Historicity and Continuity

[philippewillaume]

Amen to that,
I would just had that the problem with EMA is that the underlying principles are not always obvious, so I think you need a serious understanding of EMA you consider using to make the translation from the EMA AèBèC to the WMA AèBèC.

Of course that does not answer all the question, In ringeck wrestling there is technique that I am not sure if it is Rokkio or kote gaishi (and it may well be both as there is difference in aikido but Ringeck may do the same distinction, or may be ringeck considers Rokkio as being shiho-nague from the inside)

[Ryan Ricks]

are you sure about ringeck and kron? he talks about it in his merkverse

"waß von im kumpt, die krone daß abnympt. schnyde der doch die krone, so brichst du sy hart schone."

what comes from him, the crown will catch. cut through the crown, you will break it hard through.

Tobler, Christian Henry. Secrets of German Medieval Swordsmanship. Chivalry Bookshelf, 2001. pgs 5, 74-75

i actually like using it a lot, gives you the option of zwerching to the side of their head, or doing the elbow push and throw, etc

ryan

[Jaron Bernstein]

"I would just had that the problem with EMA is that the underlying principles are not always obvious, so I think you need a serious understanding of EMA you consider using to make the translation from the EMA AèBèC to the WMA AèBèC."

I am not talking about EMA things like chi circulation theory and the like. I have read stuff about how with a great understanding of traditional chinese medicine or that sort of thing you can try to hit the correct accupressure point in a fight at the most propitous time of day. I am not sure how much of that I actually believe or not (I tend to be a bit skeptical) and this isn't really the place to discuss it.

I am speaking more of the clear universal things that involve levers, weight shift and body alignment. For instance, if a manual shows a Dusack technique (to use a curved cutting wedge sword as our theme) and there is some question as to the cut. Is it appropriate to look at how the Chinese broadsword arts (also with a curved cutting wedge) would address a similar situation today as a possible explanation? Especially considering a similar blade design? While ultimately, we may never know that the manual means in that hypothetical, should we limit our sources of possible answers to only WMA sources once we have exhausted the WMA sources on that particular question without getting an adequate answer?

"Of course that does not answer all the question, In ringeck wrestling there is technique that I am not sure if it is Rokkio or kote gaishi (and it may well be both as there is difference in aikido but Ringeck may do the same distinction, or may be ringeck considers Rokkio as being shiho-nague from the inside)"

Another good example. Understand that I am NOT suggesting that we look to EMA's UNTIL we have exhausted the extant WMA sources. To do otherwise would reduce the historic validity of what we are trying to do (reconstruct the WMA's). I am just wondering if it acceptable, as a last resort once the WMA sources have been exhausted and the the question still not answered, to look to EMA's in similar situations for guidance. Especially for things like ringen where the human body is the same the world over and can only be twisted and hit so many ways.

Any thoughts?
<img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" />

[Rob Lovett]

The problem with taking stuff from other MA is that although something may appear to be similar on the surface, the underlying principles and tactical considerations may be different in some or all of their aspects.
In my opinion we must first understand the historic western system before starting to make comparisons with other systems whether western or eastern, as we may well start taking things and super imposing them into the historic system that we are studying.
At the end of the day though, if looking outside the system helps our understanding of an aspect and we are being "honest" in how we are applying that understanding across and being careful not to transgress the rules and principles of the historic western system then it can only be of a benefit, but like I said there are a lot of pitfalls in this approach.

Regards
Rob

[philippewillaume]

Hello ryan

As much as one can be sure in WMA <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Wie die kron den schaytler bricht.
Waß von jm komp, die kron das abnymt.
Glosa.
Merck, wan dü im mit dem schaittler oben ein hawest, versetzt er mit dem gehultze hoch ab (33 v ) ob sinem haupt: die versatzung hayst die kron. Vnd laufft dir do mit eyn.

How the kron breaks the sheitel
What come to it, the kron abate it. ç merkverse from lichty
Glose ç explanation from sigmud
Marck when you strike him on the top with the Scheitel, parry he with the hilt high over (ob=obe) his head. The parry is called the kron and he then with that he runs in.

Wie der schnitt die kron bricht.
Schnid durch die krone, so brichest dü sy hart schon. Die stuck drucke, mit schnitten sy ab zucke.
Glosa
Merck, wen er dir den schaitler oder sunst ainen haw verstzt mit der kron vnd dir da mit ein laufft, so nym den schnit vnder sin henden jn sin arm, vnd truck vast vber sich, so ist die kron wyder gebrochen. Vnd wende din schwert vß dem vnderen schnit jn den oberen, vnd zuch dich da mit abe.

How the schnitt breaks the kron
Schnitt through the kron, so you break his (sy=sein) frim/hard protection (shon=shone)/. The piece press, with the schitts quickly retires
Glose
Mark, when he parries a Scheitel or another blow with the kron and with that rushes in. So do the schnitt under his hands/grips at his arms, and press strongly over then/it/self. So is the kron broken (passive form so is the kron broken against) and wind your sword from the lower Shnitt to the high one and with that quickly remove yourself (da mit =damit; abe zucken= rasch wegnehmen)

Even though the merkverse could be interpreted as a clue to use the kron, ringeck clearly put it into context. (and ringeck says that he is explaining the merkverse: Ie this is what the merkverse says and this is what it means)
The good guy IE the one demonstrating the technique never ever use the kron
the kron is used against the scheitel, and semmingly breaks the scheitel but the verse after that one we are shown how to defeat the kron if it is used against the sheitel.

I do not think that because it is mentioned in the manual we can says that ringeck advocates it uses.
This is how I came to this &amp;#8220;conclusion&amp;#8221;.

There are other pieces that the bad guys uses and we are not supposed to use them. i.e. the bad versetsen or striking like a buffalo.

We are clearly told to fence from the 4 position/guards and use only the 5 strikes and the absetzen (we could had the long ort to that as well but it is quite explicit that we can use it).

Ringeck tells us that another strike (striechen) and the schankhurt (and nebenhutt) are good to fence from. But he clearly tells that they are outside lichty verses and are good to use.

The construction of the rest of the text and the way the Kron is dealt with strongly suggest that it is just something you defeat/defend against and are nor really supposed to do.
But of course that is only applicable to ringeck as I said Meyer does say to use it.
Did that make sense?
phlip phlop

[philippewillaume]

Hello Jaron
That is the two euros twenty two cents question.

As many people as many opinion, and I am not sure there is a right or wrong. I would advise to do whatever approach you are intellectually happy with (and be ready to change your mind., I just have changed my mind over 25 times over the said krump&amp;#8230;)

I agree whole-heartedly with rob here and I think it extend to other WMA as well.
Looking how Meyer does the krump does help but it does not mean that Dobringer did it the same way.

I think the more sources you look at the better but you need to keep a critical eye and make sure that your translation and interpretation is consistent with the way you do other techniques

[Ryan Ricks]

well i'm admittedly new at this, and you certainly seem like you've been studying ringeck for a while, also that is a very good point

however, we see that every technique has it's counter. just as ringeck says how to cut through the crown, he also shows us how to break the guards with the meister hau and break the meister hau with certain counters.

so in my very humble and perhaps not too informed as of yet opinion, i think the kron has a time and a place

i do think you're correct about the bad versetzen though, and i could see why ringeck would advocate against kron, being that it's not a single time offense/defense. on the other hand, perhaps unlike the bad versetzen, kron allows a rapid follow up offensive act?

ryan

[Jaron Bernstein]

"As many people as many opinions, and I am not sure there is a right or wrong. I would advise to do whatever approach you are intellectually happy with (and be ready to change your mind., I just have changed my mind over 25 times over the said krump&amp;#8230;)"

Believe me, I ain't set in stone on this. I am asking questions more than providing answers here.

"I agree whole-heartedly with rob here and I think it extend to other WMA as well.
Looking how Meyer does the krump does help but it does not mean that Dobringer did it the same way.

I think the more sources you look at the better but you need to keep a critical eye and make sure that your translation and interpretation is consistent with the way you do other techniques"

Even in purely WMA terms, the debate then turns into whether we should (as some advocate) strictly follow the extant documented teachings of a single WMA master without reading more into it from other sources? I am not so sure this is a good idea. For one, while one master may have some of their material in their manuals, obviously that was not even a fraction of what they knew and taught. If the WMA's existed in a particular context, it doesn't seem a far cry to me to say that although a specific technique isn't in one 1400's longsword fechtbuch, and it is is mentioned in another one, that perhaps the author of the 1st book knew and taught the technique, but just neglected for whatever reason to include it in his book.

For instance, Meyer goes into loving technical detail about how to do things (one reason I just love his stuff). Lichtenaur is far more vague. I would wager that what the old man taught was just as sophisticated and then some as Meyer, but his text is so cryptic as to not reflect it (at least in the "how to" sense). How much can we safely extrapolate (whether from other WMA sources or similar time frame and topic or at last resort EMA sources) or should we be very tightly bound to only what we can document in a manual?

That is a question I don't have an answer for

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

[Jaron Bernstein]

"The problem with taking stuff from other MA is that although something may appear to be similar on the surface, the underlying principles and tactical considerations may be different in some or all of their aspects."

For some things, very obviously so. For others, I am not so sure. A simple armlock is an armlock and from everything I have seen, it is executed very similarly. How you use a katana or a langenswert (or rapier for that matter) are completely different critters, going away from the universality theme.

"In my opinion we must first understand the historic western system before starting to make comparisons with other systems whether western or eastern, as we may well start taking things and super imposing them into the historic system that we are studying."

I agree that is certainly a very real danger. I am only suggesting a universality on things that are VERY clearly similar (like a simple armlock) and not on much more than that.

"At the end of the day though, if looking outside the system helps our understanding of an aspect and we are being "honest" in how we are applying that understanding across and being careful not to transgress the rules and principles of the historic western system then it can only be of a benefit, but like I said there are a lot of pitfalls in this approach."

I agree with you 100%. I am suggesting drawing lessons from EMA only AFTER the manuals have taken us to a dead end and then only on things that bear very clear similarities. The problem I see is that in some cases the manuals just leave too much unanswered. So we experiment and maybe even come up with what is likely solution especially on the easier concepts and techniques, but some things never can be answered difinitively short of a time machine.

When the manual stops and we go on in our speculation beyond the documented techniques, is that being true to the art. It is a double quandry.
1. If you extrapolate, you may be wrong
2. If you don't you are limited.

Be well,
J.

[Rob Lovett]

When the manual stops and we go on in our speculation beyond the documented techniques, is that being true to the art. It is a double quandry.
1. If you extrapolate, you may be wrong
2. If you don't you are limited.

Totally agree with everything that you have said here, especially the last part.
What I have found, and I suspect that Phillippe may have the same mileage, is that you should continually go over and review your source based on the new things that you have found out through your first study of your source.
For instance I work mainly with Fiore nowadays, although I do keep a hand in with other Historic sources. When I first worked through his system I obtained a good overview of the techniques, I then decided to concentrate my studies upon the unarmed section, building the section up based on what I had found out through studying the other techniques, taking what was common and applying them in this arena. This was a fairly continual process which took almost 2 years to be able to draw a line under (sometimes a dotted line). This was something that I was not expecting.
I then moved on to an in depth study of the dagger section, which overlapped the work I was doing with unarmed, and even though I had taken some of the lessons from the dagger and had already applied them to the unarmed, I was almost shocked to find that there were still elements from the dagger that I had to take back to the unarmed, which further opened up the dagger, which in turn further opened up the unarmed. This in turn has led to a greater understanding of the later sections.
This is fairly mind blowing stuff for me, as rather than supporting people's opinion that there is only so much that the Master can convey in the text, it tended to show that the system can be found, by following exactly what the master says, looking at a technique while adherring to his instructions, and then finding the underlaying lessons that are not transferred through words but rather through the actions of following the technique through..... does that make sense?
The story does not stop there. At some point I felt that I had enough system to take out and show and use with people from different systems. The system held up in a variety of places. Where it did not hold up was down to me not follow the Master's instructions or lessons, when it was successful it was because I had followed the system.
There was much that I found to be common, I often had people say to me that they had similar things going on in their system, but what that tended to boil down to was that they had a similar technique, but when questioned the decision making process, the tactical consideration and even the manner of physically moving to get to that technique could be different - though this may have boiled down to individual style rather than the style of the system that was being practised. This has been largely true of all the aspects that I have been able to test in this manner, eg unarmed, dagger, sword, cudgel, bastoncello etc
So, what I have found, rather than reaching a dead end, I have found that I have been using other arts to confirm or refute theories, parts of system and technique rather than using other arts to fill in the gaps.
This is not always possinle with some texts as there is just not enough data to do this with, but with something like Fiore you can really build up parts of his system that at first site appear to be extremely minor for example the abrazare or the spada a uno mano.

Hope this makes sense for people, and I hasten to add, that other people have different methods of working that are probably just as successful as the methodolgy that I have found myself applying - what is important is that we always keep an open mind and be brave enough to openly share what we have found, even if that does bring about riddicule or derision. Who knows, perhaps everyone else has it wrong <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />.

Enough waffle.

Regards
Rob

[philippewillaume]

Hello ryan
Yes you are conceptually spot on.

Indeed the kron works as I said I believe Meyer knew what he was talking about and he clearly say to use it.

I try to work with ringeck only, so I developed my interpretation based of what I understood of his book. And of course I wondered why there was no place to use the kron (he would have told us if we should; Cf my precedent post for the argumentation on that) since it works for meyer.

I mean it is stupid to deprive yourself of something that works. So my interpretation is done so that you always have something better to do than the kron.
So in my view of ringeck system the kron is not really a good option because you should either use a masterhaw or an absetzen instead.
Hence the way I understand and I have interpreted the approach to the fight as such as it is easier to deliver an absetzen or masterhau than a kron (or any pure parry on the blade for that matter).

I can understand your position because; you are probably doing the same but in reverse. So I can see why not using the kron to you is as chocking as using it for me&amp;#8230;

So, strictly speaking, no I do not think there is a time and a place in Ringeck for the kron. But yes there is a time and a place for the kron in meyer and in any system modern or old that use the kron as meyer or on the same principle.

I do not think one way is better than the other (though I used to think so), of course we think the way we do it is the best, otherwise we would not do it. But I think it like trying to compare karate and wushu or Sole Fiore with sole Ringeck and trying to find the best. It just does not make sense.

I think the issue is really in that we are not discussing technique we are discussing tactics.
The way I see it, a technique does not work by it self, it works because you have put yourself in (or you have been given) a situation/position that make the completion of the given technique safe and successful. Getting in that situation is what I call the system. It is the same idea to what the cut/thrust is a given technique. Just the emerged tip of the iceberg.

If I got Arma philosophy right, you have developed a system from several manuals from different school and lots of hard works. I do not especially agree with the method in itself (since I use another one) but I cannot cast any doubt as to the result. I am pretty sure your system works.

I personally believe that Ringeck tell us every thing in his book, so using the different section you can identity a set of directing principles that are fundamental to Ringeck system. Since I have been influenced by my martial experience on the recognition and the application of those principles, I do not really believe that my approach is more historically correct than others.

cheers

[Ryan Ricks]

you're right, it's definately a tactical question.

i prefer to use pflug and ochs either as a single time versetzen or as a ward and counter thrust.

however, if the time comes that you want to close and throw your adversary to the ground, kron is your thing.

ryan

[philippewillaume]

Hello, ryan
From your last mail I have the impression that you misunderstood what I said (but bear in mind English is not my first language). So sorry if I am repeating what you said. (or may be it is just a way of expressing thing differently and I misread what your are saying)

I will try again using your example
First I agree that what you say is true.
However, Ringeck advised you to schnits the guy who does just that. Ringeck does not seems to be ultra keen on wrestling. I just does what I call the counter-wrestling (Apart the verkerer you do not initiate wrestling in Ringeck and it really an alternative to split his head open).
To get to the wrestling you opponent has to get rid of your point and that includes the kron (no necessarily only a kron but that is one possibility just anything that start with your opponent raising his arms).

So what I mean by tactical situation, I meant that you start the kron from a situation where I cannot use Ringeck to counter your kron (if we were fighting and you where using your system and I was using my version of Ringeck). You can arrive in such situation because I either gave it to you or because you build it. That is what I call tactical use of the system.

So if I got your last mail right you said that there is tactical situation (ie I want to wrestle) where you can use the Kron. I think you imply that there is situation where employing the Kron is a good idea regardless of the system.
IE in any system you will find opportunity to use the kron.

What I am saying is that situation is created by the system you are using, hence I do not believe that Ringeck&amp;#8217;s system do not have any use or opportunity to develop the kron. So there is never going to be a situation where is should or would use the kron because that is not what I am trying to develop or look for.
In ringeck if I what to wrestle I will use the verkerer or I can use an schnit (or a wrestle) to counter an attempt to wrestle.

For meyer or the arma system you are developing a tactical situation where the use of the kron is possible.


I hope I made more sense &amp;#8230;