Talk:German school of fencing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Martial arts Portal
This page is part of the Wikipedia Martial arts Project.

Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article
if you think something is missing, please help us improve them!

You may also wish to read the project's Notability guide.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

This deals with Lichtenauer's system to the exclusion of others. It's an excellent article on that topic, but it presents material as though it were true of all German masters when in fact it is specific to those operating closely in accordance with Lichtenauer. Maybe we could add material to cover other masters, or at least a note at the top of each subheading describing in general the changes later masters made to Lichtenauer's system?

Zabieru 05:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

of course! the article is far from finished, and lots of information should be added. Feel free to improve it! dab (ᛏ) 14:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Vor and Nach

Vor and Nach are more terms of timing, not nessisarily of attack and defense. I'm mostly from the Tobler side of things. Anyone have something agaisnt the two possible translations in the article?

Vor and nach are positions of time of which to react to your opponent. The vor is when you respond before your opponent has started his attack. The nach is when you are responding after the attack has already been made.

I agree completely. This article isn't more than a very brief writeup, and I still haven't got round to expanding it. So you are very welcome to elaborate the terms. As you say, the vor is a position of advantage, because you do not so much react, but rather force your opponent to react. But note that other systems of combat see it exactly the other way round (e.g. kendo, jogo do pau, I believe), where it is held that the one who attacks first has the disadvantage because he has to expose himself. dab (ᛏ) 11:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Book Publishers

At the bottom of the article there was a commertial link to one of the main publishers of books related to the subject of this article. I move the link into a list of Book Publishers and added a link to another publisher who also produced books on the subject. I know that commertial links are normally removed. As I have purchased books from both of these publishers and know the owner of one, I don't claim to unbias. Thus, I leave the decision to keep or move these links to someone with a NPOV on the subject.

the chivalry bookshelf link is certainly fine, since that is a notable publisher dedicated to the topic. I am less sure about paladin, since that appears to be a publisher dealing with martial arts in general? Maybe they have some HEMA-specific subpage we could link to? (ᛎ) qɐp 19:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eisenport

Eisenport: 'iron door', mentioned in 3227a as a non-Liechtenauerian ward, identical to the porta di ferro of the Italian school Why is Eisenport non-Liechtenauerian. Almost all of the itailian posta have German equivalents, why is eisenport different? Also, 3227a is the origonal Liechtenauer merkeverse, isn't Eisenport mentioned in Meyer or at least Mair? This ought to be examined and expanded. Sethwoodworth 20:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mordhau

I'm not familiar enough to include it myself, but it seems that Mordhau should be included somewhere in this article. --mordicai. 16:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

so it should, in a section on Harnischfechten. dab (𒁳) 18:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Schielhau

The original statements on the Schielhau were confusing and based upon a very weak understanding of the cut. I added a clear statement on the cut with a reference to a recent article by Bartholomew Walczak, who is one of the authors of the The Codex Wallerstein : A Medieval Fighting Book from the Fifteenth Century on the Longsword, Falchion, Dagger, and Wrestling and a Senior ARMA Researcher. Yet for some reason the article was changed back to a statement that is self-acknowledging about being confused. I have again changed to a more clear statement with a reference. If anyone wishes to add to the statement then please do so only if you have a valid reference.Ranp 15:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed the description back and then added to it substantially. My objective was to provide a description that better reflects the several different variations of schielhau that appear in several sources (notably the von Danzig). The description you provided is a clear and accurate description but only of one version of the schiel. This is based upon the translation by Jeffery Forgeng and Jeff Tsay and which has been recently updated. Alas, I will not have access to the reference until next Friday. If you have a better way of describing schiel that incorporates its variety then I would glad for the improvement. Mercutio.Wilder 18:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The interpretation of the Schielhau by Bartholomew Walczak and Jacob Norwood is based on all of the Geman manuals, including Von Danzig, Ringeck, Meyer, Mair, etc. The statement I provided is general enough so that it does cover all variations. Please keep in mind that all of the variations in the description of the Schielhau are describing a single false edge cut that can be used in many situations and contexts. It is just a false edge Oberhau, not a feint!Ranp 18:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vom Tag

Mercutio, I hope that I am not seeing the start of a pattern where anytime I make an edit you quickly changed it. In any case, you have suggested that the image on the page should be taken as literal, thus you edited my statement to say that the blade should be held verticle. The problem with this is that if you taken the image of any one guard as literal then you must also take the images of all the other guards as literal. Therefore, when you suggest that the blade angle in the vom Tag image is literal you are also indirectly suggesting that:

  • in the vom Tag guard the false edge guard is held up under the arm pit with the chin pointing at the adversary?
  • in the Ochs guard the hilt is held way over the head with all of the body weight on a bent rear leg and the front leg pointed straight out?
  • in the Pflug guard the left shoulder is dislocated so that the hilt & guards can be held behing the read hilt?

So, given the problems with the images that I outlined are you still wanting to treat the image as literal?

By the way Mercutio, what is your name? Ranp 19:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My conclusion that vom Tag should be held vertically or horizontally is based on many sources, I simply cited the included picture as one clear example. For instance every single picture of vom Tag in the article you cited shows it either vertical or horizontal. I don't have to take every element of every picture literally to reach this conclusion. I simply weight heavily those characteristics that appear many times i.e. the vertical or horizontal position.
As to the interpretation of images:
"*in the vom Tag guard the false edge guard is held up under the arm pit with the chin pointing at the adversary?"
The first part I find believable and the second part is a known idiosyncrasy of Medieval art. For instance every person in Fiore faces the center of the book.
"*in the Ochs guard the hilt is held way over the head with all of the body weight on a bent rear leg and the front leg pointed straight out?"
I see nothing wrong with this. Not everyone illustrates Ochs thus so maybe it is simply one of many ways to hold ochs. It is physically possible and a tactically sound option.
"*in the Pflug guard the left shoulder is dislocated so that the hilt & guards can be held behing the read hilt?"
Here more interpretation of the image is necessary. We must conclude that the position of the sword is correct (as that matches the text) but the arms are badly drawn. As it is possible to have the sword in the position shown without doing that to ones shoulder I can accept the image as descriptive of where to hold the sword (even if not how to hold my arms). Multiple images, cross-referenced with text allows this image to be more useful than taking it literally on its own.
I don't suggest each image should be studied in isolation or taken literally, instead the body of images tells a more complete story. The complete understanding is determined from analysis of the similarities and differences among many sources. Mercutio.Wilder 23:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Literature

I removed the names of three books that have not yet been published. These books should only be re-added to the list after they have actually been published.Ranp (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sporting

There is a major problem with the statement "...with later works being more inclined towards sporting". This statement, which is probably referrring to the work of Meyer, is nothing more than an assumption held by a few people but it is being stated as if it was an actual fact. Other scholars, including many ARMA scholars, view the work of Meyer as a serious fighting art rather than as some sport activity. A citation request was added for the statement but that can only be for the assumption, it is impossible to provide a citation of the statement as a fact. Therefore, the statement was removed. If anyone wants to add the statement back then they need to write the statement as an assumption rather than as a fact.Ranp (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

this is a valid discussion. I agree it shouldn't be stated as fact (not because Meyer isn't 'sporting', but because 3227a may be considered just as 'sporting'), but since you are aware of the context of this, it would help if you added actual depth to the question instead of removing all mention of it. --dab (𒁳) 07:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I am curious about the statement that 3227a maybe sporting; can you elaborate?
For the article a specific reference to a source included in a statement such as, "Some have suggested that later authors/many techniques/most masters teach a sporting form of swordplay" would be the best approach to addressing this. That being said I don't have such a reference that I can think of. However, I do think that 'some' of Meyer is clearly sporting(e.g. strikes with the flat and "civil Germans do not thrust to the face"), even if many principles are the same. But he is no where near as "sport-ified" as Kendo or modern sport fencing. Mercutio.Wilder (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
the content of 3227a is heterogenous. Besides Liechtenauer's no-nonsense fundamentals, it also contains stücke for the fechten zu schimpf (i.e., sporting). Search for "schimpf" in the text. Of course both 3227a and Meyer are still more in touch with serious combat than any 19th century abstraction. dab (𒁳) 07:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cut or Hew and other changes

Hew is not a noun in English while cut and strike are (compare the definition of hew[1] and cut[2]. So I have changed back all "hew"s to "cut".

I also cleaned up the section on the timing terms. Though I welcome more improvement.

Does anyone no the German for the terms 'hard' and 'soft' so they can be included? Strong and weak refer to parts of the blade and are not used the same in fechtkunst. Mercutio.Wilder (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the Webster definition of "Hew", please note the etymology:
Main Entry:
   hew
Pronunciation:
   \ˈhyü\
Function:
   verb
Inflected Form(s):
   hewed; hewed or hewn Listen to the pronunciation of hewn \ˈhyün\; hew·ing
Etymology:
   Middle English, from Old English hēawan; akin to Old High German houwan to hew, Lithuanian kauti to forge, Latin cudere to beat
Date:
   before 12th century
A cut is not necessarily a hewing motion, it can also be a slice for example. Hewing is just one way to cut with the edge of a sword. Needless to say, I still very much feel that the action of attacking with a "hau" should be translated as attacking with a "hew".
As far as "Indes" being translated as "instantly", I give you this link:
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=87310
I still think what I wrote is more correct than what it has been changed to.
Hard is translated as "Hart" and soft is translated as "Weich". You are right that they refer to different things than Strong and Weak. Hard and Soft refer to the opponent's pressure in the bind.--Zornhau (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I never doubted that hew is the most literal translation of "hau" but, as noted in the definition you provided, it is not a noun in English. Therefore it is not the correct translation where hau is used as a noun. For instance 'zornhau' is a noun in the German, therefore it cannot be translated into "wrath hew" in English. I provided references, the Higgins Fechtkunst glossary by Jeffery Forgeng, for all of the translations I chose. Please provide citations if you wish to change any. Mercutio.Wilder (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with "cut" as a translation for "hau". Even though it isn't perfect, it looks to be the most correct English equivalent.--Zornhau (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)