SCHOLA GLADIATORIA FORUM

The play of rompere di punta employs a "Krumping" motion and a German practitioner would probably describe it as a very specific application of the Krump (related to the more general device of "Krumping to the flat").

Maybe, if a krumphau is simply smacking a thrust into the ground with a downward blow.

Michael Chidester wrote:The play of rompere di punta employs a "Krumping" motion and a German practitioner would probably describe it as a very specific application of the Krump (related to the more general device of "Krumping to the flat").

Fiore doesn't describe or show any crookedness in the wrists though (which I assume to be the one thing people can agree on about a krump?), he seems to achieve the necessary angle by footwork. He is just, as Matt says, smacking the opponents sword to the ground. Interesting pov though, I'll think about it some.

Motley wrote:Fiore doesn't describe or show any crookedness in the wrists though (which I assume to be the one thing people can agree on about a krump?), he seems to achieve the necessary angle by footwork.

No, that's not a point of agreement. A Krump involves crossed wrists sometimes, but not all the time--hell, one interpretation of the Krump is simply a diagonal cut thrown toward the leading leg. This wrist position is not inconsistent with using a Krumping action (though the bind is unusually low from a German perspective):

Motley wrote:He is just, as Matt says, smacking the opponents sword to the ground.

That's the objective of Krumping to the flat as well. Then you either thrust up to the face, or you follow up with a short-edge cut to the head not unlike this one:



I'm not saying the rompere di punte is a Krumphaw, I'm just saying that if a German practitioner watched it happen he would probably call it that.

Michael Chidester wrote:
I'm not saying the rompere di punte is a Krumphaw, I'm just saying that if a German practitioner watched it happen he would probably call it that.

Fair enough. Interestingly it makes me want to start a discussion in the Fiore section....

I get your point Michael. I don't think it is a krumphau though. But I get what you're saying.

I pretty much agree with Michael here in regards to the two movements being similar in principle. I personally have come to see the various different Krumphauen out there as falling under the definition of "hooking" strikes, basically using a strong remedy defense of a strong overbind to hook and wrench/set aside an opponents sword either sideways or downward and follow up with a scholar's device from there. For the most part, I find most interpretations are consistent with this and get it right so various degrees, with some being more tactically effective than others of course.

That said, in regards to this general principle of fighting with a sword or similar weapon, the aforementioned play of rompere di punta does incorporate this hooking overbind to wrench/strike the blade down and away from your person and allows you a follow up action. Thus, it also falls under the category of "hooking strikes" from a general universalist perspective. In fact I want to say there is a one handed variant of this play in the Sword in One Hand section that allows you to close in with your off hand after you hook his blade down.

Bottom Right:
http://www.googleartproject.com/collect ... 0/6890515/

Top Right:
http://www.googleartproject.com/collect ... 0/6910104/

http://wiktenauer.com/images/9/92/Pisan ... _13v-b.jpg

http://wiktenauer.com/images/2/24/Pisan ... _13v-c.jpg

http://wiktenauer.com/images/f/fd/Pisan ... _13v-d.jpg

And... just to add an extra touch of blasphemy here, you pretty much see virtually the same play of the Sword in Two Hands in the Cod.icon. 394a Talhoffer on folios 11r and 11v. Here you have a "hooking strike" being performed against a thrust, taking it to the ground before following up to the head, specifically under the jaw (which Fiore mentions I believe), with the short edge.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... er_019.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... er_020.jpg

Compare that with:

Bottom:
http://www.googleartproject.com/collect ... 0/6897665/

Top Left:
http://www.googleartproject.com/collect ... 0/6906170/

Left and top right:
http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/File:Pisani-Dossi_MS_20r.JPG (interestingly it seems to be mirrored)

http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/ConsulterElem ... =1&Param=B (Notice that in the top play that the left guy is actually doing the action when in the Getty its the guy on the right performing the action, judging by their scholar bands)

Just something I've noticed. I find that particular manuscript of Talhoffers to be especially interesting because there is quite a bit of "Fiore DNA" interwoven into its presentation.

Great discussion as always people. Keep it up

Sincere regards:
IMP
ARMA, Montgomery, AL, USA

So in other words, Fiore is much clearer than the early German sources?

Welcome to the forum, by the way.

admin wrote:So in other words, Fiore is much clearer than the early German sources?

Welcome to the forum, by the way.

no, but... there is only on author for the fiore books and his style of fighting, but tons of authors for the liechtenauer system.

admin wrote:So in other words, Fiore is much clearer than the early German sources?

Welcome to the forum, by the way.

Thank you, Sir

As per your question:

To the Master's credit, he IS the first documented source to illustrate this type of technique with the sword (unless I.33 has a similar technique as well, but having not delved into that source as much as I would like to, I cant speak for the Priest at this time); visually depicting it while those in Germany and elsewhere are still memorizing rhymed verses or reading unilluminated glossa. In fact, I want to say a plate depiction of a hooking strike doesnt even appear in German sources until the single instance in the Talhoffer fechtbuch I linked to above; about 80 years after the 3227a. The only "downside" to Fiore's depiction is that he doesnt define or categorize the technique as specifically as Liechtenauer would, instead just labeling it simply a specific type of fendente/upper strike; nor does he show as many applications of the concept as the German texts of the period.

So the answer is, as least as I would say it, yes and no. Seems that each had their pros and cons in choosing their different ways to express it.

There are actions in the I.33 which could loosely be interpreted as a Krumphau - but Lutegerus definitely never said so nor did he specifically highlight these actions. They are just movements that occur because you want to achieve something.
The basic movements are there but they are neither labeled nor are they pointed out.

Thus I would say: no Krumphau in the I.33.

Herbert