adding weapons?

[Jaron Bernstein]

Got a question for the (virtual) floor:

At some point, maybe in a year or so, I will be looking at learning another weapon (staff, sword/buckler, rondel or rapier). Is there a "logical progression" as to which to one to learn next or is it just personal preference?

Also, does ARMA offer the NTP's for those weapons by special arrangement only or are they taught with any frequency?

[KatherineJohnson]

I throw my vote in for the roundel. It is the weapon most likely to have real world applications as knives are still used frequently and having to defend against one is not out of the question.

Another thing i enjoy about the roundel is the fast paced and agressive nature of knife combat. It will improve your reaction time by quite a bit.

Following that I might also recommend the staff. As far as Jake touched on with me, It's quite similar to the longsword and the two styles of fighting compliment eachother quite well.

I'd still probably recommend the roundel first though, it's so cool <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Allen Johnson]

Well I'd throw in my vote for rapier just cause I like it and there arent many of us who do it! <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> Katherine makes a good point that dagger is very useful. Almost every single manual has a dagger section so it would apply to many different areas over many different periods. I dont know if it would have too much modern day application, just because the size of the blades used in the manuals are much, much bigger than the ones we carry in our pockets or on our belts. Certainly there are alot of techniques that do work but many will not given the different blades used today. I'm getting more and more into the later stuff. ie post 1600's- getting into the baskethilts, rapiers, spadroons ect. It's just a different time than most focus on.

[Jaron Bernstein]

Well, we play around a bit with rondels now, but nothing systematic and we lack instruction.

On the plus side, the manuals have lots of rondel stuff and we can always work from the pretty pictures.

OTOH, the staff, rapier and C&amp;T sword looks real interesting. I recall Silver saying that the staff trumps all else. The problem is that we are lacking in instruction here. We are very much a study group trying to figure it out on our own from manuals. Meyer's book has a staff section but it hasn't been translated yet. I don't know of another manual that does staff in sufficient detail (Silver describes the wards, but not not much more). I guess there is the I33 for S&amp;B. And there are manuals for the rapier. This would be so much easier if we had a Senior Free Scholar in our area <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" /> and we didn't have to have these "what the hell does this obscure text mean next to the poor illustration?" moments so frequently.

[Steven Engelbach]

Swetnam has a section on the Staff. Although I've not looked at it (it's outside my area of study), I've heard good things about it from those who have.

Steve

[Brian Hunt]

Mair has a lot on staff, but there currently isn't an availible translation of either the german or the latin text, Meyer has staff, Swetam, there are the spear sections in Fiore, Vadi and Ringeck (any actions with a spear can be done with a staff), these are the ones that I remember off the top of my head on staff, there are a couple of others but I am not remembering them. Staff will prepare you for spear, and other pole arms. A lot of the actions done with a pole arm are based upon actions and wards used in staff work. Interestingly enough, a lot of the guards and attacks with a staff are similar to longsword.

hope this helps.

Brian Hunt
GFS.

[Stacy Clifford]

I recommend Swetnam's staff material for beginners. Although there are one or two things I still find unclear, it covers the important principles of using the staff and does a fairly good job of explaining the basics and how to use them. It doesn't go into a lot of detail on individual techniques, it's more about how to fight effectively in my opinion. It even includes a drill on switching your hands. I like to call it "Staff for Dummies".

[Shane Smith]

I say go with dagger simply because it still has viable modern-day applications. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Jaron Bernstein]

Thanks for the info. That is a prime requirement. There must be sufficient manual material to learn from that is understandable by my mental scar tissue.

As for modern practicality for the rondel, I can see the value of that (and the rondel IS fun), but on that line, how practical in 2004 is a longsword? <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Patrick Hardin]

In addition to dagger, I might also suggest the messer. It's techniques are practically identical to the longsword, only done with one hand. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> I think it would serve as a useful
"gateway weapon," to extend into other areas. And, there's plenty of manual material available on it.

Patrick Hardin

[Ryan Ricks]

there are some who say everything we do is applicable to some extent. however, they are probably just talking about the general principles of footwork, judgement, vor, nach, indes, and not specific weapon systems.

grappling/dagger is the next system i want to study. i'd think it's highly applicable.

ryan

[Casper Bradak]

Everybodies philosophies differ, but I think I it should be learned as it was back then (at least how we/I think it was;). I think the manuals unarmed skills should be practiced parallel with any weapon being studied, and I absolutely hate how RMA is becoming synonimous exclusively with the arts of the longsword. A foundational weapon, and a good one for sure, but to study it exclusively I think would've seemed odd back then and it certainly seems silly to me now.

[Jaron Bernstein]

Hmmm, for some reason the messer hadn't even occured to me, despite Jake Norwood sporting one at the 1.0 here.

As for RMA being identified with the longsword, that is one of my questions. Is there a "logical progression" from this to that. i.e. wrestling to rondel to longsword (or some other progression). Or some other sequence beyond just personal preference ("I want to learn this or that weapon or ringen because it looks cool"). Is there any indication that the historical masters taught ringen or weapons in a particular sequence?

[Stacy Clifford]

Swetnam's staff is definitely more boiled down than some other staff material I've seen - fewer guards and techniques than Silver or the Germans - but I find his advice to still be pretty effective. It's certainly enough to defend yourself efficiently in an average fight. You just have to learn to think in old English to get through some of the paragraphs. There is one paragraph where the sentence structure is so confusing that I can't figure out what's going on, but the rest shouldn't tax your mental scar tissue too much.

[Casper Bradak]

Yes, but it still leaves a lot of room for personal preference. Different masters had different preferences, and since we're now under no particular master, it's up to you.
Generally your core should be the most foundational weaponry, and it sounds like that's what you're really looking for, but there's really no lack for weapons that will give you a good grounding in something else.
Most will agree the dagger is an excellent bridge between unarmed and weapon use, and the spear (or staff) will give you a good grounding in most pole arms. This is probably why the primary/traditional weapons of medieval europe were the sword, spear, and dagger, on a good foundation of wrestling.
But then some masters considered the poll axe to the most foundational weapon.
So like I said, lots of room for fun and personal preference.