ingrained into our movements. (hopefully)

As to the idea that one could only test-cut once and be done with it, the answer is no. The reason is because like all things, in order to be successfully applied at the correct time it needs to be practiced to the point where it is unconscious. (Ultimate goal) Just like any other skill or technique that would be used in this art.

Another thing to be considered is that back then is that they had "real" cutting. Knowing how different the damage delivered can be between a good cut and a bad cut it is quite easy to see how those who cut well killed, and those that cut poorly were killed. ( my own supposition)

[JeremyDillon]

Hi Gene,
Secondly, apart from teaching how to align the blade, and what force to use, and how to hold fast to it etc. does it teach anything colesly related to fencing itself? Or would it be enough to test-cut once in the lifetime before the fencing lessons start?
You must admit, people move diferently if they test-cut compared to when they fence. Just an example, in test-cutting most of the people I saw over-committed to the attack and over-cut themselves. They could not hold the center line, if they would miss the opponent with strikes anybody commonly uses in testcutting lessons, so yes, I think Mr.Knight may have a few points.
What do you think?

Szab

Szalbocs,
Hi there. Now I'm certainly not nearly as experienced as most people on this board are at test cutting, but from my experience I can tell you that it does your technique a world of good. It provides you with the advantage of experiencing how a weapon behaves when striking with intent on a target, something that you just can't replicate in sparring or light drilling. This lends us all kinds of insight into the efficiency of techniques. I think a lot of the misconceptions (the lazy vom tag, windshield wiper krumphau etc.) could be cleared up quite easily by demonstrating how much they hamper the fencers ability to land lethal or incapacitating blows. How better to do this than to try our techniques out on a realistic target? If I throw a cut from the lazy vom tag and it fails to appreciably cut a target (lets say a tatami mat), then how could I ever expect that same cut to stop an uncooperative, aggressive and armed opponent? Anyway, just my two cents.

[Stacy Clifford]

I think a lot of the misconceptions (the lazy vom tag, windshield wiper krumphau etc.) could be cleared up quite easily by demonstrating how much they hamper the fencers ability to land lethal or incapacitating blows. How better to do this than to try our techniques out on a realistic target? If I throw a cut from the lazy vom tag and it fails to appreciably cut a target (lets say a tatami mat), then how could I ever expect that same cut to stop an uncooperative, aggressive and armed opponent?

That may be misstating our position a bit. It's true that the lazy vom tag reduces the force you can deliver with a blow, but with proper edge alignment it and the windshield wiper and other cut interpretations we disagree with may still be able to deliver lethal damage - if unopposed. The reason we disagree with some of these interpretations is often not because they can't work in ideal scenarios, but because they greatly reduce effectiveness when confronted with opposition by somebody who doesn't want to let it work for you. Test cutting may reveal some undesirable features of a technique, but by itself it won't tell you the technique is bad or wrong just because it's not as powerful as it could be, you have to look at what the technique was meant to achieve in a given situation.

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

Hi Folks,

This is beginning to be interesting

Szabo:
Ummmmmmm.......are not those skills "closely related" to fencing?

I prefer Szabolcs or Szab, Szabo means Taylor and is rather funny as a name
But yes, I mean no, I don't think that those skills are closely related to fencing. They are closely related to learning how a cut works, or how a weapon performs etc., but tell you little, imho, about the fencing, fighting part. I tell you, why I believe so.
I talked to a Iaijutsu or kenjutsu guy recently. I asked him why he doesn't hold the centerline! Alas, they do no free fencing at all in their training. And he answered, after understanding my problem (took some time to explain what I meant) that in Japan the samurais were told to cut the enemy in half. Iaido-guys learn to finish the jub with one cut. And aside from Muneori's fencing treatise most schools do not empathize fencing with the katana very much. And then he told me that by testcutting they learn mostly not the blade alignment or anything like that, but mainly the commitment to a killing attack. Like a Zornhau. If somebody would say that he is testcutting to train himself doing a committed Zornhau, well that would be a bit japaneese, but it would make sense for me.
Y'see, I don't think that the longsword is a "cut a man in half" weapon. We do not need to argue that it is very powerful sword and that one can cut off a leg or two, but if you look at our attacks with our art, I think that if they hit they do not cut anything off. What I want to say is, that a rather small strike to the head which would cut, let's say only an inch deap i just as deadly that the one which cuts the head in half. And since there are a number of Nachschlag's in Lichtenauer's fencing, there will be a lot of wounds on the oppnent, before he falls to the ground.
I still have to see a testcut which astually does the job right and holds the centerline.

But you are right, we can agree on the value of test cutting for historical fencing studies. Now for me the question is if it is historically valid, and where it starts to develop bad habits instead of teaching. That's what I meant withtestcutting before the teaching starts, so that the trainee knows how the sword performs and how t hold it, before he/she learns the techniques, which are - please correnct me if I am wrong - mainly different from testcutting movements.

Here's one more:

I think a lot of the misconceptions (the lazy vom tag, windshield wiper krumphau etc.) could be cleared up quite easily by demonstrating how much they hamper the fencers ability to land lethal or incapacitating blows.

I disagree here. First. There is no such thing as a misconception in fencing studies, in my opinion. Please give us the exact source which tells you that the windshield wiper krumphau is incorrect. For Lichtenauer surely is not talkative if it comes down to how to do something right. (In my interpretation, the krumphau is also *not* a wiper, but I can think of circumstances where it would be correct!). And the "lazy vom Tach" comes from a number of images. Now if you read the *maybe* hanko döbringer book closely, he gives you at least 4 different vom Tachs.
Second, I do not believe that in fencing there were many incapacitationg blows. Believe me, if we are not talking about the big Conan the barbarian who can resist anything, most people tend to be very afraid if it they see their own blood on an enemy weapon.

And lastly, most of the fechtbuchs do not tel you what kind of fight they are talking about. Like the *Hanko* book. Is that juidicial duel, or self defense, or knightly duelling, or what?I don't know! For if it's only juidicial (Talhoffer, Kal, Gladiatoria, just to name a few) then one small cut is enough most of the time to actually win. It's not olways to the death, and the fighter does not need to kill the oppononent, only to win. Then the opponent will be executioned by the court. Of course, this varies from time and place.

Szab

[I. Hartikainen]

Hi!

Interesting discussion.

Gene, no reason to be offended by the questions asked. Obviously all the skills acquired count, but the difference is in that the most effective/efficient way to cut tatami may not be the same as the most effective/efficient way to use the sword against a living opponent trying to prevent your actions and hit you whenever possible.

To quote Guy Windsor, the idea seems to be "not to strike hard but to strike first", which relates to keeping the actions small, therefore fast and direct. Leaving the point in presence is also important, you can see this done by Fiore, by Vadi and in Liechtenauer as well. In summary you should usually only take your point offline if you are pressing your opponent's point even further as you do so, and still it carries with it certain risks.

When cutting tatami, you wish to let your sword traverse through the target for the best results. Exposing yourself as you get into "range" is likewise not a problem as the tatami rarely stabs you in the face as you do so. This is not to say test-cutting was not useful, rather analyzing how it changes the game. This is an important skill - it's kind of like noticing that your opponent has armor on their left shoulder, better to hit somewhere else then. It's about the best way of learning how to use the tool. I sometimes open beer cans with a blunt sword, it's simple but it is a skill nevertheless. I use knives for carving wood, chopping vegetables, and I would use the knife differently for defending myself. It's about broadening the horizon.

And what comes to Szab's comment on academic discussion, let's keep the subject apart from the attributes of the person who asked it. I do not wish to take sides, but I'll join Szab in asking a general question of how can we say that absence of evidence is evidence of absence in one matter (ways of parrying) but not in another one (test-cutting)? Also, if there is no historical record of test-cutting, should we consider it part of historical swordsmanship, or is it more anachronistic? At least, we should be honest about it. Nobody (not necessarily even mr. Knight) is attacking the practice of test-cutting, but rather open discussion to further our understanding. And to make the question legitimate I can run 2 miles, do 20 pullups and a hundred crunches for you anytime, that's enough for my part as well as Hugh's (now did that actually make it anymore legitimate or not?).

Now for something useful, go read the manuscripts and find out what they actually say about cutting? Maybe there is a reference to test-cutting somewhere? At least in the Italian texts we are told that the cuts cleave the teeth, leave bloody signs, ruin the hands and more, but the thrust was always considered more deadly. Perhaps because it can safely be done from a "lazy" vom tach?

Finally, I am curious about the way how the Arma interpretation of the krumphaw is different from the "windscreen-wiper" interpretation? I'm no expert on the Liechtenauer material, but I've always thought that there are multiple ways of using the krump, with the defining factor being that the strike is a combination of reaching to the side, and easily delivering two strikes without stopping to change direction in between, targeted either to the blade then head, or to the arms and possibly then to the head? If you don't want it here on the forum, I'd be grateful if someone could discuss it with me on a private message or email.

Let's keep the discussion going,
Ilkka

[Benjamin Smith]

I am going to add one final statement that will clarify why I took the position that I did, and then I will say no more. I have seen people fail to cut all sorts of things, cardboard, water jugs, tatami mats, etc... with blows that they thought would be effective.

Fencing is about hitting without being hit, but it is also about hitting in such a way that your opponent cannot hurt you afterward. This means that in order for a technique to be effective it must incapacitate your opponent.

It is not enough to play sword tag, a blow must be properly placed, have proper edge alignment, have a proper interval of time to impart its force to the target, and the person controlling the weapon must be exerting proper force with proper control for the damage to be incapacitating. Classic example: George Silver's account that one of his acquaintances was wounded, not once, not twice, but nine times, and then he managed to land one good blow, and the fight was over. True those wounds were delivered with a rapier, but the principle applies to any and all other weapons whatsoever.

Striking first, and striking quickly is not enough. This was borne out in historical experience. The strike must be sufficient to end the fight, or allow you to end it with the following attack or it is without value. This is perhaps not hard to learn, but it does require learning.

No one who disagrees with the value of test cutting ever puts forward a different way to learn this necessary skill.

[Randall Pleasant]

Finally, I am curious about the way how the Arma interpretation of the krumphaw is different from the "windscreen-wiper" interpretation?
...

If you don't want it here on the forum, I'd be grateful if someone could discuss it with me on a private message or email.

Ilkka

John Clements new interpretation of the Krump came about when he realized that the windshield-wiper interpretation just did not work in hard sparring. John basically went back to the drawing board and took a fresh look at and following exactly what the masters were really saying. Thus, he came up with a new interpretation that actually works. By "actually works" I mean that it will break Och in a safe and effective manner and works safely and effective with all of the other contexts in which a Krum is used. The windshield-wiper interpretation has always been something of an odd-ball thing within the context of the other master cuts. John's new Krump interpretation, on the other hand, fits extremely well into the overall context of the master cuts. Hopefully John Clements will be releashing his interpretation to the public soon. Until them none of us can disucss it in public or private outside of ARMA.

I disagree here. First. There is no such thing as a misconception in fencing studies, in my opinion.

Szab

If there is anything that the WMA community has it is misconception!

Please give us the exact source which tells you that the windshield wiper krumphau is incorrect.

The historical soruces contain text describing how to perform a Krump. The old windshield wiper is just an interpretation of that text, it somewhat matches the text but it clearly does not work. In other words, windshield wiper interpretation is not martially sound. John Clements new interpretation of the Krump matches the text and it works in all contexts in which a Krump is suppose to work. In other words John's new Krump interpretation is both historically valid and martially sound.

And the "lazy vom Tach" comes from a number of images.

Lazy Vom Tach is a literal interpretation of an image from the Peter von Danzig manual. The problem is that if you take a literal interpretation of one von Danzig image then you must take a literal interpretation of all of the von Danzig images. Do you dis-locate your shoulder so that you can stand in Pflug exactly as shown in the von Danzig images? If not, then you cannot take the Vom Tach image literally. That's a research problem you can't get around.

Second, I do not believe that in fencing there were many incapacitationg blows.

You do realize that these arts are about killing another human who is trying to kill you and doing so in a manner that does not result in your own death or injury?

[Stacy Clifford]

Second, I do not believe that in fencing there were many incapacitationg blows.

As far as that goes, see this article:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/strength.htm

Liechtenauer himself advised, “Hit hard and be good at it!”

[Gene Tausk]

Hi!

Interesting discussion.

Gene, no reason to be offended by the questions asked. Obviously all the skills acquired count, but the difference is in that the most effective/efficient way to cut tatami may not be the same as the most effective/efficient way to use the sword against a living opponent trying to prevent your actions and hit you whenever possible.

To quote Guy Windsor, the idea seems to be "not to strike hard but to strike first", which relates to keeping the actions small, therefore fast and direct. Leaving the point in presence is also important, you can see this done by Fiore, by Vadi and in Liechtenauer as well. In summary you should usually only take your point offline if you are pressing your opponent's point even further as you do so, and still it carries with it certain risks.

When cutting tatami, you wish to let your sword traverse through the target for the best results. Exposing yourself as you get into "range" is likewise not a problem as the tatami rarely stabs you in the face as you do so. This is not to say test-cutting was not useful, rather analyzing how it changes the game. This is an important skill - it's kind of like noticing that your opponent has armor on their left shoulder, better to hit somewhere else then. It's about the best way of learning how to use the tool. I sometimes open beer cans with a blunt sword, it's simple but it is a skill nevertheless. I use knives for carving wood, chopping vegetables, and I would use the knife differently for defending myself. It's about broadening the horizon.

And what comes to Szab's comment on academic discussion, let's keep the subject apart from the attributes of the person who asked it. I do not wish to take sides, but I'll join Szab in asking a general question of how can we say that absence of evidence is evidence of absence in one matter (ways of parrying) but not in another one (test-cutting)? Also, if there is no historical record of test-cutting, should we consider it part of historical swordsmanship, or is it more anachronistic? At least, we should be honest about it. Nobody (not necessarily even mr. Knight) is attacking the practice of test-cutting, but rather open discussion to further our understanding. And to make the question legitimate I can run 2 miles, do 20 pullups and a hundred crunches for you anytime, that's enough for my part as well as Hugh's (now did that actually make it anymore legitimate or not?).

Now for something useful, go read the manuscripts and find out what they actually say about cutting? Maybe there is a reference to test-cutting somewhere? At least in the Italian texts we are told that the cuts cleave the teeth, leave bloody signs, ruin the hands and more, but the thrust was always considered more deadly. Perhaps because it can safely be done from a "lazy" vom tach?

Finally, I am curious about the way how the Arma interpretation of the krumphaw is different from the "windscreen-wiper" interpretation? I'm no expert on the Liechtenauer material, but I've always thought that there are multiple ways of using the krump, with the defining factor being that the strike is a combination of reaching to the side, and easily delivering two strikes without stopping to change direction in between, targeted either to the blade then head, or to the arms and possibly then to the head? If you don't want it here on the forum, I'd be grateful if someone could discuss it with me on a private message or email.

Let's keep the discussion going,
Ilkka

Ilkka and Szab:


First, sorry for the "Szabo." I was too lazy to ask my dad or mom the correct way to shorten your name. Mea culpa!

Second, Ilkka, I see nowhere on my prevous posts were I "took offense."

Third, I have explained why I have disdain for Mr. Knight's interpretations and stand by them. Ilkka, just out of curiosity, do you hold yourself out as a "fechtmeister" like Mr. Knight? If so, what is your basis for such a claim? BTW - you obviously agree with me that swordfighting is an athletic activity that demands a certain level of physical fitness.

Fourth, the whole test cutting issue seems to revolve around two main points: (1) is it historically accurate (found in the manuals) and (2) does it aid in the study/reconstruction of historical fencing.

Regarding the first point. Some of the arguments seem to be that "there is no mention of test cutting in the manuals therefore it is not historically accurate and therefore it is not germane to the study of historical fencing." I find no mention in the manuals to avoid putting my $4000 sword in a vat of hydrochloric acid or to avoid leaving it out in the rain or leaving it exposed to the Texas humidity. Therefore, I will do this (no I won't - my wife already gets on my case for the amount of $$$ I spend on this stuff). You can see to where this argument is leading (in Texas we call this the "Judge Roy Bean" argument after a semilegendary Justice of the Peace who once allegedly stated that the lawbooks said nothing about "killin a Chinaman" so therefore "killin a Chinaman" is not a crime.) I don't expect the manuals, written in a time long before the Internet or modern word processors, written in a time when writing was not common and paper scarce, to tell me EVERYTHING about training with a sword or handling one. At some point I have to use my experience and common sense to begin to fill in the gaps. The risk, of course, is the "frog DNA" from Jurassik Park. However, I see no other way. It is my experience that test cutting is a valuable skill. It does teach edge alignment. It does teach what to expect when your blade encounters a resisting object. It teaches what kind of power is necessary. The benefits are enormous. In my opinion, it is a great way to learn about the power of using a sword and how to use a sword correctly. Also, IMHO, it is as fundamental as target practice is to learning how to use firearms. There is a danger, of course, that people will mistake test cutting with the art of fencing. But, people mistake all sorts of things for the art of fence so this is nothing unique to test cutting.

This, of course, leads to the second point - IMHO I believe the evidence shows, for the above reasons, that test cutting does aid in the reconstruction of historical fencing. We don't use swords as primary or even secondary weapons anymore. We don't have the constant feedback between the people who made the swords and the people who used the swords in actual life-or-death situations. We have to find ways to see if our theories match the observations. Test cutting is one of these ways.

And, BTW, for those who are using a "historical purist" argument to state that we have to do it EXACTLY by the manuals with as they did it back then, I would respectfully argue that this is impossible. First, the law is different. The amount of force that would be permissible in a training hall I would respectfully argue would land you in civil court or facing criminal prosecution nowadays. And, paradoxically, because of modern medicine, a lot of injuries which would prove fatal or incapacitating back then are now curable or fixable. Even if you have the best intentions, because we are living and training in the 21st century, some "frog DNA" will get into the picture.

[Chris Ouellet]

I'm surprised this thread is still going and rather shocked some people would even consider Mr.Knight's arguments on an academic level.
If you can't cut a stationary test target then you're flat out not a good swordsman. It's not even up for debate, this doesn't require historical textual proof. If you fail on the stationary ideal situation tatami you will fail on flesh/armor and a live opponent. Test cutting certainly has its purpose as a test of swordsmanship.
Besides there are words such as "pell" whose etymologies can be traced back sufficiently far in history to indicate they're not modern constructs (even though I realise "pell" are for wooden test cuts, it's nonetheless a test cut).

I have to agree with everything Gene has said.

[SzabolcsWaldmann]

Hello Folks.

"I'm surprised this thread is still going and rather shocked some people would even consider Mr.Knight's arguments on an academic level. "

Be not. Like I said, it's basic ethics. Mourn the day when you do not consider anything outside your group anymore as something that can have validity. That has nothing to do with this Mr.Knight's issues at all. Read the stuff, if it is academically incorrect for you, then either be done with it, or help others (ie Me) to understand why his claims are corrupted in your opinion.

"If you can't cut a stationary test target then you're flat out not a good swordsman. It's not even up for debate, this doesn't require historical textual proof."

No it doesn't if you put it like this. What needs historical proof is the fact if there have been any testcutting lessons at all in the past.
But what is your answer to this: give an average 14 year old boy an Albion Talhoffer in the hands (being his first time) and give him a tatami to cut, and look what happens. I tell you what I think: he will hit it very hard, probably even cut it, but at least will do major damage to it. This does not make him a swordsman, now does it?


"SzabolcsWaldmann wrote:
Second, I do not believe that in fencing there were many incapacitationg blows.

You do realize that these arts are about killing another human who is trying to kill you and doing so in a manner that does not result in your own death or injury?"

Do't try to make this personal. Tough you are rather helping me, for I actually think that you are right. For what I claim (that lesser hits, thrusts and injuries lead to death just as well as gigantic blows, and that multiple hits are what I think Lichtenauer talks about) actually fits into your way of thinking.
I can back my argument up. Maybe I understand the word "incapacitating" wrongly, but I don't see how a Zeckruhr , or an auswinden done with a strike, not a thrust (on eof the 24), or a Schnitt is an incapacitating move in itself. Or if they are, then why not testcut with these techniques? From only half a meter away from the target?

Second. We do not always know, like I wrote, the causes of fighting in the manuals. But the 16th century stuff (Meyer, Mair, Sutor, etc.) is for tournament play mostly. The torunament rules in belgium in Meyer's time (Matt Galas' research) allow simultaneous hits, where the higher hit counts. So somebody who studied under Meyer could have been traveling to belgium for a tournament, and 'give his leg' to the enemy blow just to be able to hit the head an thus win the tournament. He would not do the same in a life-or-death situation, but Meyer is no self defense, in my humble, humble opinion.
So I disagree with you in a sense, that fencing is always about killing another human. The duelling wave that came with the rapier was, in its size something new to europe, that you can read from any period document.

"Krump:
Until them none of us can disucss it in public or private outside of ARMA. "

Yo Bro, I can cope with it, if your Ryu has secret moves or bunkai or whatever, tough it's a first time in WMA community.

"John Clements new interpretation of the Krump came about when he realized that the windshield-wiper interpretation just did not work in hard sparring. "

I really would like to see this new interpretation, tough i do not think much of it right now. In my opinion the mastercuts (actually, masterstrikes) are more a concept than actual techniques that need to be performed in one, exact way. The Schiel looks different if you use it to enter from a bind and if you use it to enter from a distance. Does this mean you have to teach them separatelly? Maybe yes, but I think that the Schielhau is a Schielhau because ti goes from right to right from above with the false edge.

And about techniques not working in free fencing, well, that's a bit of a problem. I actually saw more krumps doing the job in a free fight than some other techniques. There even are techniques I never saw anybody pull off in a fight. Mostly it goes back to two things: the usage of a technique in an incorrect distance, tempo, time, opportunity, or, that the technique was not meant to actually be used often in a fight where two equals meet.
The strongest point we miss in Lichtenauer's teachings is that the masterstrikes actually HIT back then for nobody knew them but the chosen few. In Lichtenauers time you could have fought 10 or more people before one who was actually trained in these arts, or that's what period sources tel us in my opinion. Maybe taht's the very reason why there are so many fancy techniques in Meyer's time compared to Lichtenauer's time, because the people got trained and could not be easily cot down by a single masterstrike. Maybe.

I am happy for your new krump, let's hope John will put that online soon.

Szab

[I. Hartikainen]

Hi!

Randall, thanks for the clarification. I understand your position in not being able to depart the information, but I hope to see this interpration at some point. You don't have to, but if you have the time, could you then tell me what exactly you mean by the classic "windscreen wiper" technique? Is this the complete sideways true-edge cut from right side to left schranckhut on top of the incoming attack, and then around with a schielhau looking false edge cut, all in one big motion?

I always thought there's more to the action, like for braking ochs you can target the hands more safely to force them out of their guard and then prevent them making contact and strike around again?

Gene,

sorry, you were not actually showing signs of being offended, but I was hoping for a more "academic" response, and thanks for now giving one!

Firstly, I have never done and never will call myself a master in anything. I'm only "interested" in descriptive titles such as "instructor", should I take such position in a school or an event. For myself I'm a scholar, hardly even a good one in my own opinion, and always will be such. A master in the English language today carries so many odd connotations that the whole title is best avoided altogether. I could call someone a master who displayed mastery in something, and I have seen martial artists who, in what they do, have possessed incredible skill.. but I think that in our arts (styles of swordsmanship) those people existed hundred's of years ago and may again exist in the future, but right now we're still just drowning our noses in books and figuring out which way to hold the sword.

Anyway, yours was a good post, and I agree with you. Common sense is important. I do test-cutting myself every now and then, and find it useful, regardless whether it was done in the exact same manner 600 years ago or not. Still it is important to be honest about the origins of the practice. I mean, almost all of the training tools we have are not historical in the sense that they would be described in a treatise, since the treatises don't really give us that many drills to practice, they give us perhaps enough, but I think that the texts should be seen as guiding tools rather than limiting and restricting sets of rules.

I really liked John's latest essay on avoiding the temptation to systemize, but still the treatises don't exactly cover how to practice. We still like to practice our pushups and situps, even if they are not covered in a treatise... and they still are useful (though I'm looking into getting a translation of Mercurio's arte gymnastica from the 16th century ). There is no one and only right approach, but honesty should be maintained.


Yours,
Ilkka

P.S. Ben, you are right, striking first and striking hard is preferable, but striking first and not so hard is much better than striking last and striking hard!

[Sal Bertucci]

If you're going to strike last you probably won't strike at all.

[Jaron Bernstein]

OK, I am curious now. Explain this part about how the Dobringer book may have had another author.

With pleasure.

First and foremost, the one guy who actually introduced this book as being written by Hanko Döbringer was Martin WIERSCHIN, in his book „Meister Johann Lichtenauers Kunst des Fechtens” from 1965. He was no fencer and was not even connected to war history, he was a linguist.
The second notable source for the same statement was another linguist, Hans-Peter HILS, in his phD book „Meister Johann Lichtenauers Kunst des langen Schwertes” from 1985.
Now Wierschin IS an important source for any serious researcher, yet many of his statemets were proven wrong. On the other hand, in my Opinion, HILS did a very good and important job by connecting linguistically the known fencng books and deriving from that, who was who's master and so on. Still, he uses Wierschin as primary source.

If you look at the manuscript MS 3227a (there is a new, colour, full-resolution version available on CD from the Library!) there is actually not a word in it about the author. The only page that actually mentions the name "Hanko Döbringer" is the part where the teachings of the other masters, Andres Juden, Josts von der Nyssen and Niclas Prewßen are introduced. Above these names there is this one additional writing, "+pfaffen hanko döbringers", which lead Wierschin to believe that he actually means the book, being in the posession of Hanko.
Yet most of todays phDs (there are already some 5 out, two of them this year!) by linguists and also a hoplologist state that this is only a name that the writer left out from the list and wrote it on top, which would be not the first time in manuscript history, or even in this very manuscript. Now if you look at this from a wider point of view, it would be a strange thing indeed to write down the owner's name somewhere at the end of the teaching, in small letters, on the top of the page right where fencing masters are introduced, no?
And there is this other thing of at least two different handwritings in the book. For that I can quote no source, this I heard on varous events and read in a number of forums.
If you wanna ask somebody about this, go for Harald Winter, from the Vienna group Dreynschlag. He is probably the biggest expert of german fencing literature. He knows of stuff from books I haven't even heard about

Back to the "Hanko" book. To tell the truth I still call it Hanko, for it is embedded very deep
There is another notable old source, which is the Library itself, guess what they call(ed?) it in their register: Yep, author Johannes Lichtenauer.
Which is also wrong, imho, I think they just read the first two sentences and were done with it. Still some people call this the "Lichtenauer Manuscript" BUT the most scientifically correct naming would be "Anonymus: Meister Johannes Lichtenauer's kunst des langen schwertes".

This is still open to debates, but around here in europe this thing is more or less settled by now. If you ask me, this STILL can be Hanko's book, even if the evidence is wrong. But then this can as well be Andres Juden's, Josts von der Nyssen's and Niclas Prewßen's book. Or any other fencing master/student who studied under Lichtenauer.

Hmmm, as a final note, if you are already done with Wierschin and Hils, there was another fine gentleman with the name Alfred Schaer who wrote a phD in 1901 with the title "Die altdeutschen Fechter und Spielleute". Also I would recommend, if you would happen to get to anything from Prof.Dr.Ernst Martin (like "Die Meistersänger" from 1882), read them. This is not directly connected to the Hanko.problem, but it is strange, and enlightening to read these scholars who already adressed most of our questions and got some answoers out from books that probably don't even exist any more. Like Wierschon, who talks about very very strange hauws, not found anywhere else.

Bye

Szab

Thanks! My German is pretty much limited to historical fencing terminology and some words from WW2, so I don't know how much I could get from reading the authors you list. But it is fascinating to note that Dobringer is just another of the Lichtenauer tradition masters and apparently not the actual author. Just thinking back to the 4th Fiore recently discovered, it makes you wonder what else is out there, its value unknown and unguessed.