Talk:Martial arts manual

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.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

listing as numbered by H-P Hils:

  1. Anton Rast/Paulus Hector Mair Augsburg Stadtarchiv Schätze 82 Reichsstadt 1553
  2. Anonymous Augsburg, Universitätsbibliothek - Cod.I.6.40.2 2nd half 15 th c
  3. Anonymous Augsburg, Universitätsbibliothek - Cod.I.6.20.4 1545
  4. Gregor Erhart von Augsburg Augsburg, Universitätsbibliothek - Cod.I.6.40.4 1533
  5. Jud Lew Augsburg, Universitätsbibliothek - Cod.I.6.40.3 approx. 1450
  6. Sigmund Schning(=Ringeck) Augsburg, Universitätsbibliothek - Cod.I.6.20.5 1539
  7. Hans Talhoffer Augsburg, Universitätsbibliothek - Cod.I.6.20.1 1561
  8. Jörg Wilhalm Augsburg, Universitätsbibliothek - Cod.I.6.40.5 1522
  9. Jörg Wilhalm Augsburg, Universitätsbibliothek - Cod.I.6.20.3 1522
  10. Jörg Wilhalm Augsburg, Universitätsbibliothek - Cod.I.6.20.2 1523
  11. Hans Talhoffer Berlin Kuperstichkabinett/Preusischer Kulturebesitz 78 A 15 1459 *
  12. Anonymous Berlin Staatsbibliothek Preu�ischer Kulturbesitz Libr. pict. A 83 before 1500
  13. Albrecht Dürer Breslau Universitatsbibliothek Cod. 1246 approx 1600-20
  14. Anonymous Donsaueschingen Furstenbergische Hofbibliothek Cod. 862 approx 1500
  15. Paulus Hector Mair Dresden Sächsische Landesbibliothek Mscr. Dresd. C 93/94 1542
  16. Sigmund Ringeck Dresden, Sächsische Landesbibliothek " Mscr.Dresd.C487 1st half 15th c.
  17. Ludwig von Eyb Erlangen, Universitätsbibliothek Ms. B 26 1500
  18. Hans Talhoffer Gottingen Niedersachische Staats/Universitätsbibliothek Philos. 61 end 17th c.
  19. Paulus Kal Gotha, Forschungsbibliothek Schlos Friedenstein Ms.Chart.B1021 1542
  20. Hans Talhoffer Gotha, Forschungsbibliothek - Ms.Chart.A558 1443 *
  21. Kreigverlust Gotha " Ms. membr. II 109 15th c.
  22. Hans Czynner Graz, Universitätsbibliothek - Ms.963 1538
  23. Anonymous Heidelberg Buch /Kunstantiquariat Dr. Helmut Tenner Hs. 'T' unknown
  24. Johannes Lecküchner Heidelberg, Universitätsbibliothek - Cod.Pal. Germ.430 1478
  25. Anonymous Köln, Historisches Archiv W* 150 approx. 1500
  26. Hans Talhoffer Königsweggwald, Gräfl. Schloss - Hs. XIX, 17-3 mid 15th c.
  27. Hans Talhoffer Copenhagen Det Kongelige Bibliotek Thott 290 2o 1459
  28. Anonymous Krakow Biblioteka Jagiellonski - Ms. Germ. Quart. 16 1st half 15th c.
  29. Anonymous Biblioteka Jagiellonski, Krakow - Ms. Germ. Quart. 2020 1510-1520
  30. Anonymous London Tower Museum I-33 14th c.
  31. Anonymous München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek - Cgm 558 1462
  32. Paulus Kal München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek - Cgm 1507 2nd half 15th c.
  33. Johannes Lecküchner München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek - Cgm 582 1482
  34. Paulus Hector Mair München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek - Cod. icon 393 before 1542
  35. Hans Talhoffer Munchen " Cod. icon 394a 1467*
  36. Hans Talhoffer München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek - Cod. icon 394 copy of 394a.
  37. Hans Talhoffer Munchen " Cod. icon 395 copy-Gotha.
  38. Jörg Wilhalm München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek - Cgm 3711 1522/1523
  39. Jörg Wilhalm München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek - Cgm 3712 1556
  40. Hans Entner Nurnberg ------ Fragment (prior to 1562)
  41. Johannes Liechtenauer Nürnberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum - Cod.ms.3227a 1389*
  42. Peter von Danzig Rom, Bibliotheca dell'Academica Nazionale dei Lincei e Corsiniana - Cod.44 A 8 (Cod. 1449) 1452
  43. Hans von Speyer Salzburg, Universitätsbibliothek - M.I.29 1491
  44. Hans Folz Weimar, Nationale Forschungs - und Gedenkstätten der klassischen Deutschen Literatur in Weimar - Zentralbibliothek der deutschen Klassik - Q566 1480
  45. Albrecht Dürer Wien, Albertina (Graphische Sammulung) - Hs. 26-232 1512*
  46. Anonymous Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum - P 5013 1430
  47. Peter Falkner Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum - P 5012 end 15th c.
  48. Paulus Kal (copy) Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum - P 5126 end 15th c.
  49. Hans Talhoffer Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum - P 5342 B mid 15th c.
  50. Anonymous Wein österreichische Nationalbibliothek - Codex Vindobonensis B 11093 15th c.
  51. Paulus Hector Mair Wein österreichische Nationalbibliothek - Codex Vindobonensis Palatinus 10.825/26 1542
  52. Hans Talhoffer Wien, österreichische Nationalbibliothek - Cod. Vindob. Ser. Nov. 2978 16th c.
  53. Anonymous Wolfenbüttel, Herzog Augustbibliothek - Cod Guelf. 78.2 Aug. 20. 15th c.
  54. Anonymous Wolfenbüttel, Herzog Augustbibliothek - Cod Guelf. 78.2 Aug. 40 1591
  55. Hans Talhoffer Wolfenbüttel, Herzog Augustbibliothek - Cod Guelf. 125.16 Extrav. 17th c

Contents

[edit] spanish and portuguese manuals

It isn't correct that destreza treatises doesn't include explanations on the techniques, although, with exceptions, they use very few images and have a difficult terminology even for spanish speakers, together with mathematical demonstrations and philosophical musings (generally in separated chapters). I have added a list of some of the most relevant Portuguese and Spanish treatises. There are other tournament/jousting manuals, but I don't have the references at hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.127.200.126 (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] uninfluenced

"largely uninfluenced by Liechtenauer."

This is disputed by some. I don't know myself either way, but does anyone feel strongly about putting a qualifier on this? Sethwoodworth 03:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert of name change

This article uses a German title (while there is an English variant) and uses French and Italian translations in the article as well. Why did Matthead (talk · contribs) revert my move to an English title?Rex 10:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

because "Fechtbuch" is the term used in English. "Combat Manual" is just a literal translation, but nobody will know what you are talking about if you begin discussing "combat manuals". An understandable English title would have to be something like "Late Medieval to Early Modern European Fencing and Combat Manual", or, for short, "Fechtbuch". dab (𒁳) 10:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No ... Fechtbuch was not found in the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary. So that's not correct. I looked at some of the English links and they call it "fencing manuals" so I'd say that's the one to go with. But then there's that other thing. This article also mentions the Italian and French names, why use the german one instead?Rex 10:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"Advanced Learner's"? Do you find Mordhau there? Or Sinterklaas? "fencing manual" is arguable, but not precise, since the books describe all sorts of armed and unarmed combat, not just fencing. You are just on your usual "remove German words from Wikipedia" prowl, Rex. dab (𒁳) 11:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, Rex is on a anti-German prowl. He will not find easy prey, though.-- Matthead discuß!     O       21:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK, Sinterklaas isn't a part of the English languagfe, but simply a barbarism. Fencing manual I think is the way to go. (And to repeat one of my questions; this article also mentions the Italian and French names, why use the german one instead?) As for my usual prowl. I can't help it German speakers have this odd habit of putting in German terms (wether out of or within bars) in English texts, I mean, one translation or so will suffice, for the rest I believe they've gotten their own wiki.Rex 11:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"German speakers" are busy replacing German terms with English ones these days. But you seem to be unaware of the English language's susceptibility to German influence being second to that to French influence only. To the point, the English language expert discussion forum on this topic is forums.swordforum.com. Google counts 555 hits for "fechtbuch" vs. 81 hits for "fencing manual" on there. That is a rather fair estimate of the terms' notability, and the reason why we keep the article titled as it is. This is a specialist subject, with specialist terminology. This isn't the article on manuals on fencing in general, but on specific class of pre-modern texts; arguably, the 18th century examples shouldn't even be listed here. If you like, "Fechtbuch" is itself a "barbarism", a technical term from the study of the German school of swordsmanship. The bulk of manuscripts are from this tradition, and you may have a point in noting that the non-German titles should be listed separately, to give context of related schools, and not as "Fechtbuecher". dab (𒁳) 11:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Again you avoid my question I will not ask it a 4th time. Discussion is over until you answer.Rex 22:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category clutter

this article is the main article of its own category, which is in turn categorized in the relevant sub-categories; please avoid category-clutter by repeating these here. dab (𒁳) 15:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Only because you have just added those relevanty sub-categories, omitting Illuminated manuscripts, which I will restore here, since it is not appropriate for the whole category. There will probably soon be a new sub-category of category illuminated manuscripts for manuscript fightbooks. All manuscript examples (assuming they all have some illustration, which I imagine they do) should then be categorized in this. Johnbod 16:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

what is wrong with you? Quite apart from the "illuminated" thing, a Fechtbuch is not "a manuscript". It is a genre of treatise, and it comes in no fixed format. One or two may be "illuminated", some are illustrated, some are printed, some are just handwritten notes. Your category is completely mistaken here. dab (𒁳) 17:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible move proposal

Since the category is most likely going to be renamed as Combat treatises, I wanted to see if editors here would support changing the main article title to reflect this change in categorization.-Andrew c 13:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It may seem illogical, but I don't have strong feelings either way. I have just created a redirect here for "Combat treatise" & will do the same for "Fightbook". The singular form, with no diacritical, and a redirect in place, is ok I feel. At the moment, though covering other nations, the article concentrates on German language works. Johnbod 13:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)