Krump

[martin fabian]

... words...

You are right, for that I admire Ran as a minister of his association. But it is important also to listen and have eyes opened (aren't the doors you mention 'exit only'?). Maybe it just needs some time.

[Ran Pleasant]

Roger

This is a reply I made to you in a thread on MyArmoury forum. I what I discuss will be of interest in this thread.

Then please show how you counter the Ochs with a krump by:

1. Stepping well to your right side while throwing the strike over his hands with the long edge.

2. Start from left Schrankhut and step well to your left side while throwing the strike over his hands with the short edge.

In his video John Clements is using a Krumphau to countering a thrust from Och. At your request I will discuss how to break the actual guard of Och as described and illustrated in Goliath manuscript, which can be found on Wiktenauer with the link below.

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/posting.php?mode=quote&p=255960

When you come to him in the pre-fencing, if he stands against you holding his sword before his head in the guard of the Ox, on his left side, then put your left foot forward, and hold your sword on your right shoulder, in the guard, and spring with the right foot well to your right side against him, and strike him with the long edge, from crossed arms, over the hands.

This play starts in Vom Tag. Following the text I step out to my right and with a turn of my body cut a Krumphau on my right side (on the D cutting line) to his hands. When I do this I look very similar to the Goliath image below except that my hands will be above the blade and my target is the front arm. Except for my hands being a little higher my hands will be positioned exactly as shown in the image. In the image the hands does not appear cross but the hands do cross during the execution of the technique. My feet also are in the same position as shown in the image. What makes this interpretation of Krump so effective at breaking Ochs is that it creates a crossing of the blades which prevents the adversary from tracking me with his point. The Windshield wiper/Agile interpretation of Krump does not prevent the adversary from tracking you with his point, which is why it is so ineffective.

Now you explain to me how you can perform the Windshield wiper/Agile interpretation following the above text and end up looking very similar to the image. And remember that you can't say you are throwing the blade forward as that would be a Zorn rather than a Krump.




Ran Pleasant
ARMA

[Roger N]

Ok, I will post the same reply here too, then.

Who says you can't throw the Krump forward? Of course you can, and several masters do... You can certainly cut it through the Zorn-line. Just read your Meyer... But you shouldn't try to throw the Krump through Meyer's upwards D-line as the Krump is supposed to hit the hands from above.

I think one of the causes for misinterpretation might be the assumption that the Krump requires a bind which it doesn't always do. A krump can be thrown directly at the body and this is what happens with the counter against the Ochs. The description quoted above contains no bind whatsoever.

Not sure I get your description here as the image doesn't show a krumphauw with the long edge to the hands, but I assume you describe a long edge cut from below with uncrossed arms (although you claim that the arms are crossed for some part of the cut, somehow). The simplest way of doing it would be like Kal, and many others describe it. Sort of like this, as an Oberhauw going through the H-line or the A-line (depending on how you look at it...)

http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb00001840/image_136

... but with the opponent standing in Ochs. On the other hand, in your video John describes how the opponent moves out of his Ochs into a thrust with Langort, if I remember correctly...

The image you provided doesn't seem to work with the text in Goliath, but rather with the common follow up attack from the Krump; a Schielhauw, like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFKRSIQo_pM

The text clearly says to strike over the hands, not under.

"Wen du mit dem zufechten zu im kumpst, /
steet er dan gegen dir und helt sein schwert fur seinem haupt in der hut / des Ochsens, auf seiner lincken seiten,
so setz den lincken vus vor, und / halt dein schwert an deiner rechten achselnn, in der hut,
unnd spring / mit dem rechten fus, wol auf dein recht seyten, gegen im,
und schlag / in mit der langen schneid, aus gekreutzten armen, uber die hend"

To be the Devil's advocate though, throwing the cut "auff" the opponent's hand can also be interpreted as "at" his hands, which possibly could be interpreted as allowing for a cut from below too. However, doing that, with crossed arms, involves a rather complicated spiralling move compared to just cutting straight in at the hands which seems much more in line with letting your point follow the shortest path as if pulled by a thread...

Also the ARMA unterhau version of the Krump would be quite difficult when stepping well off to one's right side which John doesn't do. In fact he is not stepping at all. If anything, he is stepping to his left. Also John appears to have some issues with getting caught on the opponent's cross while having the opponent's blade on his own neck. Shit happens in demos of course so maybe that's just what it is. But maybe it also shows a vulnerability in this interpretation.

[Roger N]

Oh, and Randall. Understand this: I am not completely discrediting your interpretation as there are some ambiguities that might give room for interpretation along your lines, depending on how you translate and interpret words like "auff", "aus" and "uber". Not that I agree that it would be the only execution of the krump, but possibly one version of it.

[Mark T]

This is not directed at anyone, but for the enjoyment of all ... as you were ...

[Herbert]

As posted elsewhere…

No stepping right, no point on the hands from above (or on the blade) = no krump, however much you cross your hands.

What about the following techniques of the Krump:

Ringeck:
Daß ist Wenn du aine~ maiste~ schwechen wilt So trÿb dz stuck also weñ er dir oben einhawt võ sine~ rechten sÿtten So haw~ kru~ mit gekreucztem gekrentzten hende~ gege~ sime sine~ haw vff sin schwert ~

When you want to weak a master, use this technique: when he cuts in against you from above from his right side, strike crookedly with crossed hands against his cut above the sword.

or:

Das ist wenn er dir von siner rechten achseln oben ein will howen So tu° alß ob du mitt dem krumphaw° an sin schwert wöllest binden Vnnd kurcz vnd far mitt dem ort vnde~ sn sine~ schwert durch vnd wind vff din rechte sÿttenn dein gehülcz über din höppt vnd stich im zu° dem gesicht ~~

When he wants to cut in from his right shoulder, pretend that you want to bind against his sword with a Krumphau. Cut short; and go through with the point under his sword and wind your hilt to your right side over your head, and stab him in the face.

or:

Daß ist Wann du im von diner rechten sÿtten ober ode~ vnden zu° haw~est Hawt er dann och von sÿner rechten sÿtten mit gekreutzen armen krump vff din schwert Vñ verir°et dir do mitt dein hew~ So blÿb mitt dine~ schwert starck an dem sine~ Vnnd schüß im vnde~ dem schwert den ort lang ein zu° der brust ~

When you cut against him from above or from below, from your right side; if he also cuts crookedly from him right side with crossed arms to your sword and thus foils your strike, so bind strongly with your sword. And shoot your point against his breast under the long edge of his sword.

None of these things from the Krump can be done with the ARMA Interpretation. And that is just quoting ONE source.

Why not admit that the interpretation might be flawed? Why insist that you have moved further and beyond?
We all tried different roads to find out what works and what not - what follows the text and what could've been meant.

Just stay close to the manuscripts.

Herbert

[Ran Pleasant]

Respectfully,

No stepping right, no point on the hands from above (or on the blade) = no krump, however much you cross your hands.

When I use Clements' interpretation of the Krump to break Ochs I do so by stepping right and in the cut my point descends to hit the hands. All of this matches both the text and the image from Goliath. And in regard to effectiveness beyond easily hitting the hands, my blade forms a cross to the other blade so the other person cannot track me with his point as I step to the right. Note that this cross does not automatically form a bind, it does so only if the other person attempts to track me.

I was asked by Roger to explain how the Clement's Krump interpretation match the historical documents. I stepped up the the plate and knocked a home run. When I ask for the explanation of how the Windshield wiper/Agile interpretation matched the same text and image from Goliath I basically get no answer. And now you want more explanation? Well, here we go again.

Ringeck:
Daß ist Wenn du aine~ maiste~ schwechen wilt So trÿb dz stuck also weñ er dir oben einhawt võ sine~ rechten sÿtten So haw~ kru~ mit gekreucztem gekrentzten hende~ gege~ sime sine~ haw vff sin schwert ~

When you want to weak a master, use this technique: when he cuts in against you from above from his right side, strike crookedly with crossed hands against his cut above the sword.

Check out the following video and at the end you will see Anders Linnard perform a perfect Krump that matches the above text. The only difference is that Anders cuts to the body rather than the hands and he performs it on his left side rather than his right side
And please note that Anders' blade is descending during the cut, thus he did not cut an underhau.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mAWZ79WrO4

Das ist wenn er dir von siner rechten achseln oben ein will howen So tu° alß ob du mitt dem krumphaw° an sin schwert wöllest binden Vnnd kurcz vnd far mitt dem ort vnde~ sn sine~ schwert durch vnd wind vff din rechte sÿttenn dein gehülcz über din höppt vnd stich im zu° dem gesicht ~~

When he wants to cut in from his right shoulder, pretend that you want to bind against his sword with a Krumphau. Cut short; and go through with the point under his sword and wind your hilt to your right side over your head, and stab him in the face.

I cut the Krump on the left side which takes me into a left hanging but instead of binding I pull short by winding my hilt to my right side, this puts my point in line for a thrust to the face or chest. Simple, easy, fast, and effective, plus it matches the text completely.

Daß ist Wann du im von diner rechten sÿtten ober ode~ vnden zu° haw~est Hawt er dann och von sÿner rechten sÿtten mit gekreutzen armen krump vff din schwert Vñ verir°et dir do mitt dein hew~ So blÿb mitt dine~ schwert starck an dem sine~ Vnnd schüß im vnde~ dem schwert den ort lang ein zu° der brust ~

When you cut against him from above or from below, from your right side; if he also cuts crookedly from him right side with crossed arms to your sword and thus foils your strike, so bind strongly with your sword. And shoot your point against his breast under the long edge of his sword.

I cut an oberhau or an underhau at the adversary who counters with a Krump (following Clement's interpretation) which binds against my blade. I simply pull back my blade and thrust under his long edge.

None of these things from the Krump can be done with the ARMA Interpretation.

Sorry but three for three seems like another home run again.

Why not admit that the interpretation might be flawed?

Because Clements' interpretation of the Krump shows no indications of being flawed. Moreover, it matches all the text and it matches all of the images from the historical documents, and it is highly effective. Plus it fits nicely with the other master cuts. The other four master cuts explain the cutting lines A, B, C, E, G, and H. So why is it inconceivable that the reminding master cut, the Krump, explains the cutting lines D and F? All that we need to cut the 16 possible cuts on the cutting lines is the master cuts. If you just stop and think about it there is some really sweet beauty in that!

The evaluation process you and other are currently doing is the same that ARMA members have done for 3+ years. Unlike what most people think, there was no automatic acceptance of Clements' interpretation in ARMA, he had to work to convince us. Even last year a member took Clements to task over his interpretation but it held up.

Why insist that you have moved further and beyond? We all tried different roads to find out what works and what not - what follows the text and what could've been meant.

We insist that we have move beyond the Windshield wiper/Agile interpretation of the Krump simply because it does not work and it is totally ineffective at breaking Ochs against well trained swordsmen. Plus some people who follow the Windshield wiper/Agile interpretation say that in addition to the windshield wiper action you can also throw it like a Zorn, while others consider the Krump to just be a concept and can be executed in several different ways. How can I trust all of that? All of the new ARMA interpretations, which we refer to as the ARMA Rosetta Stone, moved us beyond ourselves! It is necessary in order to move forward in the process of recreating these lost arts.

Just stay close to the manuscripts.

Absolutely! Everything we do is based upon the historical manuscripts. All interpretations must match the text of the historical manuscripts and must be martially sound before they are accepted.



And while on that subject:

Michael Chidester

Please stop writing things like, "You've really highlighted the problem with looking at pictures without considering the text or any other context, Roger, which is the primary method of interpretation used by ARMA." Such outright lies are extremely distasteful and reflect poor character in yourself. It seems inconceivable that one of the other ex-members, who actually spent time in ARMA and know the truth, has not stepped in to tell you to stop such outright lies.

Ran Pleasant
ARMA

[Roger N]

The simplest thing would be to shoot a clip of how you do this according to the text, Randall, because the image you gave does not match the text.

Do note that it is the right side fencer who is doing something good in that Goliath image, not the left fencer. The left side fencer's point is well is outside of the opponent's hands with the point extended quite a bit behind the opponent. It is the right fencer who has stepped in and cuts quite correctly with his point at the opponent's arm or head, basically with a schielhauw.


This image accompanies this description, as translated by Mike Rasmussen:

"Arc strike (Krump) to the flat and you will weaken the master. When it glides above then stand off so I will praise.
You shall deploy this play against most binds with the sword, and drive it so: When you come to him in the prefencing, then lay your sword to your right side in the barrier guard and stand with the left foot forward, or hold it on the right shoulder, if he then strikes high to the opening, then strike strongly with the long edge to cross arms against his strike, and as soon as the swords clash together then immediately wind the short edge on his sword toward your left, and stab him in the face. Or if you will not stab him, then strike him immediately with the short edge, from the sword to the head or body."



If you are stepping well to your right and cutting with crossed arms straight at the opponent's hands from above with the long edge and no bind, then we don't have an argument.

What you and me consider a home run are obviously two quite different things. It is a bit weird since you earlier stated that it is all about interpretation and we can never be sure... There are no homeruns here. Just more or less likelyhood of correct interpretations.

As for the Windshield wiper/agile version. To be honest I am not quite sure how you define it. If you didn't get my description, here goes my explanation for how to throw the krump straight at the hands of the opponent:

1. Start from a low or high guard like Tag, Einhorn, Wechsel, Neben or Schrankhut.
2. Step well to your right side while throwing the point diagonally towards your left side, with the long (or short) edge, at his hands from above (through the A- or H-line) while moving your left hand under your right elbow so it stays well away from your opponent's point at your right side.

This also works against an Oberhau, as described in the treatises.

Again. This is how you cut a krump to the hands:



Or

http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb00001840/image_136

You keep on using Anders Linnard's clip to prove that it works. Do note though that Anders is very skeptical about your interpretation and he doesn't consider it a krump at this stage. To me it looks like a Zwerch that goes underneath the opponent's blade. I don't think it is a Krump as it doesn't move the hands away from the opponent's blade when going straight for the body. Basically, Anders did this:

http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/File:E.1939.65.341_3v.jpg

Not sure if it was me you targeted, but I never said you could cut a Krump like a Zorn. Only that you can cut a Krump along Meyer's Zorn-line. However, the difference to the Zorn is that you cut it along the opposite Zorn-line. So for your right Krump you throw it along line A or H, depending on how you look at it.

The idea that the system has to be symmetric has little foundation, just like the notion some people have that there is a left Tag for right handed fencers. The system is assymetric at its core. However there are cuts along almost all those lines.

The Zwerch covers all lines but the vertical A- and E-lines; B,C,D,F,G and H.
The Zorn covers the B- and H-lines.
The Mittelhau covers the C- and G-lines.
The Krump covers the A-, B- and H-lines.
the Schiel and Scheitel covers the A-line.

Only the E-line seems not to be used with proper cuts, although there are motions for that too.

There simply is no need to try to squeeze the Krump into the D- or F-lines. They are already covered by the Zwerch, which again is what you have embedded into the Krump.

And yes, the Krump is a concept for many masters. So choose who you trust; the masters' actual words or your own interpretation thereof. Meyer, e.g, says that both the Schielhauw and the Zirkel are actually Krumphauw.

Also keep in mind that the krump is described with the following features:

1. Can hit the sword or directly to the body without touching the opponent's blade.
2. Can hit with the long or short edge, or the flat.
3. Can hit the weak or strong of the opponent's blade.
4. Can hit the opponent's flat or on top of his short edge.
5. Requires you to step well away to the side from the opponent's blade.
6. Requires that you hit from above, not just that you start your cut from above.
7. It is tied to the stance of Schrankhut, sometimes starting and ending in that stance.
8. With the cut your rear hand is moved away from the opponent's blade, to protect it.

Enough for now.

[Roger N]

One more:

"Eyn / haw / heist der Veller / und kumpt
aus dem krumphaw und der stet geschreben
nach deme twerhawe / do dy hant
ist geschreben / und der sal vo[e]r deme
therhawe sten / und der get von unden dar
krumes und schiks / eyme ober deme gehilcze
yn / mit ort schissen recht zam der
krumphaw von oben neder /"

A strike is called the feint/error [Veller] and
it comes from the crooked strike [Krumphaw]
and it is described after the cross
strike [Zwerchhaw] which is described
firstly and it shall be before the cross strike.
And it goes crooked [Krumt] from below
and is shot in over the cross guard at him by
shooting the point just as the [Krumphaw]
from above and down."

- from hs.3227a, ca 1389 (emphasis mine)

Illustrated and described in the Glasgow Fechtbuch

"Das ist der text vnd die gloß aber ains stucks auß dem twerhaw vnd haist der feler /

Feler wer wol fu~ret / von vndten nach wunsch erru~ret / Merck mit dem feler werñ alle vechter die da geren versetzn verfu~rt vnd geschlagen / das stuck treib also / wen du mit dem zu vechtn zu im kumbst / So thue als du mit eine~ freien twerhaw zu seiner lincken seittñ zu dem kopf wellest schlagen vnd verzugk mit dem haw dein schwert vnd schlag im mit der twer zu der vndterñ plõs / seiner rechtñ seittñ / als am nachstñ da hernach gemalt stet / So ist er vndten nach wunsch geru~rt vnd geschlagen / "

http://wiktenauer.com/images/b/b8/E.1939.65.341_3v.jpg

The Feler is interesting, as it can be interpreted in so many different ways and seems to be both a feint and a continuation of a broken attack, somehow related to both the Krumphauw and the Zwerchhauw.

Meyer tells us this:

"The other strikes, which still can be hit with further displacement, as in with the Kurtzhauw and Feler etc. will not be reckoned into fencing, especially since only accident or chances will be given that way, and One thus leads one on to provoke, operating wrathfully, and drive from one’s advantage, which often times cannot be done without danger, and so because of this no other displacement will be shown. "

[Roger N]

... and another thing, that I would like to have clarified, regarding the ARMA interpretation:

If cutting along line D or F isn't a cut that goes up but instead down, as you claim in the video, doesn't that at the same time mean that a cut that goes along the exact opposites of B and H also have to be considered cuts that go up? So the Zornline is in fact for an Unterhauw?

In the clip John clearly shows it as a cut going from below upwards also. He even says that the undercut is the Krumphauw, explicitly



Interestingly, John also claims that it doesn't work to put your blade against the opponent's left shoulder underneath the opponent's strike to the left opening , which is contradicted by several masters, like Ringeck and Falker, as it is a basic counter for an opponent who makes a Zwerch to the left opening. In fact, the ARMA Krump more or less helps the opponent's blade to go there.

"Hie merck den pruch der wider den õbern twer haw
Merck wen du im von deiner reichtn seittñ mit ainem ober haw oder sunst an sein schwert pindest / schlecht er dan mit der twer vmb / dir zu der andern seittñ / so kum vor auch mit der twer vndter seinem schwert im an den hals / als am nãchstn hernach gemalt stett / so schlecht er sich selber mit deinem schwert

Here note a counter against the upper Twer Haw
Note when you bind on his sword from the right side with an Ober Haw / If he strikes around with a Twer Hau towards your other side, then come forward with your Twer under his sword on his neck / As shown here next / then he will strike himself with your sword"

This is highly similar to what you show, at least in the final stance, but it is the left fencer who is doing the correct action here and the right fencer who loses.

http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/File:E.1939.65.341_1r.jpg

[Ran Pleasant]

Roger

Please forgive me but I will probably be pulling back some from the discussion. It has been a pleasure but family and work are really push back on my time. I know you, Anders, and many others are skeptical. You should be skeptical, that's good scholarship, it is healthy for the arts we study. When John Clements released the video none of us expected instance acceptance of his Krump interpretation. After all, acceptance within ARMA was process. What we hope you will do is keep this interpretation in mind and work with it over the next couple of years, giving it a really good evaluation, especially in comparison to other Krump interpretations. My goal in this discussion was to get you and other to not instantly throw this new interpretation out the door as some did on the first day the video was released.

Again, this has been a great and fun discussion. I think you, Herbert, Anders, and others for taking the time to engage me in a scholarly manner during this discussion.

Ran Pleasant
ARMA

[Roger N]

Fair enough Randall. I fully understand how time consuming these things can get, especially when you stand one against many.

But likewise I would suggest that you keep in mind that this has the potential to be a false lead, a faulty conclusion. Lord knows such things happen to all of us, even when we have wandered a long way on that path... Looking to the sources I am fairly convinced that this is the case here, but I will keep your interpretation in mind when I look through the sources. I would suggest you do the same and try to find proper sources that more clearly point towards how you interpret the Krump than what you have presented thus far. If you wish for the rest of the community to accept your interpretation it is quite vital.

EDIT: Oh, and do keep in mind that many of us are not necessarily against certain variations of how you apply your interpretation, ie the actual technique. We just don't agree that it is a krump as the sources describe it.

[Herbert]

Randall, I understand that these discussions can be very time consuming and frustrating.

I think we have reached a dead end. All this could be very easily solved with sword in hand - each of us showing what we mean and comparing it to the manuscripts.
For the moment I'd say that we just leave it at that. You are convinced you are right and I am not.
Personally I don't see how your interpretation does fit all the pieces mentioned in the manuscripts.

I'd like to thank you for bringing this up. Every discussion that challenges ones viewpoint is a valuable one.

I hope we meet in person soon. I'm sure this will be settled within half an hour.

all the best

Herbert

[Hotspur School]

Randall - It's wrong, plain wrong - deal with it.

You've used this as your trump card for the 'two generations' claim for quite some time. Now we've seen it and it just doesn't wash. It is not a krumphau. It will never be a krumphau, no matter how much your loyalty dictates that you profess it to be so.

The masters are specific in their instruction, in the very words they wrote. Most of us who study German longsword - in some cases for over two decades - have long since reached a consensus and agreed on what the krumphau is. We can't all be wrong.

The native German speakers on this forum have again shown the evidence, translating from their own language into English, of what the krumphau is according to the masters.

I believe them. I have no reason not to. I speak German. They are not trying to reinvent the wheel.

This 'revolutionary' interpretation is not going anywhere. Sorry.

[Herbert]

Randall - It's wrong, plain wrong - deal with it.

You've used this as your trump card for the 'two generations' claim for quite some time. Now we've seen it and it just doesn't wash. It is not a krumphau. It will never be a krumphau, no matter how much your loyalty dictates that you profess it to be so.

The masters are specific in their instruction, in the very words they wrote. Most of us who study German longsword - in some cases for over two decades - have long since reached a consensus and agreed on what the krumphau is. We can't all be wrong.

The native German speakers on this forum have again shown the evidence, translating from their own language into English, of what the krumphau is according to the masters.

I believe them. I have no reason not to. I speak German. They are not trying to reinvent the wheel.

This 'revolutionary' interpretation is not going anywhere. Sorry.

Strong words - but to the point.

Herbert

[Ran Pleasant]

Randall - It's wrong, plain wrong - deal with it.

Oh my, Bob has declared something, thus it must be true!
Bob, it would be really helpful if you went ahead and declared world peace.

The masters are specific in their instruction, in the very words they wrote. Most of us who study German longsword - in some cases for over two decades - have long since reached a consensus and agreed on what the krumphau is. We can't all be wrong.

The native German speakers on this forum have again shown the evidence, translating from their own language into English, of what the krumphau is according to the masters.

None of the German speakers on this forum have come up with an original longsword interpretation. None! They, like you and I, following a longsword interpretation developed by someone else. I follow the Krump interpretation developed by John Clements. You and the German speakers on this forum follow the Windshield wiper interpretation that was developed over 12 years ago and was published in Christian Tobler's first book back in 2002. It is basically plagiarism for you, Herbert, or any other German speakers on this forum to claim to have a Krump interpretation when all any of you are doing is following and agreeing with an existing interpretation. By your own words all of you are stuck in an Approved Consensus which allows no growth and refinement of the art. That's why all of you are still doing what people were doing in 2002. So don't tell me about all the great longsword research being done by the German speakers, they are doing nothing more than following what was already done a decade earlier. And at least be honest and give credit to the person who came up with the original windshield wiper interpretation, be it Tobler or someone else.

I guess it does not really make sense to talk about some being generation ahead of others as we are all in the same generation. However, by your own words I can say you are stuck in the past. We have shared a lot of new cutting edge interpretations and information but by your own words you cannot accept it because of your Approved Consensus. What a shame.

So Bob, I leave this thread since it is falling into the same old shame of flame but I leave you with a quote from the article Our New Rosetta Stone: Advancing Reconstruction of Forgotten European Fighting Arts (http://www.thearma.org/essays/revealing-new-perspectives.html).

Back in the year 2000, I made a very public prediction that what would come to hinder this subject is not the dearth of available source materials, but the eventual orthodoxy that would settle in as certain views became ossified as the "approved consensus" (—the very problem which itself had already produced decades of nonsense). I forecasted that the phenomena of enthusiasts being unable to acknowledge erroneous core assumptions and correct inferior practice routines would become the bane of historical fencing studies. The growth and direction of this subject has since proven me prescient. (If anything, I did not go far enough in my prediction.) As I foresaw, the empty desert we once wandered through quickly became a jungle overrun with weeds and thorns that students have to hack their way through.

Very strong words and to the point!

Ran Pleasant
ARMA

[Herbert]

None of the German speakers on this forum have come up with an original longsword interpretation. None! They, like you and I, following a longsword interpretation developed by someone else. I follow the Krump interpretation developed by John Clements. You and the German speakers on this forum follow the Windshield wiper interpretation that was developed over 12 years ago and was published in Christian Tobler's first book back in 2002. It is basically plagiarism for you, Herbert, or any other German speakers on this forum to claim to have a Krump interpretation when all any of you are doing is following and agreeing with an existing interpretation. By your own words all of you are stuck in an Approved Consensus which allows no growth and refinement of the art. That's why all of you are still doing what people were doing in 2002. So don't tell me about all the great longsword research being done by the German speakers, they are doing nothing more than following what was already done a decade earlier. And at least be honest and give credit to the person who came up with the original windshield wiper interpretation, be it Tobler or someone else.

Now - you are stating things you have no clue of. I am doing research in the area of german longsword for almost 20 years now. I have done a lot of own interpretations and a lot of them have been discarded by me and/or others. Growth in this field stems from an open discussion and critic of ones own work. We always assume that we can be wrong and often we are and were.
Regarding your statement that we are stuck in approved consensus: Just this year the Austrian Federation of Historical Swordsmanship met and discussed new approaches to the techniques. Alternative interpretation were shown, discussed, reviewed, tried and adopted or not. This was a scholarly, open minded and very very helpful weekend.
This is something I never saw John Clements do: show up at an event and openly putting his interpretation up to criticism.
And as to plagiarism: It is quite preposterous to tell us we are all following Tobler. So far I do not know of any original work of you. I don't remember having seen or read anything that you added tot he world of HEMA. I personally have quite a few publication to show my original work and so have a lot of others here. The HEMAC was founded to further this intention and I am a proud member of it. Because HEMAC, as do other organization and individuals, stand for the opposite of what JC shows: open minded research.

Now, just think that there may be subtleties in the original texts that you may have missed because so far a lot of translations are lacking.
Also consider that JCs interpretation may be wrong. You have a lot of people here who have been working with the manuscripts for 15 years or more. You are dismissing them offhandedly on which basis?
If someone says of himself that he is two generations ahead of the rest of the world - doesn't that make you suspicious? Doesn't that ring a bell?

But let's keep it at that.

best wishes - no hard feelings from my part.

Herbert

[Roger N]

I can understand why you get mad under pressure Randall, but that is a quite rude and ignorant statement to all of us. Personally, I do quite a bit of research under fairly strict academic rules and have for some time. I have read both Ringeck and Hs.3227a more times than I can count, constantly reevaluating my interpretations. Add to that many times of Danzig, Meyer, Sutor, Paurnfeindt, Gunterrodt, Talhoffer, Vadi, diGrassi, Mair, Wallerstein, Goliath, and many others (I have lots of treatises as you see from HROARR and more that aren't public yet), while cross-referencing against Asian Martial Arts, Jogo do Pau etc.

I have learnt to read the treatises in German so I can at least check if the translations are fair and correct. This is vital. Reading both the original text and making sure to not use any images out of context, but always make sure you understand which party in the images that is actually doing the "good" technique. Clearly your argument here and John's in the clip fails in that respect.

Your statement is also quite faulty, quite ridiculous in fact, when accusing all of us of plagiarism. Don't you realize how silly that accusation is? We follow the text, the authors and the masters, not Tobler. Sometimes, not always, we end up with a similar interpretation by not ignoring parts of the text or illustrations and this is the case with the Krump. You on the other hand ignore e.g the illustrations from Kal and the Solothurner fechtbuch which actually show you how to do this with accompanying text that tells you to krump nimbly straight to the hands. It is nothing complicated, which is why most treatises don't even bother with showing it and instead just briefly describe it with more or less the same words as Kal and the Solothurner:

Just make a cut along the H-line or A-line (depending on how you look at it) by throwing the point at the opponent's hands with the pommel thrown under your elbow. Easy, quick and effective as the opponent is not targeting your hands with the Ochs or the standard Oberhauw and thus will be out of reach. You don't even have to step away, although it is good and it makes you safer, especially if your cut would miss.

If you wish for us to take your new interpretation seriously, then provide text and images that support your claim. Show how it works with the list I made earlier with features and requirements described in the sources. If you succeed, then I will certainly take your intrepretation at least on par with the current one. As it is you have only given us images that show something else and just made claims without providing sources that support it.

Show us what grounds you have for claiming that all cuts need to cover all lines. As it is you seem to base it on "logic" but there are many kinds of logic out there. Yours isn't necessarily the same as that of our predecessors.

And do consider the possibility that a left side Unterhauw is rather weak when thrown against the back of an opponent wearing a doublet. It won't cut or hurt anything. This is why the Krump preferably cuts to the hands, the neck or the head with a schielhauw as a follow-up, or as a thrust to the torso or the face, or is used for closing in for wrenching.
If you wind over and to your right for a thrust, then I am fine with it. There appears to be sources that show that, and that is actually the move Anders Linnard came up with and showed me a couple of years ago. Then you pose a real threat. I like it, since I think the Duplieren, the Mutieren and the Krumphauw are connected, which is why they are presented next to each other in several treatises.

If you were forced to argue for this interpretation within ARMA in a proper, academic way, as you claim, then perhaps you could share some of those arguments and the sources that were used to prove your new interpretation. If you have a Rosetta stone then it would be great for both you and the rest of us if we could debate it openly, since it would put your interpretations under real pressure while giving us another perspective, which is vital for all research.

I don't automatically refute anything you present as bad or wrong. In fact I think parts of what John presented some time ago about Die Waage is important and that he is on to something. The article hade some issues with use of source material and also how it was used, but I had been thinking similar thoughts and I still think most of use move in an incorrect manner, when it comes to shifting body weight etc. This is something I plan to focus a lot more on during the coming year.

With respect.

[Hotspur School]

Randall - It's wrong, plain wrong - deal with it.

Oh my, Bob has declared something, thus it must be true!
Bob, it would be really helpful if you went ahead and declared world peace.

The masters are specific in their instruction, in the very words they wrote. Most of us who study German longsword - in some cases for over two decades - have long since reached a consensus and agreed on what the krumphau is. We can't all be wrong.

The native German speakers on this forum have again shown the evidence, translating from their own language into English, of what the krumphau is according to the masters.

None of the German speakers on this forum have come up with an original longsword interpretation. None! They, like you and I, following a longsword interpretation developed by someone else. I follow the Krump interpretation developed by John Clements. You and the German speakers on this forum follow the Windshield wiper interpretation that was developed over 12 years ago and was published in Christian Tobler's first book back in 2002. It is basically plagiarism for you, Herbert, or any other German speakers on this forum to claim to have a Krump interpretation when all any of you are doing is following and agreeing with an existing interpretation. By your own words all of you are stuck in an Approved Consensus which allows no growth and refinement of the art. That's why all of you are still doing what people were doing in 2002. So don't tell me about all the great longsword research being done by the German speakers, they are doing nothing more than following what was already done a decade earlier. And at least be honest and give credit to the person who came up with the original windshield wiper interpretation, be it Tobler or someone else.

I guess it does not really make sense to talk about some being generation ahead of others as we are all in the same generation. However, by your own words I can say you are stuck in the past. We have shared a lot of new cutting edge interpretations and information but by your own words you cannot accept it because of your Approved Consensus. What a shame.

So Bob, I leave this thread since it is falling into the same old shame of flame but I leave you with a quote from the article Our New Rosetta Stone: Advancing Reconstruction of Forgotten European Fighting Arts (http://www.thearma.org/essays/revealing-new-perspectives.html).

Back in the year 2000, I made a very public prediction that what would come to hinder this subject is not the dearth of available source materials, but the eventual orthodoxy that would settle in as certain views became ossified as the "approved consensus" (—the very problem which itself had already produced decades of nonsense). I forecasted that the phenomena of enthusiasts being unable to acknowledge erroneous core assumptions and correct inferior practice routines would become the bane of historical fencing studies. The growth and direction of this subject has since proven me prescient. (If anything, I did not go far enough in my prediction.) As I foresaw, the empty desert we once wandered through quickly became a jungle overrun with weeds and thorns that students have to hack their way through.

Very strong words and to the point!

Ran Pleasant
ARMA

Just a single point.

I base my understanding of the krumphau - or any other principle/technique - on what was written by the original master, no one else. My take on it is then cross-referenced with what I see others doing, what I discuss with them, and whether what they are doing follows what the masters wrote. It is continuously under review but, as time goes on, it becomes narrowed down to what is most likely a correct interpretation.

What you have written above basically dismisses, out of hand, the basic academic model of peer-review that has existed in this community for over 20 years. Again, we're all wrong, according to your words. We're all repeating 'nonsense' because we're incapable of making an accurate translation or just too martially inept to realise that what we're doing wouldn't work in a situation of 'real violence'. We haven't progressed since 2002, in your eyes. We're all intellectual thieves, feeding like parasites on the hard work of others.

Not only that, but you've also managed to insult the entire German HEMA community in one fell swoop.

Well done Randall. Well done.

[Ran Pleasant]

I can understand why you get mad under pressure Randall, but that is a quite rude and ignorant statement to all of us.

Roger

Mad? Not at all. I just had a great laugh at Bob.

If I was rude I was at least no more rude than was Bob. It was a nice friendly discussion but of course a friendly discussion is more than what Bob can stand. Thus, Bob did what Bob does best.

What you have written above basically dismisses, out of hand, the basic academic model of peer-review that has existed in this community for over 20 years.

Bob

You don't seem to really understand the basic academic peer-review model. Please consider the following.

The Theory of Relativity was developed by Albert Einstein. Einstein's theory was confirmed by a number of other scientists. What is important to note is that not a single one of those other scientists claimed to have their own Theory of Relativity. Peer-review in science involves testing, it does not volve claiming other's work.

The Windshield wiper interpretation is basically a theory that was developed at least before the year 2000. Your own original research may support or not support that interpretation. That's Peer-review. However, your research does not give you the right to claim that interpretation. That's not scholarly, that's not good science, that's not honest.

Like it or not, you and Herbert both follow the Windshield wiper interpretation.


Ran Pleasant
ARMA